Recognizing the early church canon by the NT....

[praise_yeshua]

Scripture says ALL have sinned and fall short.

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (1 Jn. 1:8 NKJ)

You cannot get to heaven trusting in your own merit on the coattails of Jesus.

This is a matter of admitting your sinfulness before God.

You don't need a cure, if you are not sick—you don't need a Savior, if you have no sin.

And the Lord did not lay our sins on anyone else but Jesus.

This is a salvific issue.

Pay attention. Context. Why are you rejecting me from the beloved?

I told you I agree with your statement concerning Jesus Christ.

Again. You don't get to judge what sin IS....

All you did above is say that everyone sins. Well... I actually believe that more than you. I agree completely.

 

[Dizerner]

I agree completely.

If you are trusting in Christ to suffer what your sins deserve, I am fully confident to see you in heaven, friend.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That did not debunk anything though.

It's just a tu quoque fallacy.

Jesus does not have to honor each holiday for the exact same reason.

No fallacy at all. You don't understand the fallacy you're referencing.

Keep going. Don't run away. Lets see who gives up first.......

So you know why Jesus honored a holiday? Please tell me you don't believe you do.

I dealt with your claim that Jesus wasn't endorsing the writings of the Maccabees.

Well. You can't use the same argument to establish or not establish any other scripture. Thusly, you can't use your argument that the inclusion of Maccabees hangs upon your statement that you claim proves it doesn't belong.

You're lost in your mind. I'm not saying that what Jesus said established the inclusion of Maccabees. The argument is fundamentally flawed at many levels.

I include Maccabees because it is historical. Just like I include the narratives of the Kings even though they are wrong at times.

This idea of "inspiration" you have is fundamentally flawed.

Realize that I've been doing this for a very long time. I know where the arguments begin and end. I know more about this than you do or have ever really even wanted to know about it.

You found your flawed answer a long time ago and you're just trying to defend it. You're doing a very poor job of doing that.

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you are trusting in Christ to suffer what your sins deserve, I am fully confident to see you in heaven, friend.

Ah. So were are back to that.......

Do I need to repeat myself. Let me come at it from another angle. Sin isn't Eternal. It has no lasting value.

Do you care about things Eternal?

 

[Dizerner]

I'm not saying that what Jesus said established the inclusion of Maccabees.

Then we are in agreement.

 

[Dizerner]

Do you care about things Eternal?

If you are not trusting in Christ to pay for your sins, you will pay for them yourself in hell.

God is not playing games here.

It's Christ or hell.

 

[praise_yeshua]

Then we are in agreement.

You're ignoring why..... Please deal with why.....

You're just assuming we are in agreement when we are saying different things that are not capable with one another.

It is a red herring fallacy to claim Maccabees is excluded because you believe Jesus wasn't quoting from Maccabees.

This is really such a silly silly argument to make.

Other books of the Bible are included in your canon because they are simply historical. Why the hypocrisy?

 

[praise_yeshua]

If you are not trusting in Christ to pay for your sins, you will pay for them yourself in hell.

God is not playing games here.

It's Christ or hell.

"Pay"?

So my sin is valuable?

Do you believe just "one drop" of Christ's blood is enough to "pay" for sin?

 

[Dizerner]

It is a red herring fallacy to claim Maccabees is excluded because you believe Jesus wasn't quoting from Maccabees.

This is really such a silly silly argument to make.

That's not the argument I made.

That's your straw man version of it.

I did not argue "Because Jesus wasn't supporting Maccabees, therefore he celebrated the Feast of Dedication."

I argued, "Just celebrating the Feast of Dedication, does not prove he supported Maccabees."

You got it backwards.

 

[Dizerner]

"Pay"?

Your sin must be judged and not ignored or swept under the rug.

This is the meaning of the Cross and the Atonement of Christ.

So my sin is valuable?

It has negative rather than positive value.

Those are not equal things.

Do you believe just "one drop" of Christ's blood is enough to "pay" for sin?

What I believe is that Christ had to suffer on the Cross for our sins.

Jesus had already sweat a drop of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, and Mormons believe atonement was made there instead of on the Cross.

 

[praise_yeshua]

That's not the argument I made.

That's your straw man version of it.

I did not argue "Because Jesus wasn't supporting Maccabees, therefore he celebrated the Feast of Dedication."

I argued, "Just celebrating the Feast of Dedication, does not prove he supported Maccabees."

You got it backwards.

Circles.........Just celebrating the Sabbath doesn't prove Jesus was supporting the Torah.

The context of this discussion is what should or should not be included in the canon. You're not giving a reason why Maccabees shouldn't be included. Yet, you're pretending that you are.

You're commenting outside of the context of the discuss and offering nothing more than "red herring" reasons to exclude Maccabees.

Maccabees is historical. The Torah is historical. They are both historical and should be included for the same reasons.

The reasons you desire to exclude Maccabees is because you have an agenda. You have ZERO valid reasons for excluding Maccabees from your list.

 

[Dizerner]

The reasons you desire to exclude Maccabees is because you have an agenda. You have ZERO valid reasons for excluding Maccabees from your list.

You changed the topic from:

1. Does Jesus celebrating the Feast of Dedication mean he supported Maccabees?

Into:

2. Is there any evidence whatsoever Maccabees is not inspired?

That's a Motte and Bailey fallacy. This fallacy involves an arguer using two different, seemingly similar ideas to shift the focus of the argument. One idea, the "motte", is easy to defend and less controversial, while the other, the "bailey", is more controversial and harder to defend. The arguer initially argues for the bailey, but when challenged, they retreat to defending the motte, making it seem like they are still arguing the original.


THIS is your original claim I addressed:

The feast of Dedication is not found at all in the Protestant Canon. Not once. The book of Maccabees is referenced by Jesus here.

If you want to change the topic now to "Are there ANY OTHER REASONS to reject Maccabees," then do not hide it under your original "motte."

 

[praise_yeshua]

Your sin must be judged and not ignored or swept under the rug.

This is the meaning of the Cross and the Atonement of Christ.

It is part of the meaning of the Cross. Not all of it.

Would you agree?

It has negative rather than positive value.

Those are not equal things.

Okay. Math.......

Forgetting "math" because it is a man made construct.

What value does this "negative" thing have relative to God? Don't treat this a "balance sheet" that needs to be "accounted for".

What I believe is that Christ had to suffer on the Cross for our sins.

Jesus had already sweat a drop of blood in the Garden of Gethsemane, and Mormons believe atonement was made there instead of on the Cross.

I can't say that I believe "one drop of blood" either. Just trying to narrow the focus with details.

Such questions help us realize that it wasn't just the Cross itself that dealt with sin. It was the entire life of Jesus Christ in His priestly work.

Taking such into consideration, do you see anything differently?

 

[praise_yeshua]

You changed the topic from:

1. Does Jesus celebrating the Feast of Dedication mean he supported Maccabees?

Into:

2. Is there any evidence whatsoever Maccabees is not inspired?

No. I didn't at all.

I specifically appealed to the historical value of Maccabees.

That's a Motte and Bailey fallacy. This fallacy involves an arguer using two different, seemingly similar ideas to shift the focus of the argument. One idea, the "motte", is easy to defend and less controversial, while the other, the "bailey", is more controversial and harder to defend. The arguer initially argues for the bailey, but when challenged, they retreat to defending the motte, making it seem like they are still arguing the original.


THIS is your original claim I addressed:



If you want to change the topic now to "Are there ANY OTHER REASONS to reject Maccabees," then do not hide it under your original "motte."

No. The context is inclusion or exclusion of Maccabees.

Man made definitions of "fallacy" are very problematic. Few really understand them. It is why I avoid them. All such arguments devolve into the pretense of "intellectual superiority".

If you include the Torah for historical value at all, then why not include Maccabees?

 

[Dizerner]

It is part of the meaning of the Cross. Not all of it. Would you agree?

No, I would not agree.

The ENTIRE and TOTAL meaning of the Cross is Jesus paying for the sin of humanity.

Don't treat this a "balance sheet" that needs to be "accounted for".

You don't get to dictate what sin means to God.

If God describes it as a real debt you have to pay, than that is what sin is.

He will turn us over to the torturer until we pay every last penny.

it wasn't just the Cross itself that dealt with sin. It was the entire life of Jesus Christ in His priestly work.

The perfect life of Christ qualified him to be our substitute on the Cross.

It was a qualification race.

 

[Dizerner]

If you include the Torah for historical value at all, then why not include Maccabees?

The book of Kings and Chronicles have inspired theology.

The books of Maccabees do not.

This can only be known by the Holy Spirit.

 

[praise_yeshua]

No, I would not agree.

The ENTIRE and TOTAL meaning of the Cross is Jesus paying for the sin of humanity.

So paying for sin imparts the right to Eternal life?

You don't get to dictate what sin means to God.

You don't either.

If God describes it as a real debt you have to pay, than that is what sin is.

He will turn us over to the torturer until we pay every last penny.

Is this life torturous regardless of having accepted Jesus Christ or not?

The perfect life of Christ qualified him to be our substitute on the Cross.

It was a qualification race.

I know you believe this. That is why I'm asking these questions.

It wasn't the "perfection" you see in Christ that qualified Him. Christ is Eternal. He is of ETERNAL value. Nothing less than Eternal things can impart Eternal life to any of us.

That is why I've told you over and over again that GOD must die for Eternal Life.

Heb 9:16 For where a will is involved, the death of the one who made it must be established.
Heb 9:17 For a will takes effect only at death, since it is not in force as long as the one who made it is alive.

Is a lamb without spot or blemish still flesh?

There has to be more than just flesh to establish Eternal Life.

 

[praise_yeshua]

The book of Kings and Chronicles have inspired theology.

The books of Maccabees do not.

This can only be known by the Holy Spirit.

Finally. Moving on.......

I'm glad you've found that your argument about Jesus celebrating or not celebrating something is of NO value in the context of the discussion. However, I had to deal with it to get you to move on.....

Since we disagree about "inclusion".... are you claiming the Holy Spirit has given you knowledge that I don't have?

 

[Dizerner]

Since we disagree about "inclusion".... are you claiming the Holy Spirit has given you knowledge that I don't have?

I have said many times you have a spirit of error over your life.

This is not the first time I have said that.

Somewhere you have resisted the Holy Spirit, and I hope you repent and put your trust only in the Cross.

 

[praise_yeshua]

I have said many times you have a spirit of error over your life.

This is not the first time I have said that.

Somewhere you have resisted the Holy Spirit, and I hope you repent and put your trust only in the Cross.

I wanted you to specific state that you believe you have knowledge from the Holy Spirit that I don't have. This amounts to claiming "special revelation".

That is fine. Just recognizing that fact.

The book of Reigns (Which includes what we now classify as separate "books" of the "Bible") has changed over time. Ultimately, I see no difference in including the historically accurate book of Reigns and including Maccabees.

Relative to theology, I'm sure every person has their bias that creates desires to include and exclude relevant information.

Example "Prayer for the dead"..... that some think is taught in 2 Maccabees 12:46.

The issue with 2 Maccabees 12:46 should be discussed starting with the fact that 2 Maccabees 12:46 only exists in a very few manuscripts. It is not exclusive to even the LXX history.

Codex Alexandrinus reads entirely different than some extant manuscripts that actually include the verse.

Too many people want to over simplify the "canon" discussion.