God has given us everything we need for life and godliness. I personally think 2 Esdras is scripture. I suspect that the books of Maccabees are reliable history but not necessarily good for doctrine (as I understand the Catholic doctrine of purgatory comes from them). But let's keep the main thing in view: we are to be conformed to the image of Christ, and for that we need doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, so that we may be complete and thoroughly furnished. Any debate, dispute or quibbling that takes us away from that objective should be discarded.
2 months ago | 1
1. Josephus was apparently a prophetic. He claims he prophesied. Beside the often disputed line about Jesus being the Messiah there are other lines of his that reveal his Messianic faith, and he describes a 22 book TaNaK. 2. The epitomist of Jason's Maccabean history created a very discredited 2nd Maccabees in which Antiochus dies in two contradictory ways in one book... not to mention the Zoroastrianism syncretism that snuck in through the symbol of neptha.
2 months ago | 0
Time to look at 1. The NEMENHAH RECORDS (from the native Americans. It Backs the Book of Mormon and has a warning for the LDS CHURCH). 2. The ANG AKLATAN RECORDS (from the Philippines) Note also what the native Americans are preparing for. Especially the meeting in the Yucatan that happened in march 2025.
1 month ago | 0
Something I’ve always wanted to know is what’s the payoff from including the apocryphal texts to the canon… perhaps I just need to read them
2 months ago | 0
The more I look into the LXX the more I wonder why the Orthodox are the only ones who seem to take it seriously, and another one (not OSB) will come out in 2027 iir. In any case, my wondering is if it was seen as normative to “add” to scripture. If that is the case, then the case for the septuagint suddenly is bolstered even more, as rather than chasing the autographs, you are chasing what He made authoritative. (I currently reject orthodoxy due to icons though, as how they function as described by celsus mirror word for word the idols of the pagans and how they work) Edit: I also wonder if a case can be made for them due to the time dating between each books, when they happened, and when it was written. Example being Jude referencing Archangel Gabriel and Satan contending over Jesus’s body. (Which imo can be a case for the Dormition of Mary, but I think it’s weak as Moses gave the Law, and Jesus fulfilled that Law, one died and his body was recovered, one went from death, conquered it, and into life. Mirrors of one another but with two different scenarios. So it’s a weak argument for it without the added mariology imo, but one I’m ok with saying “it’s plausible.)
2 months ago (edited) | 1
As a Christian, I trust that God has put the Bible together for me to read. I have it in English or Spanish or Chinese whatever I need it to be. I trust that God put it together. He put it in the minds of men what to write and he put it in into the minds of man what to include. I have it in my hands today. No problem. Do I understand how he did it or why he included some sections before but not later? No, I don’t. But, Just like God put it into the minds of man how to build Noah’s ark, and how to construct the temple and how to put together the Ark of the covenant, God put it into the minds of man in constructing the Bible. Man didn’t do that God did. That’s what I believe about the Bible. I think it’s a dangerous thing to take our Bible today and say, “This is wrong. This is really not what God intended, but rather it’s something else.” Just my two cents, and I appreciate your page.
2 months ago | 0
My objection is, for Enoch, those 3000 ell (cubit) nephilim giants. That just doesnt do. The hills / mountains were covered of 15 cubits of water, 7.5m, those giants would of not drowned in that.
2 months ago | 0
Nathan but how does this argument work if we believe 2 Esdras is scripture ? That book is prophetic.
2 months ago | 0
the maccabeans were not of Levi who was given charge of the priesthood. They usurped that position. Ezra was a prophet (he spoke the word of Yah). Ezra is inspired. Jubilees is inspired. Baruch is inspired. Macabees is history told from a slanted perspective and not inspired. Canons are man made and are different depending on who follow.
2 months ago (edited) | 0
I mean I say it doesn’t belong because even the Catholic Church agreed the Hebrew ot (language of Gods chosen people) is where God preserved his word, they had to refer to the Greek (language of the gentiles) to find the extra books. Jerome couldn’t find any apocryphal books in the Hebrew because they didn’t exist. Not to mention the 1000s of verses removed in the Septuagint. If you know for a fact the Septuagint isn’t Gods preserved, inspired word, why would you accept the extra books that were added to it?
2 months ago | 0
NathanH83
They say the Apocrypha doesn’t belong in the Bible because there were no prophets at that time.
Ok? So?
So what if there were no prophets? There were priests. The Maccabees were priests.
Ask them this: “Was Ezra a prophet?”
They’ll say, “No, Ezra was not a prophet. He was a priest and a scribe.”
There you go. The Maccabees were not prophets. But they were priests.
So what’s the problem? Thank you for answering your own question.
If Ezra is the word of God, even though he was not a prophet but just a priest, then Maccabees can also be the Word of God. The fact that it wasn’t written by prophets does not disqualify it. Otherwise Ezra would be disqualified.
2 months ago | [YT] | 18