If the prophecies in Daniel 8 cannot be understood without Maccabees, then doesn’t that prove Maccabees belongs in the Bible?

[Andrew]

Could you quote Luther saying that a BOOK (pages) fulfill a prophecy? Now, he may be of an opinion that an EVENT recorded in millions of books (including First Maccabees) fulfills a prophecy in Daniel.... but that's entirely unrelated to a BOOK fulfilling a prophecy or that ergo all books that speak of that event THEREFORE was officially declared by The Ruling Body of Judaism and also The Ruling Body of all Christianity to THUS be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

And what is your point? That Luther's personal opinion was much greater than yours concerning that book, how he regarded it as DEUTEROcanonical while you call it APOCRYPHA and insist it's not canonical at all






.

I only refer to them as "Apocrypha" to spare you and others the confusion.

Yes I can quote it and I have quoted it several times already, its also on the beggersall blog, i'll cut and paste it some other time when I have the time.

 

[Josiah]

I only refer to them as "Apocrypha" to spare you and others the confusion.

I wonder why you don't use the much more embracing, much more ancient term "DEUTEROcanonical" Perhaps because you reject "them" as canonical AT ALL, with an even LESSER embrace than Luther and the Anglican Church?

And why not LIST the books? Why the very persistent (and I must think purposeful) evasion of actually telling us WHAT books you are talking about? Could it be because you can't find two denominations on the planet that agree on WHICH are to be embraced (AND HOW SO) and WHICH are not? Could it be because doing so would prove there have NEVER been a consensus on that list - and still isn't? Or because then you would have to insist that the Orthodox Church ripped out a bunch of books during the Early Church... and the Catholic Church ripped out a whole lot more books? And you'd need to choose WHICH ripped out the ones that should have been ripped out?

I can quote it and I have quoted it several times already

.... and if you did, it would show that Luther did NOT say what you claim. He never said the book of First Maccabees fulfills a prophecy. And he certainly did not say that THEREFORE it is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and it must be legally required that all publishing houses include it in any tome they print with "BIBLE" on the cover. He is of a personal opinion that an EVENT related there (and in many, many other books fulfills it... but that's an entirely different enchilada than insisting a BOOK fulfills it. Obviously. And has nothing to do with whether such a book is therefore canonical.




.

 

[NathanH83]

Could you quote Luther saying that a BOOK (pages) fulfill a prophecy? Now, he may be of an opinion that an EVENT recorded in millions of books (including First Maccabees) fulfills a prophecy in Daniel.... but that's entirely unrelated to a BOOK fulfilling a prophecy or that ergo all books that speak of that event THEREFORE was officially declared by The Ruling Body of Judaism and also The Ruling Body of all Christianity to THUS be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

And what is your point? That Luther's personal opinion was much greater than yours concerning that book, how he regarded it as DEUTEROcanonical while you call it APOCRYPHA and insist it's not canonical at all






.

Here’s Luther’s comment on 1 Maccabees:

“This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel."
-Martin Luther

Notice how Martin Luther says that 1 Maccabees is not unworthy (meaning it IS worthy) of being placed among the books of sacred scripture. Why? Because it’s very helpful and necessary for understanding the prophecies in Daniel 11.

But according to atpollard, prophecy causes division among the body of Christ. So don’t bother studying prophecy. Stay ignorant of prophecy because you don’t want to risk causing division. Ignorance is bliss!

 

[NathanH83]

You would be more convincing if you paraphrased “them” correctly.
”They” said no such thing.

THEY said that Maccabees was neither written by a prophet (which it was not) nor was it affirmed as scripture by a prophet (which, again, it was not).

I said that discussions about prophecy create more divisions between Christian brothers than bring Christian unity or edification to the BODY OF CHRIST (that would be believers from any denomination).

If you disagree with what I said, talk to me. It seems dishonest to ascribe my opinions to others and to misquote their opinions to mash it all together to build a strawman and claim that “they” (whoever they are) need to “get their story straight”.

This was ME setting YOUR fairytale straight.

Christ brings division.
Matthew 10:34

 

[Andrew]

I wonder why you don't use the much more embracing, much more ancient term "DEUTEROcanonical" Perhaps because you reject "them" as canonical AT ALL, with an even LESSER embrace than Luther and the Anglican Church?

And why not LIST the books? Why the very persistent (and I must think purposeful) evasion of actually telling us WHAT books you are talking about? Could it be because you can't find two denominations on the planet that agree on WHICH are to be embraced (AND HOW SO) and WHICH are not? Could it be because doing so would prove there have NEVER been a consensus on that list - and still isn't? Or because then you would have to insist that the Orthodox Church ripped out a bunch of books during the Early Church... and the Catholic Church ripped out a whole lot more books? And you'd need to choose WHICH ripped out the ones that should have been ripped out?






.... and if you did, it would show that Luther did NOT say what you claim. He never said the book of First Maccabees fulfills a prophecy. And he certainly did not say that THEREFORE it is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and it must be legally required that all publishing houses include it in any tome they print with "BIBLE" on the cover. He is of a personal opinion that an EVENT related there (and in many, many other books fulfills it... but that's an entirely different enchilada than insisting a BOOK fulfills it. Obviously. And has nothing to do with whether such a book is therefore canonical.




.

The more correct term would be "Ecclesiasticals"

 

[NathanH83]

THEY said that Maccabees was neither written by a prophet (which it was not) nor was it affirmed as scripture by a prophet (which, again, it was not).

Maccabees doesn’t need to be affirmed by a prophet. It was affirmed by the high priest. That’s good enough. In fact, it was probably Simon Maccabee the high priest who wrote it.

Isn’t it interesting? Maccabees claims that there were no prophets at that time. You have to trust 1 Maccabees is telling the truth in order to know that there was no prophets at that time. But then you say that we can’t know that Maccabees was true, because there were no prophets to affirm that it’s true. But you had to trust it was true to begin with in order to affirm that there were no prophets.

Kind of a “Catch 22” situation you got yourself in.

 

[atpollard]

Oh, so now you’re against studying prophesy. Wow.

I am only against

Christ brings division.
Matthew 10:34

Are you a Christian? John 13:34-35

 

[Josiah]

Maccabees doesn’t need to be affirmed by a prophet. It was affirmed by the high priest.

What High Priest declared that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated word of God? And why would any Christian care what a Jewish High Priest thought on the matter?

Here’s Luther’s comment on 1 Maccabees:

“This is another book not to be found in the Hebrew Bible. Yet its words and speech adhere to the same style as the other books of sacred Scripture. This book would not have been unworthy of a place among them, because it is very necessary and helpful for an understanding of chapter 11 of the prophet Daniel."
-Martin Luther

Nathan,


So, where does Luther say what Andrew did, that the BOOK of First Maccabees fulfills the prophecy of Daniel? He does not. He ONLY says the content helps us understand Daniel. The post you quote from me is in response to Andrew's point that the BOOK fulfills the prophecy.

And as you yourself choose to prove, Luther does NOT call First Maccabees "Scripture" (much less canonical) as claimed. Nowhere in that quote does he call First Maccabees anything, only that it is worthy to be place AMONG Scripture, and as you won't acknowledge, he DID place some books among the sacred Scripture, it is IN his tome, INCLUDED... he INCLUDED more DEUTEROcanonical books in the tome than does the modern RCC (but fewer than does the Anglican Church), placed AMONG Scripture.

Luther’s most relevant quotation about Deuterocanoncial books comes from his preface to his German translation of the Bible: “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” That quote is also about First Maccabees. Worthly to be placed AMONG Scripture (as he did) but not Scripture (and certainly not canonical) in his view.





.

 

[NathanH83]

I am only against

Are you a Christian? John 13:34-35

Yes, I’m a Christian.

Christ brought division because many Jews rejected Jesus. Even today, there are Jews who accept Christ in their lives, and their family disinherits them, cuts them out of their will, etc. And this creates division in families, because there are those who accepted Christ and those who did not. Many Jews were kicked out of the synagogue.

Saying that prophecy creates division is a poor excuse to ignore prophecy. Your comment is just a way of trying to draw attention away from the fact that Daniel prophesies about events fulfilled in Maccabees.

 

[NathanH83]

What High Priest declared that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated word of God? And why would any Christian care what a Jewish High Priest thought on the matter?





Nathan,


So, where does Luther say what Andrew did, that the BOOK of First Maccabees fulfills the prophecy of Daniel? He does not. He ONLY says the content helps us understand Daniel. The post you quote from me is in response to Andrew's point that the BOOK fulfills the prophecy.

And as you yourself choose to prove, Luther does NOT call First Maccabees "Scripture" (much less canonical) as claimed. Nowhere in that quote does he call First Maccabees anything, only that it is worthy to be place AMONG Scripture, and as you won't acknowledge, he DID place some books among the sacred Scripture, it is IN his tome, INCLUDED... he INCLUDED more DEUTEROcanonical books in the tome than does the modern RCC (but fewer than does the Anglican Church), placed AMONG Scripture.

Luther’s most relevant quotation about Deuterocanoncial books comes from his preface to his German translation of the Bible: “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” That quote is also about First Maccabees. Worthly to be placed AMONG Scripture (as he did) but not Scripture (and certainly not canonical) in his view.





.

I really don’t even understand what you’re asking right now. Your questions don’t make any bit of sense.

Daniel 11 prophesies about Alexander defeating the Persians, and then dying and His Kingdom dividing towards the 4 winds of heaven (dividing among his 4 generals).

That’s fulfilled in 1 Maccabees chapter 1.
Then Daniel also prophesies about some of the events of Hanukkah.

I’ve said this plenty of times on this forum. If you cannot understand it by now, then I can’t help you.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think.

 

[NathanH83]

What High Priest declared that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated word of God?



.

First, you show me which prophet affirmed the book of Ezra. I don’t know any prophet who even mentioned Ezra.

Ezra’s book doesn’t need a prophet to affirm it. Ezra was the high priest. His book is self-affirming.

But if you think a prophet has to affirm it, then show me which prophet affirmed it. Zechariah? Haggai?

 

[Josiah]

Daniel 11 prophesies about Alexander defeating the Persians, and then dying and His Kingdom dividing towards the 4 winds of heaven (dividing among his 4 generals).

Perhaps. Although that has nothing whatsoever to do with anything being inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God. Or any law forbidding publishing houses from including anything in tomes entitled "BIBLE"

That’s fulfilled in 1 Maccabees chapter 1.

Wrong. You are of the opinion that it's fulfilled by an EVENT that happens to be RECORDED in First Maccabees and millions of other books;. Huge difference.

And again, that has NOTHING to do with ANYTHING being the inerrant, fully/equally canonical, inscripturated words of God... or any law forbidden publishing houses from including certain things in tomes entitled "BIBLE."

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it think. I don't know where you get this stuff but obviously you don't THINK before you echo it here.



.

 

[Josiah]

Maccabees doesn’t need to be affirmed by a prophet. It was affirmed by the high priest.

To which I replied....

What High Priest declared that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated word of God?

To which you replied...

First, you show me which prophet affirmed the book of Ezra.

I, we caught you in another baseless claim... another falsehood. This happens SO often.



.

 

[Origen]

I, we caught you in another baseless claim... another falsehood. This happens SO often.

I doubt you were you expecting a different out come.

 

[Origen]

In fact, it was probably Simon Maccabee the high priest who wrote it.

Pure speculation

 

[Andrew]

So, where does Luther say what Andrew did, that the BOOK of First Maccabees fulfills the prophecy of Daniel? He does not. He ONLY says the content helps us understand Daniel.

.

How does 1 Maccabees relate at all to Daniel if not PROPHECY?
Come on man!

 

[Josiah]

Andrew,

Nathan chose to prove your comment wrong. Luther never said that the book of First Maccabees fulfills the prophecy of Daniel. Nope. Not true. He ONLY said that the content helps us understand Daniel. Apples and oranges. And of course that does nothing to show that Luther accepted the book of First Maccabees as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

This is what Luther said about the Deuterocanoncial books he included in his German translation of the Bible (one more than the modern RCC does): “These books are not held equal to the Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.”




.

 

[NathanH83]

To which I replied....


To which you replied...




I, we caught you in another baseless claim... another falsehood. This happens SO often.



.

Exactly my point though. You assume that Ezra was affirmed by a prophet. That has been claimed by many people on this forum and elsewhere. But you cannot show where any prophet affirmed the book of Ezra. Thus, I have caught you and countless others in a baseless claim: the claim that Ezra was affirmed by a prophet.

Ezra was a high priest. Ezra is the Word of God. I accept it, not because Ezra was a prophet, but because he was high priest.

Simon Maccabees was the high priest. There may have been no prophets at that time, but there were high priests. If you discount Maccabees for there being no prophets, then you’ll have to discount Ezra for not being a prophet, UNLESS you can actually show where a prophet affirmed the book of Ezra, which you cannot.

Just another baseless claim on your part.

 

[Josiah]

You assume that Ezra was affirmed by a prophet.

Where did I post that? What does that have to do with the claim that the BOOK of First Maccabees (among millions of other books) fulfills a prophecy? Or that therefore, First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God?

Ezra was affirmed by some prophet? Who? Where? What does that have to do with anything?

I have caught you ....

In what?

Ezra was a high priest. Ezra is the Word of God. I accept it, not because Ezra was a prophet, but because he was high priest.

Ezra is the name of a prophet.... and the name of a canonical book.... I have no clue what his being a High Priest has to do with anything (frankly, I didn't know he was).

Simon Maccabees was the high priest.

Okay.... we don't know that he wrote anything. Nor is there any reason to affirm that everything written by a high priest ERGO must be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.

If you discount Maccabees for there being no prophets,

Where did I do that?

Just another baseless claim on your part.

What claim did I make that is "baseless."


But what about the claim that "ALL Christians affirmed certain unidentified books as Scripture until some unidentified person ripped out an unstated number of books from all pew Bibles."
What about the claim "Christianity decreed that certain unidentified books are fully canonical."
What about the claim, "Judaism decreed that certain unidentifed books are fully canonical."
What about the claim, "If a book contains accurate history, it is inerrant divinely-inscripturated words of God"
What about the claim, "All Christians until the 16th Century thought that certain unidentified books were Scripture."
What about the claim, "The Book of First Maccabees is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Daniel 8 (sometimes Daniel 11)"
What about the claim, "Luther said that First Maccabees is fully canonical Scripture"
What about the claim, "Christians don't read books unless they are in a tome called "Bible."
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.



.

 

[NathanH83]

Where did I post that? What does that have to do with the claim that the BOOK of First Maccabees (among millions of other books) fulfills a prophecy? Or that therefore, First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God?

Ezra was affirmed by some prophet? Who? Where? What does that have to do with anything?





In what?




Ezra is the name of a prophet.... and the name of a canonical book.... I have no clue what his being a High Priest has to do with anything (frankly, I didn't know he was).





Okay.... we don't know that he wrote anything. Nor is there any reason to affirm that everything written by a high priest ERGO must be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God.






Where did I do that?





What claim did I make that is "baseless."


But what about the claim that "ALL Christians affirmed certain unidentified books as Scripture until some unidentified person ripped out an unstated number of books from all pew Bibles."
What about the claim "Christianity decreed that certain unidentified books are fully canonical."
What about the claim, "Judaism decreed that certain unidentifed books are fully canonical."
What about the claim, "If a book contains accurate history, it is inerrant divinely-inscripturated words of God"
What about the claim, "All Christians until the 16th Century thought that certain unidentified books were Scripture."
What about the claim, "The Book of First Maccabees is the fulfillment of a prophecy in Daniel 8 (sometimes Daniel 11)"
What about the claim, "Luther said that First Maccabees is fully canonical Scripture"
What about the claim, "Christians don't read books unless they are in a tome called "Bible."
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.



.

Was Ezra a prophet?
If not, then how can Ezra be the Word of God?

I’ve heard many people say that Maccabees cannot be scripture because there were no prophets at that time.

Ok, well, if it has to be prophecy to be scripture, then wouldn’t that discredit Ezra?