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

[Origen]

I'm not sure that's true,

I can't understand how he came up with that either.

 

[Andrew]

I can't understand how he came up with that either.

Seriously?

Again, Rufinus gives us a list of divine scripture divided into two classes, the class of canon and the class of ecclesiastical, how did I come up with that??? I quoted Rufinus! Ask him!

The "other writings" he calls Apocrypha and says that they wouldn't have been read in churches.

"The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches" -Rufinus

He says that this is the tradition as handed down by the church fathers, the same guys who consistently quote from books that if they were Apocrypha, would have been forbidden to do so.

You of all people should know since you were the one who introduced us to his lists in the first place.

I imagine you are very well versed in the works of Origen, who in one of his Homilies stated that the book of Wisdom comes from the divine Logos just after he himself quotes from it.

"I" can't make this stuff up folks!

 

[Josiah]

Again, Rufinus gives us a list of divine scripture divided into two classes, the class of canon and the class of ecclesiastical, how did I come up with that??? I quoted Rufinus! Ask him!

The "other writings" he calls Apocrypha and says that they wouldn't have been read in churches.

Andrew...


So Andrew, which is it? You posted that these unidentified books were not read in churches. NOW you say that one individual person said that "they" would not be read. Which is it?


Read post 78.

I imagine you are very well versed in the works of Origen, who in one of his Homilies stated that the book of Wisdom comes from the divine Logos just after he himself quotes from it.

Since Origien (sic!) is the infallible, universal authority for you, he ACCEPTED (as "Scripture") the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the Gospel of the Hebrews.... all he calls "Scripture" and ACCEPTS them. He quotes from them, uses them, embraces them. And all of these were quoted and used by him a LOT more than Psalm 151 or any of the 4 Maccabee books. So why aren't you fighting for all the books he ACCEPTED specifically as "Scripture" ALL the books he used and quoted, all the books he specifically called "Scripture? Why aren't you arguing for a law forbidding publishing houses from not including all 31 NT books Origen accepts?



.

 

[Andrew]

I'm not sure that's true, but pray tell, HOW does that confirm the point that these mysterious, unidentified books you call "apocrypha" are thus inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and there must be a law requiring all publishing houses to include this unidentified "them" into every tome with "BIBLE" appearing on the cover?

They were never mysterious and publishing houses did include them.

How does it confirm that "ALL Christians (100% of them) accepted this unidentified "them" as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God?

Because Rufinus literally tells us the traditional books handed down by the church fathers, the church fathers literally quote them as being Scripture and no early church father has been reported to have protested against "them"

Lost me....

so if that's true, pray tell, specifically HOW does that confirm the point that these mysterious, unidentified books you call "apocrypha" are thus inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God and there must be a law requiring all publishing houses to include this unidentified "them" into every tome with "BIBLE" appearing on the cover?

How does it confirm that "ALL Christians (100% of them) accepted this unidentified "them" as inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely inscripturated words of God?

Deja vu

How does it confirm that all these (unidentified books) were IN the collection of books "EVERY CHRISTIAN" from 33 AD until the 16th Century accepted as fully canonical, all Christians having the identical same Bible of books accepted identically, until my unidentifed person gathered up all the Bibles and ripped out "those" books?

How does that confirm that Chrsitians are not allowed to read "those" books?

Now IF you are now taking the opposite position from Nathan.... and taking quite the Lutheran and Anglican position that there are books beyond Calvin's 66 that are worthy to be read, worthy to be placed with Scripture, worthy to be read in church and as texts for sermons, but NOT fully canonical (but rather DEUTEROcanonical) then fine. But what about all your earlier claims about how ALL CHRISTIANS accepted "them" as Scripture?

because Christians were not allowed to quote from Apocrypha books, that's how we know that what they quoted from was only Scripture

 

[Josiah]

Daniel 8 prophesies Alexander the Great will defeat the Persians, and His Kingdom divide up into 4 sections. That’s fulfilled in 1 Maccabees chapter 1.

Friend, READ Daniel 8. IF you bother to do it, you will discover (perhaps an epiphany for you) that Alexander the Great isn't even mentioned. IF you have read it, why speak falsehood about it?



But if you THINK, 3 things will be unavoidably clear:


1. YOU share an interpretation that Alexander's actions fulfill that prophecy (and I would not challenge that) but that's your INTERPRETATION, it's not what the Book of Daniel states. A bit of honesty.... telling the truth.... would really help your case.


2. It's possible to know this without anything from Frerst Maccabees. You ASSUME that there is only one place where Alexander's actions are recorded - and this (silly) assumption is just false. There are THOUSANDS of books that convey the actions of Alexander. Indeed the Greeks and Romans knew all this history well but never heard of First Maccabees.


3. You perpetuate a silly, absurd, baseless idea that if a book contains helpful history, THEREFORE it just has to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). I strongly suspect that if you THOUGHT about that, even for a second, you too would realize what a laughable claim this is.




,

 

[Origen]

Seriously?

You said:

No Apocrypha books were ever allowed to be read in church

The above comment makes no sense. No one said that as far as I can see.

 

[Andrew]

Andrew...


So Andrew, which is it? You posted that these unidentified books were not read in churches. NOW you say that one individual person said that "they" would not be read. Which is it?



.

I said that according to Rufinus the books mentioned outside the two classes are considered Apocrypha and forbidden to be read, the so called "Apocrypha" books is NOT what he is talking about since he lists several of them as being in the class of Ecclesiastical writings that also the church fathers quote!!

I imagine that the Apocrypha he is referring to are the gnostic writings along with the many apocalyptic writings appointed to the Apostles

 

[Andrew]

You said:

The above comment makes no sense. No one said that as far as I can see.

Yes, Rufinus did

 

[Josiah]

Read post 78


What "them?" Why won't you or Nathan ever LIST what books (and only those books) that ALL Bibles contained? The Didache? The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? Why TO THIS DAY are there many different Bibles, why has there NEVER been one Bible among all Christians? Why do not two denominations on the planet in 2000 years that IN SOME WAY accept SOME books beyond the 66 do not agree on WHICH ones? If all Bibles have always been the same, why was there so much debate for FOUR CENTURIES on what is and is not Scripture, and what level of canonicity each has?

Because Rufinus literally tells

.... his opinion. One person. He is not "ALL Christians". He is not Christianity. And where does he give his own opinion (of ONE MAN) that no one EVER quoted from any book beyond Calvin's 66 (because I can tell you, Origen QUOTED - as "Scripture" - from at least 2 books you don't accept - at all)? Where does he give his individual opinion that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God?

the church fathers literally quote them as being Scripture

You look to Origen.... he literally quoted and used and specifically called "SCRIPTURE" the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.... and he often used and quoted the Didache and Gospel of the Hebrews. Are they in your "them" that were in ALL BIBLES until the 16th Century? Or what about Clement of Alexandra who quoted, used and specially called "Scripture" the the Epistle of Barnabas and also the Revelation of Peter?

You can show every "Church Father" quoting from all the "them" you've never identified? All of them quoting all of "them" and all of them referring to all of "them" specifically as "Scripture?" Really? Is this more radical, baseless hyperbole?

Christians were not allowed to quote from Apocrypha books, that's how we know that what they quoted from was only Scripture

1. Quote that law.

2. Then in your "them" must be the Shepherd of Hermas, the the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Revelation of Peter because we have very high level ECF specially quoting from these, using them, specifically calling these (and many others) by the title of "SCRIPTURE."


Read post 78




.

 

[Andrew]

Maybe this will help clear up the confusion

Apocrypha (forbidden in Church) - The Acts of St. Peter, The Acts of Bartholomew, The Acts of St. Thomas, The Gospel of Thomas, The Apocalypse of Peter, The Gospel of Philip, The Gospel of Judas, The Wisdom of Jesus, The Gospel of Truth etc..

Not Apocrypha/ are Ecclesiastical (Scripture FOR the Church) - Wisdom, The Book of Tobit, The Book of Judith, The Books of the Maccabees etc...

 

[Origen]

Yes, Rufinus did

You have misunderstood Rufinus. When Rufinus states: "The other writings they have named Apocrypha" he does not mean the Ecclesiastical book.

"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgement of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches."

Rufinus mentions "the other writings." It is "the other writings they have named Apocrypha.” It is those books, not the ones he mentions, "they would not have read in the Churches."

 

[Andrew]

You have misunderstood Rufinus. When Rufinus states: "The other writings they have named Apocrypha" he does not mean the Ecclesiastical book.

"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgement of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches."

Rufinus mentions "the other writings." It is "the other writings they have named Apocrypha.” It is those books, not the ones he mentions, "they would not have read in the Churches."

Yeah I agree, and he listed none of the "other writings" did he? He does name the Ecclesiastical books and states for a second time that they are not for confirmation of doctrine (meaning not canon), the two NT books he mentions are certainly of no great interest since we have all unanimously as Christians agreed on a specific amount of books (undivided) we call the Gospels, sure we could have added a few more books but they would have just been redundant, the core of the NT is the Gospel message and by the time these books were compiled there were already so many perversions let loosed (even in Pauls time) that we (universal Christians) safe guarded what we accepted at a time and only included the time from the announcement of Jesus' birth to His Revelation onto John of patmos.

 

[NathanH83]

I am not arguing for it or against it. I provide helpful information in order to correct misinformation and for those who make not be aware of the facts.

Is that because you’re too scared to have an opinion, or because you’re too scared to share your opinion?

 

[NathanH83]

They were never mysterious and publishing houses did include them.



Because Rufinus literally tells us the traditional books handed down by the church fathers, the church fathers literally quote them as being Scripture and no early church father has been reported to have protested against "them"




Deja vu



because Christians were not allowed to quote from Apocrypha books, that's how we know that what they quoted from was only Scripture

Lot’s of Deja Vu.
Must be a glitch in the Matrix.

A gli…gli…glitch in the Matrix.

 

[Andrew]

You have misunderstood Rufinus. When Rufinus states: "The other writings they have named Apocrypha" he does not mean the Ecclesiastical book.

"But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not “Canonical” but “Ecclesiastical:” that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Sirach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas, [and that] which is called The Two Ways, or the Judgement of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named Apocrypha. These they would not have read in the Churches."

Rufinus mentions "the other writings." It is "the other writings they have named Apocrypha.” It is those books, not the ones he mentions, "they would not have read in the Churches."

Again you have indeed proven my point, Ecclesiastical books are not the Apocrypha but ARE of the SO CALLED "Apocrypha"!!

Thank you thank you!

The books of Maccabees are confirmed Holy Scripture and are NOT apocrypha (as protestants claim)

 

[NathanH83]

Read post 78


What "them?" Why won't you or Nathan ever LIST what books (and only those books) that ALL Bibles contained? The Didache? The Shepherd of Hermas? The Epistle of Barnabas? Why TO THIS DAY are there many different Bibles, why has there NEVER been one Bible among all Christians? Why do not two denominations on the planet in 2000 years that IN SOME WAY accept SOME books beyond the 66 do not agree on WHICH ones? If all Bibles have always been the same, why was there so much debate for FOUR CENTURIES on what is and is not Scripture, and what level of canonicity each has?





.... his opinion. One person. He is not "ALL Christians". He is not Christianity. And where does he give his own opinion (of ONE MAN) that no one EVER quoted from any book beyond Calvin's 66 (because I can tell you, Origen QUOTED - as "Scripture" - from at least 2 books you don't accept - at all)? Where does he give his individual opinion that First Maccabees is inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God?





You look to Origen.... he literally quoted and used and specifically called "SCRIPTURE" the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.... and he often used and quoted the Didache and Gospel of the Hebrews. Are they in your "them" that were in ALL BIBLES until the 16th Century? Or what about Clement of Alexandra who quoted, used and specially called "Scripture" the the Epistle of Barnabas and also the Revelation of Peter?

You can show every "Church Father" quoting from all the "them" you've never identified? All of them quoting all of "them" and all of them referring to all of "them" specifically as "Scripture?" Really? Is this more radical, baseless hyperbole?






1. Quote that law.

2. Then in your "them" must be the Shepherd of Hermas, the the Epistle of Barnabas, the Didache, the Gospel of the Hebrews, and the Revelation of Peter because we have very high level ECF specially quoting from these, using them, specifically calling these (and many others) by the title of "SCRIPTURE."


Read post 78




.

Do you think Maccabees ought to be considered the Word of God, and included in the Bible? Or do you think it ought to be excluded as just ordinary history, and not t the inspired Word of God, and kept outside of Bible printings? Or included in Bibles, but in an Apocryphal section?

Do you have an opinion on the matter?

 

[NathanH83]

Friend, READ Daniel 8. IF you bother to do it, you will discover (perhaps an epiphany for you) that Alexander the Great isn't even mentioned. IF you have read it, why speak falsehood about it?



But if you THINK, 3 things will be unavoidably clear:


1. YOU share an interpretation that Alexander's actions fulfill that prophecy (and I would not challenge that) but that's your INTERPRETATION, it's not what the Book of Daniel states. A bit of honesty.... telling the truth.... would really help your case.


2. It's possible to know this without anything from Frerst Maccabees. You ASSUME that there is only one place where Alexander's actions are recorded - and this (silly) assumption is just false. There are THOUSANDS of books that convey the actions of Alexander. Indeed the Greeks and Romans knew all this history well but never heard of First Maccabees.


3. You perpetuate a silly, absurd, baseless idea that if a book contains helpful history, THEREFORE it just has to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). I strongly suspect that if you THOUGHT about that, even for a second, you too would realize what a laughable claim this is.




,

Daniel 8 doesn’t mention the first king of the Greek empire?

Wow. Sounds like you need to read Daniel 8 again. Then read history again too. You’re very confused.

 

[NathanH83]

Friend, READ Daniel 8. IF you bother to do it, you will discover (perhaps an epiphany for you) that Alexander the Great isn't even mentioned. IF you have read it, why speak falsehood about it?



But if you THINK, 3 things will be unavoidably clear:


1. YOU share an interpretation that Alexander's actions fulfill that prophecy (and I would not challenge that) but that's your INTERPRETATION, it's not what the Book of Daniel states. A bit of honesty.... telling the truth.... would really help your case.


2. It's possible to know this without anything from Frerst Maccabees. You ASSUME that there is only one place where Alexander's actions are recorded - and this (silly) assumption is just false. There are THOUSANDS of books that convey the actions of Alexander. Indeed the Greeks and Romans knew all this history well but never heard of First Maccabees.


3. You perpetuate a silly, absurd, baseless idea that if a book contains helpful history, THEREFORE it just has to be inerrant, fully/equally canonical, divinely-inscripturated words of God (Scripture). I strongly suspect that if you THOUGHT about that, even for a second, you too would realize what a laughable claim this is.




,

Josiah, please take more than 3 seconds thinking about this:

Who is the first king of the Greek empire?

“And the male goat is the kingdom of Greece. The large horn that is between its eyes is the first king.”
-Daniel 8:21 - Bible Gateway passage: Daniel 8:21 - New King James Version

At the time when the Greeks defeated the Persians, what king was leading the Greeks at that time?

Do you know of anyone else who better fits this description?

Why do I get the impression that you are “playing dumb”? It’s hard to take someone seriously when they’re purposefully acting like they don’t know any better. It makes it difficult to actually converse with them when they do things like this.

Do you really think that this horn could actually represent anyone else other than Alexander the Great? If so, then who?

If you know that Alexander is the only option, then why are you playing dumb?

 

[Origen]

Again you have indeed proven my point, Ecclesiastical books are not the Apocrypha but ARE of the SO CALLED "Apocrypha"!!

I NEVER claimed they were. Therefore your point is moot. Moreover Rufinus is only one person and not everyone agreed with him.

The books of Maccabees are confirmed Holy Scripture

Some thought they were others did not. For example your source Rufinus did not and clearly says just that.

 

[Origen]

Is that because you’re too scared to have an opinion, or because you’re too scared to share your opinion?

You are so sad.