What is the main reason why the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible?

[Andrew]

"It was a holy and pious thought"
This line doesn't imply any dogma but the opposite, Judah and his men had a meek and humble attitude toward the resurrection and that's all! No dogma should have been created, it's actually a very insignificant passage that only became popular when the RCC exploited it

 

[NathanH83]

2 Maccabees 12

39 On the next day, as by that time it had become necessary, Judas and his men went to take up the bodies of the fallen and to bring them back to lie with their kinsmen in the sepulchres of their fathers. 40 Then under the tunic of every one of the dead they found sacred tokens of the idols of Jam′nia, which the law forbids the Jews to wear. And it became clear to all that this was why these men had fallen. 41 So they all blessed the ways of the Lord, the righteous Judge, who reveals the things that are hidden; 42 and they turned to prayer, beseeching that the sin which had been committed might be wholly blotted out. And the noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He also took up a collection, man by man, to the amount of two thousand drachmas of silver, and sent it to Jerusalem to provide for a sin offering. In doing this he acted very well and honorably, taking account of the resurrection. 44 For if he were not expecting that those who had fallen would rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he was looking to the splendid reward that is laid up for those who fall asleep in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Therefore he made atonement for the dead, that they might be delivered from their sin.​

I would post an OT verse on the subject of making offerings for the dead, except there are none. All OT offerings are made by the living for the living. From the NT, we get ...

[Heb 9:27 NASB] 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this [comes] judgment,

[Jhn 3:16-18 NASB] 16 "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. 17 "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. 18 "He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Which directly contradicts the notion of buying forgiveness for the dead.

Even the books that you want to include in scripture, acknowledge that they were not written by prophets of God:

1 Maccabees 9: 27 So there was great distress in Israel, such as had not been since the time that prophets ceased to appear among them.​

2 Maccabees 12 says that they sent money to Jerusalem TO PROVIDE for a sin offering. Notice the words “to provide.” Seems like you missed that part.

Any Jew who sees the phrase “sin offering” is going to know that it’s talking about the sin offering that is talked about in Leviticus.

Leviticus talks about the grain offering, the wave offering, the drink offering, the burnt offering, and.... the sin offering.

The “sin offering” is when the Levite priest would sacrifice a bull to atone for someone’s sins. With the shedding of its blood, their sin was atoned for, as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.”

In Chronicles, David wanted to sacrifice a burnt offering to the Lord. A man named Araunah offered to give David his bulls for free. David refused. He insisted on paying full price for them. He said, “I will not sacrifice to the Lord that which cost me nothing.”

Judas Maccabee sent money to Jerusalem so that the Levite priests could use that money to pay for the bulls “to provide” for the sin offering.

In other words, the money didn’t pay for their sins. The money paid for the animals. The animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

Too bad the Catholics misinterpreted it to mean that money can pay for sins. But don’t force a bad 15th century AD Catholic interpretation onto a good 2nd century BC Jewish text.

The problem is though, is that you’ll say that an animal sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

But wait a minute. What did Jesus do on the cross? He atone for everyone’s sins, past, present, and future. What do you think Jesus was doing preaching the gospel to the dead, who died in the days of Noah, as Peter tells us?

If you’re going to say that a sacrifice in the present could not atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve just denied the gospel!

Oops!

 

[atpollard]

"It was a holy and pious thought"
This line doesn't imply any dogma but the opposite, Judah and his men had a meek and humble attitude toward the resurrection and that's all! No dogma should have been created, it's actually a very insignificant passage that only became popular when the RCC exploited it

THAT is exactly why the book is Apocrypha (useful) but not “God breathed” Scripture, and why it has no place with the other 66 book of “thus says the Lord”.

 

[atpollard]

2 Maccabees 12 says that they sent money to Jerusalem TO PROVIDE for a sin offering. Notice the words “to provide.” Seems like you missed that part.

Any Jew who sees the phrase “sin offering” is going to know that it’s talking about the sin offering that is talked about in Leviticus.

Leviticus talks about the grain offering, the wave offering, the drink offering, the burnt offering, and.... the sin offering.

The “sin offering” is when the Levite priest would sacrifice a bull to atone for someone’s sins. With the shedding of its blood, their sin was atoned for, as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.”

In Chronicles, David wanted to sacrifice a burnt offering to the Lord. A man named Araunah offered to give David his bulls for free. David refused. He insisted on paying full price for them. He said, “I will not sacrifice to the Lord that which cost me nothing.”

Judas Maccabee sent money to Jerusalem so that the Levite priests could use that money to pay for the bulls “to provide” for the sin offering.

In other words, the money didn’t pay for their sins. The money paid for the animals. The animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

Too bad the Catholics misinterpreted it to mean that money can pay for sins. But don’t force a bad 15th century AD Catholic interpretation onto a good 2nd century BC Jewish text.

The problem is though, is that you’ll say that an animal sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

But wait a minute. What did Jesus do on the cross? He atone for everyone’s sins, past, present, and future. What do you think Jesus was doing preaching the gospel to the dead, who died in the days of Noah, as Peter tells us?

If you’re going to say that a sacrifice in the present could not atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve just denied the gospel!

Oops!

I DID notice that, which is why I did not criticize the “buying of forgiveness” but rather I pointed out that there is no OT precedent for offerings for the dead.
It is you who are denying the gospel if you claim that a sacrifice for someone who died in a “sin leading to death” will save them in spite of their life choices.
John 3:18 applies to the past as well as the present. One is saved by grace through faith, or not at all. Ask Abraham.

 

[NathanH83]

I DID notice that, which is why I did not criticize the “buying of forgiveness” but rather I pointed out that there is no OT precedent for offerings for the dead.
It is you who are denying the gospel if you claim that a sacrifice for someone who died in a “sin leading to death” will save them in spite of their life choices.
John 3:18 applies to the past as well as the present. One is saved by grace through faith, or not at all. Ask Abraham.

So why did Jesus preach the gospel to the spirits in prison in the lower parts of the Earth, who died in the days of Noah? Jesus just preaches the gospel to people with no intention of saving them?

 

[Josiah]

the books Luther threw out

Luther "threw out" ONLY ONE BOOK - the Epistle to the Leodiceans. That was the ONLY book typically found in Catholic Bibles of his day that he did not include in his German translation. Catholics STILL are rebuking him for "throwing out a Book from the Bible" but I find that remarkable since Trent didn't include it either and they don't have it in their tome either.

As for books some call "Apocrypha", he included ALL (every one) of the "Apocrypha" books that Catholic tomes had in them at the time - which is one MORE than Catholic Bibles now have; Luther's translation had EIGHT of them whereas modern post-Trent RCC ones have SEVEN.

But "threw out" NO "Apocrypha" books (I guess you might way the RCC did, however).

stop setting up straw men "denominational canon" arguments

"Apocrypha" = Deuterocanonical.

whatever books you despise

Of the hundreds of millions of books, please quote me where I have posted that I "despise" one or more. Quote me saying that.... and the title(s) of such books.

I mean the entire Septuagint

There is ZERO evidence that "the entire Septuagint" was ever embraced by anyone as canonical..... Friend, it's just a TRANSLATION.... and unofficial at that. And I know of no Christian denomination that has "the entire Sepuagint" as it's Bible or as "Apocrypha" and of course if there was a denomination with the "entire Septuagient" as it's Apocrypha then by definition that (non-existent) denomination by definition would not accept it as canonical.




.

 

[atpollard]

So why did Jesus preach the gospel to the spirits in prison in the lower parts of the Earth, who died in the days of Noah? Jesus just preaches the gospel to people with no intention of saving them?

Feel free to exegete the verse to prove your point that Jesus grants a “second chance” to hear the gospel and repent after people die.
If this is true, then much of scripture needs to be footnoted, and if it is not true then it is an irrelevant bunny trail to my objection to the contra-scriptural teachings found in certain places with Apocryphal books.

 

[Andrew]

Luther "threw out" ONLY ONE BOOK - the Epistle to the Leodiceans. That was the ONLY book typically found in Catholic Bibles of his day that he did not include in his German translation. Catholics STILL are rebuking him for "throwing out a Book from the Bible" but I find that remarkable since Trent didn't include it either and they don't have it in their tome either.

As for books some call "Apocrypha", he included ALL (every one) of the "Apocrypha" books that Catholic tomes had in them at the time - which is one MORE than Catholic Bibles now have; Luther's translation had EIGHT of them whereas modern post-Trent RCC ones have SEVEN.

But "threw out" NO "Apocrypha" books (I guess you might way the RCC did, however).






"Apocrypha" = Deuterocanonical.







Of the hundreds of millions of books, please quote me where I have posted that I "despise" one or more. Quote me saying that.... and the title(s) of such books.






There is ZERO evidence that "the entire Septuagint" was ever embraced by anyone as canonical..... Friend, it's just a TRANSLATION.... and unofficial at that. And I know of no Christian denomination that has "the entire Sepuagint" as it's Bible or as "Apocrypha" and of course if there was a denomination with the "entire Septuagient" as it's Apocrypha then by definition that (non-existent) denomination by definition would not accept it as canonical.




.

When was the book of Job made canon?
and was it pointless literature before it was canon?
Obviously the 72 Jews that translated their Holy Text into Greek all came up with the same translation from the same Hebrew source, how did we ever get the OT to begin with? I'm sure the majority early Christian converts and early church fathers weren't fluent in reading and writing nor translating Hebrew.. The NT was written in Greek, so is it just a translation? With the exception of Paul who probably had Luke translate his letters to Greek (?) the rest of the NT was ALL greek, because that's what gentiles were speaking at the time, Aramaic may have had it's origins in Hebrew but wasn't the Hebrew that the Torah was written in.
You keep bringing up "canon" as if Gods words of the OT was left to later NT church councils to decide, 400 years of writings is fairly young and short lived compared to the earlier OT writings, non of which was considered Gods Holy word except the Torah, yet Jesus cites "the other writings" apart from the Torah.
You know the word "demon" is mentioned in those last 400 years of inspired work (so called much later the "apocrypha"), funny how no one questioned Jesus when he spoke of "demons".. just some food for thought, why didn't they rebuke Jesus for mentioning "demons" when the word is no where to be found in your Masoretic canon?

 

[Andrew]

Feel free to exegete the verse to prove your point that Jesus grants a “second chance” to hear the gospel and repent after people die.
If this is true, then much of scripture needs to be footnoted, and if it is not true then it is an irrelevant bunny trail to my objection to the contra-scriptural teachings found in certain places with Apocryphal books.

Jesus is no longer in hades so no we receive one death and after so is the judgment. Jesus DID go to hades for several days and preached to both the righteous and disobedient and took captivity captive to paradise, the NT era has no excuses, we receive judgment after death according to our earthly works, Jews today will argue that Jesus preached no good news in Hades because he is still there (talmudic, unless they believe he was fictional) but the fact is that Christ DID preach to the disobedient and took captivity captive for those who followed as well as delivered the good news to those in Abraham's Bosom concerning the resurrection...

So what do YOU believe Jesus did for those 3 days in Hades? Just run around burning in fire? Untouched by fire and just watching everyone burn? Sleep? How did he take a thief who repented on his death bed (obviously not even baptised) to PARADISE in HADES??

Oh Jerome, inventor of the words HELL and APOCRYPHA to mean what they don't really mean due to believing non believers and sloppy translations of the words Sheol, Hades, Lake of fire, Gehenna, Tartaturas, the grave etc.. I guess Hell is Paradise sometimes and sometimes not.. meh

 

[Andrew]

Luther "threw out" ONLY ONE BOOK - the Epistle to the Leodiceans. That was the ONLY book typically found in Catholic Bibles of his day that he did not include in his German translation. Catholics STILL are rebuking him for "throwing out a Book from the Bible" but I find that remarkable since Trent didn't include it either and they don't have it in their tome either.

As for books some call "Apocrypha", he included ALL (every one) of the "Apocrypha" books that Catholic tomes had in them at the time - which is one MORE than Catholic Bibles now have; Luther's translation had EIGHT of them whereas modern post-Trent RCC ones have SEVEN.

But "threw out" NO "Apocrypha" books (I guess you might way the RCC did, however).






"Apocrypha" = Deuterocanonical.







Of the hundreds of millions of books, please quote me where I have posted that I "despise" one or more. Quote me saying that.... and the title(s) of such books.






There is ZERO evidence that "the entire Septuagint" was ever embraced by anyone as canonical..... Friend, it's just a TRANSLATION.... and unofficial at that. And I know of no Christian denomination that has "the entire Sepuagint" as it's Bible or as "Apocrypha" and of course if there was a denomination with the "entire Septuagient" as it's Apocrypha then by definition that (non-existent) denomination by definition would not accept it as canonical.




.

There was no canon nor 2nd canon of the OT during Jesus's time on Earth..
I use the term "Apocrypha" for the sake of argument, but I mean it the same way the ECF meant them, Holy scripture

 

[atpollard]

Jesus is no longer in hades so no we receive one death and after so is the judgment. Jesus DID go to hades for several days and preached to both the righteous and disobedient and took captivity captive to paradise, the NT era has no excuses, we receive judgment after death according to our earthly works, Jews today will argue that Jesus preached no good news in Hades because he is still there (talmudic, unless they believe he was fictional) but the fact is that Christ DID preach to the disobedient and took captivity captive for those who followed as well as delivered the good news to those in Abraham's Bosom concerning the resurrection...

So what do YOU believe Jesus did for those 3 days in Hades? Just run around burning in fire? Untouched by fire and just watching everyone burn? Sleep? How did he take a thief who repented on his death bed (obviously not even baptised) to PARADISE in HADES??

Oh Jerome, inventor of the words HELL and APOCRYPHA to mean what they don't really mean due to believing non believers and sloppy translations of the words Sheol, Hades, Lake of fire, Gehenna, Tartaturas, the grave etc.. I guess Hell is Paradise sometimes and sometimes not.. meh

That is not an exegesis of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine. That is a diatribe aimed at communicating that you don’t like what I said.

Message received.

However, the Apocrypha that I quoted still advocates making an OT sin offering for the dead when such an offering is neither explicitly described, nor implicitly suggested as a possibility in any of the scriptures written by prophets of God whose words were authenticated by signs and wonders in their own day and affirmed by the Rabbinical teachers stretching back for over a millennium. Jesus bookmarked the beginning and end of Scripture at Genesis and Chronicles (research the order of books in ancient Hebrew “Bible”).

You are free to reject the “bookmarks” provided by Jesus and add post-prophet Greek writings to the Hebrew OT and introduce new and contradictory teachings from those writings if that pleases you.
I choose to accept a Hebrew OT that is “God breathed” by Hebrew Prophets and affirmed by the Christ and quoted by the Apostles. I look to the Apostles and those that knew Jesus on earth and travelled with them for my “God breathed” NT scripture. I reject Greek non-prophets and ECF quotes that contradict the writings of the scripture that I know to be “God breathed”.

Tobias contradicts Daniel ... I believe Daniel and reject Tobias.
Maccabees contradicts both the OT and the NT as well as admits that it was not written by a prophet of God ... Josephus is not Scripture, either.

 

[Andrew]

That is not an exegesis of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine. That is a diatribe aimed at communicating that you don’t like what I said.

Message received.

However, the Apocrypha that I quoted still advocates making an OT sin offering for the dead when such an offering is neither explicitly described, nor implicitly suggested as a possibility in any of the scriptures written by prophets of God whose words were authenticated by signs and wonders in their own day and affirmed by the Rabbinical teachers stretching back for over a millennium. Jesus bookmarked the beginning and end of Scripture at Genesis and Chronicles (research the order of books in ancient Hebrew “Bible”).

You are free to reject the “bookmarks” provided by Jesus and add post-prophet Greek writings to the Hebrew OT and introduce new and contradictory teachings from those writings if that pleases you.
I choose to accept a Hebrew OT that is “God breathed” by Hebrew Prophets and affirmed by the Christ and quoted by the Apostles. I look to the Apostles and those that knew Jesus on earth and travelled with them for my “God breathed” NT scripture. I reject Greek non-prophets and ECF quotes that contradict the writings of the scripture that I know to be “God breathed”.

Tobias contradicts Daniel ... I believe Daniel and reject Tobias.
Maccabees contradicts both the OT and the NT as well as admits that it was not written by a prophet of God ... Josephus is not Scripture, either.

The quote you provided says it was to commemorate the fallen comrades as they hoped for a resurrection, it never suggested that as NT believers, we should pray for the dead... according to 1rst Samuel we should seek mediums to raise the dead to speak to us (spiritism) did the Jews make a dogma out of that?

 

[Andrew]

That is not an exegesis of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine. That is a diatribe aimed at communicating that you don’t like what I said.

Message received.

However, the Apocrypha that I quoted still advocates making an OT sin offering for the dead when such an offering is neither explicitly described, nor implicitly suggested as a possibility in any of the scriptures written by prophets of God whose words were authenticated by signs and wonders in their own day and affirmed by the Rabbinical teachers stretching back for over a millennium. Jesus bookmarked the beginning and end of Scripture at Genesis and Chronicles (research the order of books in ancient Hebrew “Bible”).

You are free to reject the “bookmarks” provided by Jesus and add post-prophet Greek writings to the Hebrew OT and introduce new and contradictory teachings from those writings if that pleases you.
I choose to accept a Hebrew OT that is “God breathed” by Hebrew Prophets and affirmed by the Christ and quoted by the Apostles. I look to the Apostles and those that knew Jesus on earth and travelled with them for my “God breathed” NT scripture. I reject Greek non-prophets and ECF quotes that contradict the writings of the scripture that I know to be “God breathed”.

Tobias contradicts Daniel ... I believe Daniel and reject Tobias.
Maccabees contradicts both the OT and the NT as well as admits that it was not written by a prophet of God ... Josephus is not Scripture, either.

Also post 82 could provide the exegesis

------------------------------------------

2 Maccabees 12 says that they sent money to Jerusalem TO PROVIDE for a sin offering. Notice the words “to provide.” Seems like you missed that part.

Any Jew who sees the phrase “sin offering” is going to know that it’s talking about the sin offering that is talked about in Leviticus.

Leviticus talks about the grain offering, the wave offering, the drink offering, the burnt offering, and.... the sin offering.

The “sin offering” is when the Levite priest would sacrifice a bull to atone for someone’s sins. With the shedding of its blood, their sin was atoned for, as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.”

In Chronicles, David wanted to sacrifice a burnt offering to the Lord. A man named Araunah offered to give David his bulls for free. David refused. He insisted on paying full price for them. He said, “I will not sacrifice to the Lord that which cost me nothing.”

Judas Maccabee sent money to Jerusalem so that the Levite priests could use that money to pay for the bulls “to provide” for the sin offering.

In other words, the money didn’t pay for their sins. The money paid for the animals. The animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

Too bad the Catholics misinterpreted it to mean that money can pay for sins. But don’t force a bad 15th century AD Catholic interpretation onto a good 2nd century BC Jewish text.

The problem is though, is that you’ll say that an animal sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

But wait a minute. What did Jesus do on the cross? He atone for everyone’s sins, past, present, and future. What do you think Jesus was doing preaching the gospel to the dead, who died in the days of Noah, as Peter tells us?

If you’re going to say that a sacrifice in the present could not atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve just denied the gospel!
----------------------------------------

 

[Andrew]

"Apocrypha" = Deuterocanonical.




.

Then "Canon" = Dogma

 

[atpollard]

The quote you provided says it was to commemorate the fallen comrades as they hoped for a resurrection, it never suggested that as NT believers, we should pray for the dead... according to 1rst Samuel we should seek mediums to raise the dead to speak to us (spiritism) did the Jews make a dogma out of that?

Are you claiming that Maccabees does not say those men died because of the sin of trusting in false gods, and that the money being sent to Jerusalem was not for a sin offering for the men that were already dead and that there was an expectation that that sin offering would grant forgiveness for their sins and those dead idolaters would be raised among the righteous?

You are certainly free to follow the example of 1 Samuel and consult a witch to speak with a demon posing as a dead prophet if you wish to walk in the shoes of a fallen king from whom God has removed His blessing and turned over to demonic attacks and madness. Who am I to dissuade you if that seems like a good idea to you.

It still does not make Maccabees a book written by a prophet of God and the words contained therein “God breathed” scripture.

Of what possible value is something that does not apply to the OT and has no application to the NT and was never referenced by Christ?
I do not see what makes Maccabees so important that you want it elevated to “Scripture”?
It merely contradicts the books that we are certain ARE scripture!

 

[atpollard]

Also post 82 could provide the exegesis

------------------------------------------

2 Maccabees 12 says that they sent money to Jerusalem TO PROVIDE for a sin offering. Notice the words “to provide.” Seems like you missed that part.

Any Jew who sees the phrase “sin offering” is going to know that it’s talking about the sin offering that is talked about in Leviticus.

Leviticus talks about the grain offering, the wave offering, the drink offering, the burnt offering, and.... the sin offering.

The “sin offering” is when the Levite priest would sacrifice a bull to atone for someone’s sins. With the shedding of its blood, their sin was atoned for, as Hebrews says “there is no forgiveness of sins without the shedding of blood.”

In Chronicles, David wanted to sacrifice a burnt offering to the Lord. A man named Araunah offered to give David his bulls for free. David refused. He insisted on paying full price for them. He said, “I will not sacrifice to the Lord that which cost me nothing.”

Judas Maccabee sent money to Jerusalem so that the Levite priests could use that money to pay for the bulls “to provide” for the sin offering.

In other words, the money didn’t pay for their sins. The money paid for the animals. The animal sacrifices paid for their sins.

Too bad the Catholics misinterpreted it to mean that money can pay for sins. But don’t force a bad 15th century AD Catholic interpretation onto a good 2nd century BC Jewish text.

The problem is though, is that you’ll say that an animal sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past.

But wait a minute. What did Jesus do on the cross? He atone for everyone’s sins, past, present, and future. What do you think Jesus was doing preaching the gospel to the dead, who died in the days of Noah, as Peter tells us?

If you’re going to say that a sacrifice in the present could not atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve just denied the gospel!
----------------------------------------

I never complained about the money.
I know they sent money to pay for a sin offering.
I keep expressing my point over and over that the sin offering was for people that were already dead.
People that God had judged for idolatry, trusting in false gods rather than the true God.

Where in Leviticus or Deuteronomy or anywhere in the OT is there an offering made for the sins of someone already dead?
There is none.
Maccabees contradicts the teaching of the Law!

Try “correcting” me for the point that I am actually making.

 

[NathanH83]

Feel free to exegete the verse to prove your point that Jesus grants a “second chance” to hear the gospel and repent after people die.
If this is true, then much of scripture needs to be footnoted, and if it is not true then it is an irrelevant bunny trail to my objection to the contra-scriptural teachings found in certain places with Apocryphal books.

You still didn’t answer the question. Why did Jesus preach the gospel to people who he had no intention of saving?

The word “gospel” means “Good News.”

What was the good news that Jesus had for those spirits in prison who died in the days of Noah? Did he go down into the lower parts of the Earth just to say, “Good news everyone! You’re stuck down here and you’ll never get out! Stinks to be you! Bye!”

THAT’S NOT GOOD NEWS!

 

[NathanH83]

I never complained about the money.
I know they sent money to pay for a sin offering.
I keep expressing my point over and over that the sin offering was for people that were already dead.
People that God had judged for idolatry, trusting in false gods rather than the true God.

Where in Leviticus or Deuteronomy or anywhere in the OT is there an offering made for the sins of someone already dead?
There is none.
Maccabees contradicts the teaching of the Law!

Try “correcting” me for the point that I am actually making.

There are no examples that I can think of where anyone in the Old Testament sacrificed an animal to atone for the sins of someone who had already died, except for 2 Maccabees 12.

But... in the New Testament I can think of an example. Jesus’ sacrifice paid for everyone, past, present, and future.

I’ve already said this and you keep ignoring it. If you think a sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve denied the gospel.

2 Maccabees is basically a pre-cursor to the gospel message.

 

[NathanH83]

That is not an exegesis of Holy Scripture to prove a point of doctrine. That is a diatribe aimed at communicating that you don’t like what I said.

Message received.

However, the Apocrypha that I quoted still advocates making an OT sin offering for the dead when such an offering is neither explicitly described, nor implicitly suggested as a possibility in any of the scriptures written by prophets of God whose words were authenticated by signs and wonders in their own day and affirmed by the Rabbinical teachers stretching back for over a millennium. Jesus bookmarked the beginning and end of Scripture at Genesis and Chronicles (research the order of books in ancient Hebrew “Bible”).

You are free to reject the “bookmarks” provided by Jesus and add post-prophet Greek writings to the Hebrew OT and introduce new and contradictory teachings from those writings if that pleases you.
I choose to accept a Hebrew OT that is “God breathed” by Hebrew Prophets and affirmed by the Christ and quoted by the Apostles. I look to the Apostles and those that knew Jesus on earth and travelled with them for my “God breathed” NT scripture. I reject Greek non-prophets and ECF quotes that contradict the writings of the scripture that I know to be “God breathed”.

Tobias contradicts Daniel ... I believe Daniel and reject Tobias.
Maccabees contradicts both the OT and the NT as well as admits that it was not written by a prophet of God ... Josephus is not Scripture, either.

Where does Tobit contradict Daniel?

 

[atpollard]

There are no examples that I can think of where anyone in the Old Testament sacrificed an animal to atone for the sins of someone who had already died, except for 2 Maccabees 12.

But... in the New Testament I can think of an example. Jesus’ sacrifice paid for everyone, past, present, and future.

I’ve already said this and you keep ignoring it. If you think a sacrifice in the present cannot atone for the sins of men who died in the past, then you’ve denied the gospel.

2 Maccabees is basically a pre-cursor to the gospel message.

If I discuss the problems of Maccabees as part of the NT, then I am corrected that it is part of the OT and if I discuss the problems with Maccabees as part of the OT then I am directed to the New Testament. This is not an honest discussion.

How can a book not written by a prophet of God that contradicts the Law of God be a true “God breathed” pre-cursor for the New Testament?
Do you honestly believe that the dead get a second chance to accept the Gospel?
Either way, I am finished with this conversation that is going nowhere.
Accept any false writings that your heart desires, just do not ask me to accept them.