Q&A--1&2 Maccabees and the Bible

This question and answer covers the first two books of Maccabees and their significance to the Christian

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Maccabees
• Catholic
• Catholicism
• Legate
• William
• Albrecht
• GOD
• Bible
• Canon
• Deuterocanon

[AndyisMe]

gnrhead: Can you please give me the early councils that ratified the Deutrocanon as sacred scripture?

Secondly I dont see how your argument about the early Church using the Deutrocanon proves them to be scripture. Like I said Paul uses pagan poets to make points. Paul using these poets doesnt means he thinks their writings are scripture.

I have found some wonderful truths in the Deutrocanon, fine examples of faith etc. However these things dont prove the Deutrocanon is inspired. GBU ALL!

[gnrhead]

Council of Antioch--mid 200's

Council of Laodicea--mid 300's

Council of Rome 382

Councils of Carthage(all of them)

Council of Hippo

Council of Florence

Council of Trent

and many many many many more. There is not a SINGLE Early Council that didn't affirm their canonicity when USING them.

[gnrhead]

Secondly, you seemingly aren't reading very carefully. The Early Church didn't simply USE the Deuterocanon, they called it HOLY SCRIPTURE and things from GOD. Those are the very words amongst MANY that they use. That is the difference. They didn't simply QUOTE it. They used it as Holy Scripture. HUGE Difference.

[AndyisMe]

I have seen many "quotes" which were not quotes at all. To me it doesn't matter that the Apostles knew the Deutrocanon, and yes they probably knew the stories from it. They even used it as a reference or an example however that doesn't validate the Deutrocanon.

Paul quoted from pagan poets, and Jude quotes from "the book of Enoch" (that one didn't make the cut for cannon). These works can be quoted and it doesn't prove they are scripture. There are true things stated in the Deutrocanon.

[gnrhead]

You seem to be missing the point my good friend, the point is that we find the Deuterocanon used by the Early Church. The early Councils ratified it as holy Scripture. Plain and simple. It's also found in all the Great codices that exist. 'Nuff said buddy.

[gnrhead]

Another thing you seem to miss, is that the Book of Enoch isn't used as Canonical Scripture in the Early Church.

The Books of Maccabees are. Big difference. Another difference is that the Book of Maccabees uses characters that only appear in that book, and the author of Hebrews ties them together. The other books used elsewhere which are apocryphal do not introduce NEW characters. That is the huge difference.

[suggesttwo]

Re: Heb 11:35 (By Faith They Overcame Heb 11:32-39 )

read v.34, Violence of fire:this refers to Mesack(Mishael), Shadrach(Hanaiah) and Abednego(Azariah) v.33 closed the mouth of the lions:Danial (Belteshassar)

All Danial had to do is shut his windows

[XSC3]

I think what we're learning here is that books are not considered "scripture"  simply because other books considered scripture quoted them (nor excluded because they were not quoted). the new testament canon was decided by apostolic authorship (or authorship by associates of the apostles), representing orthodox doctrine, and in ancient church usage. the OT seems to have been more a church authority decision

[XSC3]

@falt007 I should say "the vast majority of Christian bibles including both testaments," including the apocrypha, that is. Anglican bibles still include the "apocrypha" section between the testaments. Catholic and Orthodox bibles have always included these books as part of the Old testament

[XSC3]

@falt007 "Wasn't Maccabees and Judith in between the Old and New Testament up until the 1800's? Thanks for the informative posting." In the Protestant world, the 1611 KJV did this (not sure if any did before this, but it was apparently something that began with some Reformation authorities). the vast majority of bibles from the KJV to the 1800's included the "apocrypha" though whether it was always between the testaments (as in Anglican usage) I'm not sure

[rsims87]

Hello! I was wondering what your take is on the Book of Enoch. Jude not only quotes this book but calls it prophecy. Jude also says the prophecy came from Enoch the seventh from Adam, not some other authors using his name. Therefore it would stand to reason that either Enoch should be included or Jude should be excluded, do you agree?

[killerb144]

Thank you for this video, sir. It was helpful. :)

[falt007]

Wasn't Maccabees and Judith in between the Old and New Testament up until the 1800's? Thanks for the informative posting.

[XSC3]

They're only "weird" if we take the point of view that these things are to be compared with the Protestant canon (which we've already assumed is "scripture"). There are a lot of "weird things" in the protocanonical books as well, but we all accept those, because they're contained within books we've accepted as canonical.

[AndyisMe]

You can read the rest Cyprian David is brought...

1Sa 16:23 Whenever the spirit from God came upon Saul, David would take his harp and play. Then relief would come to Saul; he would feel better, and the evil spirit would leave him.

You are not told that the music was the actual reason that the Spirit left Saul. Saul would just feel better.

[AndyisMe]

Cyprian: Here is the actual account:

1Sa 16:14 Now the Spirit of the Lord had departed from Saul, and an evil spirit from the Lord tormented him.

1Sa 16:15 Saul's attendants said to him, "See, an evil spirit from God is tormenting you.

1Sa 16:16 Let our lord command his servants here to search for someone who can play the harp. He will play when the evil spirit from God comes upon you, and you will feel better."