Where did we get The Bible? - A IN-DEPTH STUDY

[St. SteVen]

Fair enough. I would say the Jerome also quotes pagan authors that no Christian would cite as authoritative such as Cicero. A familiarity of said texts does not equal they are the authoritative God Breatheed Scripture.
The apocryphal writings are important and we read them as part of our liturgy. Yet those books are not considered part of the canon of Holy Scripture.

That said there so much thr Church of Rome gets right namely her Christology and her for the most part her history. For that i am immensely thankful . While I’m not Roman, I am catholic. I am reformed Anglican (traditional ) and probably the only one you’ll ever meet. So I'm not anti-catholic as you assume but I am pro history and pro catholic.

As a reader, I want to say "thank you" for the considerable amount of time and effort you put into your replies on this thread.
It didn't look like you were getting much encouragement. (reaction votes) I'm probably not alone in my appreciation of you.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Fair enough. I would say the Jerome also quotes pagan authors that no Christian would cite as authoritative such as Cicero. A familiarity of said texts does not equal they are the authoritative God Breatheed Scripture.
The apocryphal writings are important and we read them as part of our liturgy. Yet those books are not considered part of the canon of Holy Scripture.

That said there so much thr Church of Rome gets right namely her Christology and her for the most part her history. For that i am immensely thankful . While I’m not Roman, I am catholic. I am reformed Anglican (traditional ) and probably the only one you’ll ever meet. So I'm not anti-catholic as you assume but I am pro history and pro catholic.

The difference is that Jerome didn't use Cicero or any other non-Biblical writing to substantiate Christian doctrine.

 

[GRACE ambassador]

Topics like historicity, authenticity, original languages, manuscript evidence, inspiration issues, consistency, translations, transmissions, support texts, error and infallibility, contextual understanding (and much more) play a key role in how th eBible content will be understood and ultimately received by each reader.

Precious friends, no, these do not do as said above, but, by these Bible study Rules, with The
Blessed Holy Spirit As The Teacher, then "one can understand and receive the content" of
God's Pure And Preserved Word.

Also see:

Handling The Word Of Life

Amen.

 

[MatthewG]

Precious friends, no, these do not do as said above, but, by these Bible study Rules, with The
Blessed Holy Spirit As The Teacher, then "one can understand and receive the content" of
God's Pure And Preserved Word.

Also see:

Handling The Word Of Life

Amen.

Its true traditions and not seeking after truth can lead to division; the the ultimate divisin breaker is can one love through differences and also talk out their reasonings and still love God and one another while you go along with fellowship.

 

[MatthewG]

 

[Origen]

Norman Geisler, dean of Southern Evangelical Seminar claims that the Canon was closed at Jabneh and that this was where the Deuterocanonical Books were ejected (Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences (co-authored by Ralph MacKenzie [Baker Books, 1995]).

Jimmy Swaggart wrote:
“At the end of the first Christian century, the Jewish rabbis, at the Council of Gamnia [Jamnia], closed the canon of the Hebrew book (those considered authoritative)” (Jimmy Swaggart, Catholicism & Christianity [Jimmy Swaggart Ministries, 1986], 129).

According to the Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments -
“After Jerusalem’s destruction, Jamnia became the home of the Great Sanhedrin. Around 100, a council of rabbis there established the final canon of the OT” (Ed. Martin, Ralph P., and Peter H. Davids, Dictionary of the Later New Testament and Its Developments [InterVarsity Press, 2000, c1997], 185).

As to whether this rabbinical school had the Authority to close the Canon – they didn’t, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church:
“After the fall of Jerusalem (A.D.70), an assembly of religious teachers was established at Jabneh; this body was regarded as to some extent replacing the Sanhedrin, though it did not possess the same representative character or national authority. It appears that one of the subjects discussed among the rabbis was the status of certain biblical books (e.g. Eccles. and Song of Solomon) whose canonicity was still open to question in the 1st century A.D. The suggestion that a particular synod of Jabneh, held c. 100 A.D., finally settling the limits of the Old Testament canon, was made by H. E. Ryle; though it has had a wide currency, there is no evidence to substantiate it” (ed. by F. L. Cross and E. A. Livingston [Oxford Univ. Press, 861], emphasis added).

What's your response to this protestant's response to the above?

"

1. The Jewish Canon was closed in functional reality by the time of Christ.
   Jesus and the apostles quoted from a fixed body of books, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44). That threefold division mirrors the 22-book Hebrew canon (which equals the 39 Protestant books once separated) noted by Josephus (Against Apion 1.8) in the first century, long before Akiva or Jamnia. He explicitly states there were no more than these inspired books and that Jews did not treat others with equal authority. That’s not “open,” that’s closed.
2. Jesus never quoted the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Not once.
   Not Tobit, not Judith, not Sirach, not Wisdom, not 1 or 2 Maccabees. Christ quoted, taught, and rebuked with “It is written” and “Have you not read”-but always from the Hebrew canon. You claim the Church used those books; Christ didn’t. That alone should make every follower of Jesus pause.
3. Appeal to Akiva is a smokescreen.
   Protestants don’t “follow Akiva,” they follow Jesus, who never gave authority to the books Akiva rejected, because Jesus never treated them as Scripture to begin with. The false messiah claim of Akiva doesn’t prove inspiration for the Deuterocanon, nor does it stain the Hebrew canon Jesus used and affirmed.
4. The Church didn’t create the canon, it recognized the Word God had already spoken.
   The councils you cite, Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), and Pope Innocent (405)-were all regional councils or local letters, not ecumenical councils with binding authority. They affirmed the canon in practice, not infallibly. That didn’t happen until Trent (1546)-which was a reactionary decree, not an apostolic one. For over a thousand years, Church Fathers like Jerome, Athanasius, and Rufinus rejected or doubted the Deuterocanon. Even Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent) didn’t accept them.
5. The early Church had “many canons” precisely because the Spirit had not led them to finality yet.
   That doesn’t mean anything with a fanbase was inspired. Gnostic gospels had wide use too. Popularity is not inspiration. Apostolic use is. And the apostles never used the Deuterocanon with divine authority. The Holy Spirit didn’t whisper at Hippo, He thundered through Christ and His apostles, who never used those books as Scripture.
6. Christ gave authority to His Church, but not to override His example.
   If the canon Christ used, quoted, and fulfilled excluded those books, no later Church decision has authority to reverse Him. The Church stands under Scripture, not above it. Authority to “bind and loose” does not include authority to rewrite what God has spoken.
7. The 66 books of the Protestant canon are not a “truncation,” they’re a return to Christ’s canon.
   The apostles quoted, reasoned, argued, and wrote from the Hebrew canon, relying on Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. No NT author calls Baruch “Scripture.” None build doctrine on Tobit. They didn’t quote 2 Maccabees like they did Isaiah or Genesis. That’s not accidental, that’s providential.

So no, Protestants didn’t follow Akiva. They followed the Canon of Christ, not the Councils of Carthage. And if Jesus never treated the Deuterocanon as Scripture, neither should you. Christ’s silence over those books is the loudest verdict on their status. If they didn’t flow from His mouth, they don’t belong in His Book."

 

[BreadOfLife]

What's your response to this protestant's response to the above?

"

1. The Jewish Canon was closed in functional reality by the time of Christ.
   Jesus and the apostles quoted from a fixed body of books, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44). That threefold division mirrors the 22-book Hebrew canon (which equals the 39 Protestant books once separated) noted by Josephus (Against Apion 1.8) in the first century, long before Akiva or Jamnia. He explicitly states there were no more than these inspired books and that Jews did not treat others with equal authority. That’s not “open,” that’s closed.
2. Jesus never quoted the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Not once.
   Not Tobit, not Judith, not Sirach, not Wisdom, not 1 or 2 Maccabees. Christ quoted, taught, and rebuked with “It is written” and “Have you not read”-but always from the Hebrew canon. You claim the Church used those books; Christ didn’t. That alone should make every follower of Jesus pause.
3. Appeal to Akiva is a smokescreen.
   Protestants don’t “follow Akiva,” they follow Jesus, who never gave authority to the books Akiva rejected, because Jesus never treated them as Scripture to begin with. The false messiah claim of Akiva doesn’t prove inspiration for the Deuterocanon, nor does it stain the Hebrew canon Jesus used and affirmed.
4. The Church didn’t create the canon, it recognized the Word God had already spoken.
   The councils you cite, Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), and Pope Innocent (405)-were all regional councils or local letters, not ecumenical councils with binding authority. They affirmed the canon in practice, not infallibly. That didn’t happen until Trent (1546)-which was a reactionary decree, not an apostolic one. For over a thousand years, Church Fathers like Jerome, Athanasius, and Rufinus rejected or doubted the Deuterocanon. Even Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent) didn’t accept them.
5. The early Church had “many canons” precisely because the Spirit had not led them to finality yet.
   That doesn’t mean anything with a fanbase was inspired. Gnostic gospels had wide use too. Popularity is not inspiration. Apostolic use is. And the apostles never used the Deuterocanon with divine authority. The Holy Spirit didn’t whisper at Hippo, He thundered through Christ and His apostles, who never used those books as Scripture.
6. Christ gave authority to His Church, but not to override His example.
   If the canon Christ used, quoted, and fulfilled excluded those books, no later Church decision has authority to reverse Him. The Church stands under Scripture, not above it. Authority to “bind and loose” does not include authority to rewrite what God has spoken.
7. The 66 books of the Protestant canon are not a “truncation,” they’re a return to Christ’s canon.
   The apostles quoted, reasoned, argued, and wrote from the Hebrew canon, relying on Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. No NT author calls Baruch “Scripture.” None build doctrine on Tobit. They didn’t quote 2 Maccabees like they did Isaiah or Genesis. That’s not accidental, that’s providential.

So no, Protestants didn’t follow Akiva. They followed the Canon of Christ, not the Councils of Carthage. And if Jesus never treated the Deuterocanon as Scripture, neither should you. Christ’s silence over those books is the loudest verdict on their status. If they didn’t flow from His mouth, they don’t belong in His Book."

My response to these claims is a resounding, “HOGWASH!” . . .

First of all – during the time of Jesus – the Canon was NOT close, by ANY sense of the word. This is why there are over 100 quotes and references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament that are missing from the post-Christ Jewish and Protestant Canon. For example:

- Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
- Eph. 6:13-17 – The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, the Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

Martin Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

 

[Brakelite]

Too bad the KJV it is virtually unreadable. I mean, unless you are a fifteen century court attendant.

That's nonsense. Children manage to read Shakespeare and recite his plays in their yearly dramas. If someone has trouble reading the KJV, is likely because they don't read it often enough. I have no issues with it. I can read it aloud in modern English, "translating" or paraphrasing as I go. Just takes practise. Easier to commit to memory was well. It isn't a foreign language.

 

[St. SteVen]

St. SteVen said:
Too bad the KJV it is virtually unreadable. I mean, unless you are a fifteen century court attendant.

That's nonsense. Children manage to read Shakespeare and recite his plays in their yearly dramas. If someone has trouble reading the KJV, is likely because they don't read it often enough. I have no issues with it. I can read it aloud in modern English, "translating" or paraphrasing as I go. Just takes practise. Easier to commit to memory was well. It isn't a foreign language.

Yes, I agree.
My claim of "virtually unreadable" is a bit harsh.

Some verses in the KJV are closer to the NT Greek.
This topic point depended on the KJV.

Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO Let's discuss. Questions: 1) What did Jesus actually say? 2) Why did he say it? 3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here? The position of the church and society...

www.christianityboard.com

[

 

[David Lamb]

My response to these claims is a resounding, “HOGWASH!” . . .

First of all – during the time of Jesus – the Canon was NOT close, by ANY sense of the word. This is why there are over 100 quotes and references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament that are missing from the post-Christ Jewish and Protestant Canon. For example:

- Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that the women's dead were martyred. It says:

“Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” (Heb 11:35 NKJV)

It doesn't say they were sons - they could have been daughters or husbands - and it doesn't say how they died.

- Eph. 6:13-17 – The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

But there is nothing to say that Paul was quoting the apocryphal book of Wisdom there. Far more likely, in view of his first readers, he was referring to items of armour worn by a Roman soldier.

 

[Brakelite]

St. SteVen said:
Too bad the KJV it is virtually unreadable. I mean, unless you are a fifteen century court attendant.

Yes, I agree.
My claim of "virtually unreadable" is a bit harsh.

Some verses in the KJV are closer to the NT Greek.
This topic point depended on the KJV.

Did Jesus say that adultery is grounds for divorce? - Nope.

The position of the church and society at large is mistaken as to what Jesus was quoted as saying in the gospels. IMHO Let's discuss. Questions: 1) What did Jesus actually say? 2) Why did he say it? 3) If we got this wrong, where do we go from here? The position of the church and society...

www.christianityboard.com

[

Hyperbole is sometimes a good tool to make a point. Not sure I would agree in this instance.

 

[Titus]

What's your response to this protestant's response to the above?

"

1. The Jewish Canon was closed in functional reality by the time of Christ.
   Jesus and the apostles quoted from a fixed body of books, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings (Luke 24:44). That threefold division mirrors the 22-book Hebrew canon (which equals the 39 Protestant books once separated) noted by Josephus (Against Apion 1.8) in the first century, long before Akiva or Jamnia. He explicitly states there were no more than these inspired books and that Jews did not treat others with equal authority. That’s not “open,” that’s closed.
2. Jesus never quoted the Deuterocanon as Scripture. Not once.
   Not Tobit, not Judith, not Sirach, not Wisdom, not 1 or 2 Maccabees. Christ quoted, taught, and rebuked with “It is written” and “Have you not read”-but always from the Hebrew canon. You claim the Church used those books; Christ didn’t. That alone should make every follower of Jesus pause.
3. Appeal to Akiva is a smokescreen.
   Protestants don’t “follow Akiva,” they follow Jesus, who never gave authority to the books Akiva rejected, because Jesus never treated them as Scripture to begin with. The false messiah claim of Akiva doesn’t prove inspiration for the Deuterocanon, nor does it stain the Hebrew canon Jesus used and affirmed.
4. The Church didn’t create the canon, it recognized the Word God had already spoken.
   The councils you cite, Rome (382), Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), and Pope Innocent (405)-were all regional councils or local letters, not ecumenical councils with binding authority. They affirmed the canon in practice, not infallibly. That didn’t happen until Trent (1546)-which was a reactionary decree, not an apostolic one. For over a thousand years, Church Fathers like Jerome, Athanasius, and Rufinus rejected or doubted the Deuterocanon. Even Cardinal Cajetan (Luther’s opponent) didn’t accept them.
5. The early Church had “many canons” precisely because the Spirit had not led them to finality yet.
   That doesn’t mean anything with a fanbase was inspired. Gnostic gospels had wide use too. Popularity is not inspiration. Apostolic use is. And the apostles never used the Deuterocanon with divine authority. The Holy Spirit didn’t whisper at Hippo, He thundered through Christ and His apostles, who never used those books as Scripture.
6. Christ gave authority to His Church, but not to override His example.
   If the canon Christ used, quoted, and fulfilled excluded those books, no later Church decision has authority to reverse Him. The Church stands under Scripture, not above it. Authority to “bind and loose” does not include authority to rewrite what God has spoken.
7. The 66 books of the Protestant canon are not a “truncation,” they’re a return to Christ’s canon.
   The apostles quoted, reasoned, argued, and wrote from the Hebrew canon, relying on Moses, the Prophets, and the Psalms. No NT author calls Baruch “Scripture.” None build doctrine on Tobit. They didn’t quote 2 Maccabees like they did Isaiah or Genesis. That’s not accidental, that’s providential.

So no, Protestants didn’t follow Akiva. They followed the Canon of Christ, not the Councils of Carthage. And if Jesus never treated the Deuterocanon as Scripture, neither should you. Christ’s silence over those books is the loudest verdict on their status. If they didn’t flow from His mouth, they don’t belong in His Book."

My response to these claims is a resounding, “HOGWASH!” . . .

First of all – during the time of Jesus – the Canon was NOT close, by ANY sense of the word. This is why there are over 100 quotes and references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament that are missing from the post-Christ Jewish and Protestant Canon. For example:

- Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
- Eph. 6:13-17 – The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

After the destruction of Jerusalem, a group of Rabbis established a rabbinical school in the Jewish city of at Jabneh (or Jamnia). It became center for Jewish political and religious political thought. Because the Temple had been destroyed in 70 AD – this school led by Rabbi Akiba ben Joseph (A.D. 37-137) redefined certain aspects of Judaism until the Temple could be restored.

One of the things discussed was use of the Greek translation of the Old Testament (the Septuagint) by early Christians.

They decided to eject 7 Books (and portions of Esther and Daniel) that they felt were “uninspired”. They provided a new Greek translation because the early Christians were converting the Jews using the Septuagint, which was compiled about 200 years before the birth of Christ. According to historical sources, the rabbinical gathering at Jabneh was not even an "official" council with binding authority to make such a decision. It can be clearly shown that Jesus and the Apostles studied and quoted from these 7 Books. In the New Testament, we see almost 200 references to them.

The main advocate for removing the 7 Deuterocanonical Books was Rabbi Akiba, who was also known for proclaiming that a man named Simon Bar Kokhba was the “real” Messiah during the 2nd Jewish Revolt (circa 132 AD). It was during THIS time that the Jewish Canon had still been an OPEN Canon during the life of Christ was closed.

So, the Protestant Fathers chose to go with a POST-Christ, POST-Temple Canon of Scripture that was declared by a FALSE Prophet (Akiva) who proclaimed a FALSE “Christ” (Kokhba).

Martin Luther also had problems with many New Testament Books, which he sought to remove. The Book of Hebrews, the Epistles of James and Jude and the Book of Revelation were ALL on the chopping block. He referred to the Epistle of James as the “Epistle of Straw” because it stressed the importance of works, which he rejected. If it had NOT been for the urging of his contemporaries – men like Philip Melanchton – Protestant Bibles would have been MUCH thinner.

The two main differences of each mans arguments.

Origin argues from evidence.

Bread of Life argues from assumptions and speculation.

First of all – during the time of Jesus – the Canon was NOT close, by ANY sense of the word. This is why there are over 100 quotes and references to the Deuterocanonical Books on the pages of the New Testament that are missing from the post-Christ Jewish and Protestant Canon. For example:

- Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
- Eph. 6:13-17 – The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20

Nothing is ever closed with catholic claims of which books are or will be the Inspired books of the canon.

Fact about Catholicism is it evolves, always has.

They have a phrase for its evolution on the canon.

Its known as the "Doctrine of Development"
That's a fancy way of saying we make it up as we go along.

There very well could be some books the catholic church will add in the future because they teach this doctrine of development theology.

They are already guilty of this in their past.

 

[Titus]

Pure speculation,

For example:

- Heb 11:35 – Paul teaches about the martyrdom of the mother and her sons described in 2 Macc. 7:1-42.
- Eph. 6:13-17 – The whole discussion of armor, helmet, breastplate, sword, shield follows Wis. 5:17-20.

This has no evidence as Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha.

Jesus quoted from the old testament. That's the real evidence.

But there is NOTHING(no evidence) to say that Paul was quoting the apocryphal book of Wisdom there. Far more likely, in view of his first readers, he was referring to items of armour worn by a Roman soldier.​

 

[BreadOfLife]

Pure speculation,

This has no evidence as Jesus never quoted from the apocrypha.

Jesus quoted from the old testament. That's the real evidence.

I never claimed that Jesus wrote these things. I was showing you that the writers of the NT quoted and referenced the Deuterocanonical Books that were in the open Jewish Canon of the first century.

However – since YOU brought it ip –
Matt. 6:19-20 – Jesus’ statement about “laying up for yourselves treasure in heaven” follows Sirach 29:11 – lay up your treasure.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – “what you hate, do not do to others.”

The Jewish Canon that Jesus and the Apostles studied from was OPEN in the first century and was closed in the second century. This happened AFTER the Ascension of Jesus and destruction iof the Temple.

 

[BreadOfLife]

The two main differences of each mans arguments.

Origin argues from evidence.

Bread of Life argues from assumptions and speculation.

No – I argued from History, giving you names and dates.

Claiming that I have “no evidence” is not only silly – it’s a LIE.

Nothing is ever closed with catholic claims of which books are or will be the Inspired books of the canon.

Fact about Catholicism is it evolves, always has.

They have a phrase for its evolution on the canon.

WRONG.

The Canon of Scripture was officially closed at the Council of Trent in the 16th century.
It cannot be “re-opened” . . .

Its known as the "Doctrine of Development"
That's a fancy way of saying we make it up as we go along.

The only thing “funny” here is your ignorance of doctrinal development.

It’s NOT about making thing up as we go along – unless you’re a Protestant who believes in false doctrine of Sola Scriptura. It’ about gleaning an understanding of things that aren’t explicitly spelled out in Scripture. A good example of this would be the doctrine of the Trinity.

There very well could be some books the catholic church will add in the future because they teach this doctrine of development theology.

WRONG, again

I already corrected you about this above . . ..

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that the women's dead were martyred. It says:

“Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” (Heb 11:35 NKJV)

It doesn't say they were sons - they could have been daughters or husbands - and it doesn't say how they died.

WRONG.
Apparently, you didn’t read the CONTEXT of 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The woman received back her sons after they were martyred and raised to new life:
2 Macc. 7:23
For this reason, the creator of the world—who brought about the beginning of humanity and searched out the origin of all things—will again mercifully give you both spirit and life, since you disregard yourselves because of his laws.”

2 Macc. 7:292
Don’t fear this killer but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death so that in God’s mercy I should recover you with your brothers.”

This is precisely what is being spoken of in Heb. 11:35.

But there is nothing to say that Paul was quoting the apocryphal book of Wisdom there. Far more likely, in view of his first readers, he was referring to items of armour worn by a Roman soldier.

Did the Roman soldiers wear a “Breastplate of Righteousness” or a “Shield of Holiness/Faith”????

Nice try . . .

 

[Titus]

No – I argued from History, giving you names and dates.

Claiming that I have “no evidence” is not only silly – it’s a LIE

You have zero evidence Jesus or anyone else in the entire Bible quoted from the apocrypha.

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – “what you hate, do not do to others

The counterfeit church known as Roman catholicism claims Tobit is Inspired.
But they reject all of the apocrypha as Inspired.
The Jews who wrote it did not consider it Inspired but the catholic church claims it is, at least some but not all.

That's a very unconvincing position that the authors are supposed to be writing from inspiration yet not all what they wrote was Inspired.
Why would anyone trust them?
Would anyone trust Jesus if only half of what He prophecied came true?
Nostradamus was a false prophet yet some of his claims seemed to come true.

What the catholic church is doing is called a false equivalence.
It is a logical fallacy that one assumes that two things are the same because they share some similarities, while ignoring important differences.

Using these poor arguments.
I'll use the same method of argumentation.

Way before Jesus the Egyptian religion known as Ma'at recorded this,
" That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" The instruction of Ankhsheshonq, c. 500 BC

Compare to Tobit,

Matt.. 7:12 – Jesus’ golden rule “do unto others” is the converse of Tobit 4:15 – “what you hate, do not do to others.

Wow, Not only was Jesus quoting Tobit. Jesus was quoting the Egyptian Ma'at Religion!!!!
Therefore we will conclude that Ankhsheshonq of Egypt was Inspired canon.

Theres tons of old ancient writings that sound similar to what was recorded in the Bible.
Doesn't prove any of these writings are Inspired.

Basically catholic " doctrine of development " is we make it up as we go along and you must believe us because we said so.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Hebrews 11:35 doesn't say that the women's dead were martyred. It says:

“Women received their dead raised to life again. And others were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection.” (Heb 11:35 NKJV)

It doesn't say they were sons - they could have been daughters or husbands - and it doesn't say how they died.

WRONG.
Apparently, you didn’t read the CONTEXT of 2 Macc. 7:1-42.

The woman received back her sons after they were martyred and raised to new life:
2 Macc. 7:23
For this reason, the creator of the world—who brought about the beginning of humanity and searched out the origin of all things—will again mercifully give you both spirit and life, since you disregard yourselves because of his laws.”

2 Macc. 7:292
Don’t fear this killer but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death so that in God’s mercy I should recover you with your brothers.”

This is precisely what is being spoken of in Heb. 11:35.

But there is nothing to say that Paul was quoting the apocryphal book of Wisdom there. Far more likely, in view of his first readers, he was referring to items of armour worn by a Roman soldier.

Did the Roman soldiers wear a “Breastplate of Righteousness” or a “Shield of Holiness/Faith”????

ice try . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Way before Jesus the Egyptian religion known as Ma'at recorded this,
" That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another" The instruction of Ankhsheshonq, c. 500 BC

Compare to Tobit,

Wow, Not only was Jesus quoting Tobit. Jesus was quoting the Egyptian Ma'at Religion!!!!
Therefore we will conclude that Ankhsheshonq of Egypt was Inspired canon.

Theres tons of old ancient writings that sound similar to what was recorded in the Bible.
Doesn't prove any of these writings are Inspired.

Basically catholic " doctrine of development " is we make it up as we go along and you must believe us because we said so.

The Jews never gleaned information from pagan sources to formulate their doctrines. Anything pagan would have been considered unclean.
If you have an example - please present it . . .

Being the Son of God – Jesus would have absolutely not done this. The fact that there are similar beliefs among different religions simply shows that things like the Golden Rule are moral laws.

Just as everyone know that it is wrong to murder – and they didn’t have to READ it somewhere.
Nice try . . .

 

[Titus]

The Jews never gleaned information from pagan sources to formulate their doctrines. Anything pagan would have been considered unclean.
If you have an example - please present it . . .

Being the Son of God – Jesus would have absolutely not done this. The fact that there are similar beliefs among different religions simply shows that things like the Golden Rule are moral laws.

Just as everyone know that it is wrong to murder – and they didn’t have to READ it somewhere.
Nice try . . .

The burden of proof is on you.
You made the claim the apocrypha is Inspired.

The apocrypha was written during the intertestamental period.
This is the period of time between the end of the old testament Malachi and the beginning of the New testament.

Not one Jewish prophet prophecied during this time period.
How is it that the apocrypha is Inspired when no prophets prophecied during the time of its writing.