Always your lectures fill so many gaps; how the Essenes broke off and their anticipations, expectations; the whole of the period, the probabilities, contingencies... thank you thank you! 🙏🏻🌎❤️
Oh, I love that John and Centre Place are still doing these. I love them, and recco them to anyone who will listen. I think it’s my catholic upbringing, but the diversity and inclusion is also heartwarming to see. [instead of exclusion and personal denial / oppression.]
I know, I’m so used to modern Christianity being all about Christians trying to force their beliefs on others, while preaching science denial, anti-scholarship, hate, division, intolerance, racism and bigotry. This channel is a breath of fresh air.
I missed it. Caught it about halfway through on my way home from work. Then immediately ran over a nail and had to get a dude with a pickup to get me and my bike. It's heavy and electric. Pffft. So now home and relaxing, I can enjoy the lecture. Guess you all got a break from my questions this week 😅
I love my electric bike. I also carry a tire patch with me just in case. The only downside to having an electric bike is the risk of theft. Bikes are always a target for crack head thieves but electric bikes are at the top of the list. I use the New York D lock but even that can be disabled by a thief, however, they need to use power tools and/or specialized lock pics. Thieves are the lowest scum on the planet.
@@ObjectiveEthics I had a kryptonite U lock that seized on me once. My dad helped me cut it off with an angle grinder. 3 batteries and 10 minutes later, no one at chic FIL a even asked us if it was my bike.
@@rayne6719 I know brother. People are too self absorbed or too scared to even question a situation that looks shadey. BTW I had a kryptonite lock break on me also. I got it cheap at Walmart so I guess I got what I deserved. Fortunately for me the lock broke before I got my bike locked up as I was just trying to get it off the bike so all I had to do was take off my seat to get the lock off but if I had actually locked the bike to the bike rack I would have had to cut the lock. That's why I started to test my lock every time before I actually secure it to the bike rack. I also spent the extra money to get a name brand high quality lock.
I heard a very compelling argument that the book of Daniel was actually a political propaganda piece written by an orthodox Jew during the Macabeen revolt. The idea that the Macabeen revolt was actually a civil war between the orthodox Jews and Helenized Jews is also quite interesting.
I love knowing this 🤔🤔🤔 The book of Daniel is quite authentic🤩 an inspired book. Anyone who perceives it as propaganda [in any age] might be one of the 'bad actors' it talks about, who would infiltrate the ranks of the righteous through false means and claims. "But they who know their God shall stand!!!"🤩🤩🤩
@@TheEbble The author of Daniel doesn't even know who Xerxes is lol. The book was written a few hundred years after the time period it is set in and the author was so bad at history that he thinks Xerxes is Darius father.... it was in fact the other way around. King Xerxes was actually King Darius son. Not to mention they were both Persians and not Medes. The were no Xerxes or Darius Medes lol. You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel better
@@ObjectiveEthics lol i didn't think you would actually respond to me 😂😂😂 You speak like one who doesn't understand the gist of the conversation being had in the book 😅😅😅 You people who just listen to what misguided scholars who are barely enlightened say, when you don't even understand the book for yourself...you astound me lol But yes....i shall continue to 'lie to myself', and you shall remain where you are too. I prefer it 'here'.🤗🤗🤗
"THE MACCABEES," IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL SERIES EVER RELEASED. PLEASE READ THEM, STUDY THEM CLOSELY, AND ENJOY THE JOURNEY. JOHN WILL BE YOUR GUIDE.
REQUEST: PLEASE DO A LECTURE ON THE EVOLUTION OF JEWISH & ST. THOMAS CHRISTIANITY, WHICH NEVER WENT EXTINCT. It continues to exist, to varying extents, in India (eg, Mar Thoma Church), Ethiopian Church, Syriac Church, Armenian, Georgian etc. Also the Aramaic speaking oriental christian church in the Levant. COPTIC IS CLOSELY RELATED.
These in depth historically critical lectures are so very rare and very insightful. Thank you. As an atheist though, i’m still rather puzzled as to how your community pairs the (abundance of) historical truth to any kind of prescribed faith, since they seem contradictory. Can anyone enlighten me?
These 'scriptures' are actually 'historical accounts'.🤔🤔🤔 These particular 'historical accounts' have been relegated to 'myth and speculation', in submission to 'history' as we know it today...as prescribed by the 'scribes and scholars' of the winners of historical wars 🤔🤔🤔 'Religion' is the current custodian of the human history that the 'academic historians' [of this age] have prescribed as 'mythical' for this civilization.🤭🤭🤭
I spent a year praying and begging, God if you're there I need you to show yourself. He drove me to the perfect church for me, and introduced me to his son Jesus. I simply can not deny what I know to be true. I see God everywhere around me and in my life since my eyes have been opened. I know the Bible can not be taken as literal, but I don't see Christianity as a religion I see it as a relationship with God, through my savior Jesus Christ. Once you've got Jesus, the Bible reads different.
I remember, pretty long ago now, when I read myself out of Christianity (by studying the historical and biblical scholarship), trying to still believe in a God who cared about me and my interests. Eventually, though, reality caught up to me and I realized there was really no reason to believe in God at all. My guess is that people who believe in God, despite understanding the paucity of evidence for such an entity, find some kind of value in the belief. Or perhaps they value the community and fellowship-which is the one part of Christianity I find I do miss. Secular society really has nothing comparable to it. At least not that I’ve been able to find.
The Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Old Testament includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Meqabyan, which are not the same as any of the Books of Macabees in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons.
Where does it say that one can change or add to the word (the entirety) aside from Revelation ? “Do not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you subtract from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” -Deuteronomy 4:2
He has a master’s in cartography I believe, I know he has a MA and a background in academic publishing he’s fairly up front and open about his being an amateur with a lifelong interest in history. I will say I’ve never caught him saying anything inaccurate or biased his position he takes in his history lectures are usually if not always the consensus of the field. The only time I thought he messed up was on his historical Jesus lecture when he mispresented the myth it’s position but that’s sadly pretty typical even among leading biblical scholars and historians & just a minor gripe considering he is a pastor so of course he thinks there’s a historical Jesus.
NABRE translation of these books and the footnotes are dope as flip. Went to Catholic school and loved reading 2nd Maccabees especially. When I was 17 I ordered the Oxford Classics of the KJV wanting to know what the Apocrypha were all about. I was surprised to find that 95% of the books in the Apocrypha were already in my Catholic Bible.
The 7 books that are in the Catholic Bible but not in the protestant Bible are the Deuterocanonical books, or second canon, they are not apocryphal books. The apocryphal books are ones such as the Gospel of Thomas.
You said you were from the community of Christ church, which is the reorganized church of the LDS which is a form of Mormonism. So, my question is all this interpretation & explaining of the Apocryphal Books of the Maccabees is based on the reorganized church off JCLDS?
No, John Hamer is a historian that creates presentations from his and his colleagues research. I don't believe that Community of Chirst holds a specific position on the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
A pseudepigraphical work is one in which the author claims to be someone they are not. Neither the gospels nor the books of the Pentateuch qualify. Those involve false attribution by others. The Pastoral Epistles and the epistles of Peter, for example, do qualify.
@@ethanmatlock5579 Neither the Pentateuch nor the gospels themselves claim to be written by any specific persons. Others latter made claims about who wrote them.
It was a decision to ban this books from the old testament by Luther who for some reasons or not decided to follow the canon fixed by rabbinic jews in the second century a. D. although they had been part of the so called Septuagint.
Which is always like an abbot and Costello, who's on first argument. Why didn't you include X In the Christian Bible? Because the ancient jews didn't include it. So you don't include books the ancient jews don't approve of? That's correct. So why were the new testament books included if the ancient Jewish people did not approve? 😂😂
To say that Jesus would NOT have been quoting out of the Greek text is extra scriptural. In other words, he's making things up (again). Luke, in the 4th chapter, shows Jesus reading out of the scroll of Isaiah (I mean Esias) and He reads it from the Greek (LXX). We know this because the Greek is not the same as the Hebrew (MT). "Recovery of sight to the blind" is not in the MT. This is how we know that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Old Testament. We don't have to guess and say things like "He would not have been quoting out of the Greek" because we know what He read from. The Greek scrolls were in the synagogue and so anyone who would be reading and quoting out of the Law or the Prophets would be quoting from the Greek (LXX).
Did you seriously just say Enoch was a mythical character? A person referenced by the apostles and Jesus directly? So Noah is a mythical character as well since he was Enoch's grandson?
Wow, calling Enoch a mythical character sure rustled some jimmies. Folks, this is an academic approach to Christianity, not a theological one. This ain't a theology channel. In the real world, people don't live to 365 years and don't get beamed up to heaven by God. If you believe they do, that's fine, but within an academic framework, the thought-stopping "I believe" doesn't cut it. I could argue that Obi-Wan Kenobi was a historical figure but the burden of proof would be on me. No one ever proved Enoch was a historical figure, nor would proving so be possible. Neither was Moses. Jesus quoting or referencing them (in the Gospels, which are also literary works) doesn't change that.
Why say 'Enoch is not a historical figure'? There is no proof at all for that suggestion. He could well have been, since he's so extensively mentioned by the scriptures.
Likewise, there is no proof for his existence either. Which we would expect definitely if his grandson was Noah and a giant flood really wiped out all life & plants on the planet. But there isn’t one single shred of evidence for that either.
How sure are we that Enoch is a mythical character?lol i study the book [still am] and it only feels like inspiration 🤩🤩🤩 it feels like an inspired book.
@@Cajunmichael i know all about that. Have you read the subject matter though? have you tested how it stands against the other inspired books? this is what i've been doing. so my argument is from understanding what is written in it, regardless what scholars might say about it. i studied it after 'hearing about it', and my conclusion is those who 'talk about it' might actually have been 'closed off' from seeing the truth hidden in the book.
@@Cajunmichael and you mentioned it not being the one Jude quoted from, yet the way it is quoted in Jude is exactly the way it is in the current book of Enoch, so what say you to that?😅😅😅 Just so you know, i am a nerd for this stuff.lol🤓🤓🤓
@@melanieford2511 you have to do something like 'immersing yourself' in the words 🤔🤔🤔 See them like a movie unfolding as you read the details, even the ones you don't quite understand. If any scripture is inspired, it will do some 'light things' inside your mind lol Anyway, i love God for giving us minds, because it is like virtual space you can literally do anything with. So, when studying the scriptures [note, i say scriptures to emphasise that the bible is not the only source for God's true word, seek and you shall find🙂]...when studying the scriptures, allow the details to be painted into your mind as they are being spoken. After that, in your mind again, look at the image that has formed, the impression left by what was being said 🤔 look at it long enough to discern logical patterns you can understand [i'm giving you the literal steps i realize 🤭]. Once you discern a pattern, you then look for where the pattern 'fits' in the world. If a scripture discribes an aspect of life you are able to connect to any principle you understand...only enlightenment follows.🤩 Which is actually what the scriptures are meant to do. Understanding brings enlightenment. What i have just described is what happens when you meditate on the scriptures until you understand what finally what is being said. "Happy hunting!!!"🤗🤗🤗
Ive seen many of his videos- there are many fslse assumptions that hes made that can be proven false- Jesus did read from the GREEK Isaiah-and that is a fact. And ive also heard him say that Jesus and his Apostles only spoke and read Aramaic- that is EASILY proven false. AND he has to realize- no matter who wrote what or how the books got in the Bible- it was ALL inspired by God!!! There is a reason and plan for it all. Stop taking the Bible APART and understand its design and purpose as a WHOLE
The term "apocrypha" has come to mean, "Books that break canon". Actually, most of them don't break canon but the Catholic Church tends to use them to break canon. Maccabees is used to support praying to the dead or praying for the dead (one or the other) but just because somebody does that - even in the scriptures - doesn't mean that it's authorized. When Saul prayed to Samuel (through the Witch of Endor), that event was roundly criticized. We know that praying to the dead is defacto necromancy and is the same as idolatry. Do we pray to things or beings other than God? No. Why? Because it breaks canon. God ceases to be our source if we're accessing the heavens via some other path. Generally, if the text is within the bounds of canon, it is permitted. The canon came first and then the texts were written later. The canon exists independent of text or denomination. This fact takes all the wind out of the sales of Catholicism when she teaches, "The Catholic Church canonized the bible." No. No denomination told God what His truth is. That kind of thing is cart-before-the-horse theology.
Isn't the whole point of macabees to make amends for some sins? What's the point if new sins are introduced? I find your whole argument highly circular. Things in the bible you don't approve of are defacto not approved of? Sounds very convenient to me.
@@nosuchthing8 - Find support for praying to or for the dead in any other book of the bible. Did Moses approve of such practice? Ancestor worship was certainly a thing in his day. Do we have any record of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob praying to or for dead people? No. It's not found in the Law (Torah). Do we have any support for this practice in the Prophets? No. Okay, so it's not approved by the Law or the Prophets. Do we have support for it (i.e. teaching about it) in the Gospels? No. None. Do we have any teaching about it in the Epistles? Nope. Can't find any. So along comes a story about some folks praying for dead people. The story itself isn't supporting or demeaning the practice - it's just recording that it happened. Were any of the people involved in this considered inspired by the Holy Spirit (i.e. a Prophet of God)? No. It's just some people doing it. Proper scripture interpretation, therefore, rejects the practice as unauthorized. We would need the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish this doctrine.
@GizmoFromPizmo who cares? If murder is only prohibited in one book of the bible, do we just throw that out? And if you are REALLY curious, simply check out catholic answers, they have a ton of reasons outside macabees.
@@nosuchthing8 - There's not enough information there to spin a coherent theology. These mentions in the bible of peripheral matters are fertile ground for hucksters. Take Matthew 16, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." Catholicism takes that and weaves all manner of completely unrelated doctrines. To a Catholic, Matthew 16 is authority for apostolic succession, the papacy and every trickle down abomination derived therefrom. Nobody reads any other contract that way but religionists treat the bible with no respect. The bible is the Rodney Dangerfield of contracts. I'm an old union official and if any of my rank and file members treated the Contract the way some of these churches treat the bible there would be total chaos at all times (like there is in the denominational world). Reading doctrines into the bible is called eisegesis. Allowing the bible to teach us is called exegesis. And a scoring system is part of interpreting the scriptures. The Apostle Paul uses it in his teaching. The passage is from the Law of Moses, "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established." So, yeah. If "Thou shalt not kill" only appeared once in the scriptures then it could be argued that that's not a valid commandment. In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions something about baptism for the dead. It's only briefly mentioned once and nothing more is ever said about it. The Mormons come along 18 centuries later and give us a whole theology around this practice. That's out of bounds. We're not allowed to do that. Enoch is mentioned in Genesis briefly. Nothing more about him is said in the scriptures and from this silence 4 volumes of fiction emerges. The silence of the scriptures is fertile ground for charlatans and hucksters and the denominational world is jam packed with them.
@GizmoFromPizmo he changed his name from Simon TO rock. Remember the original was in aramaic. And would have been cephas. And then said he would build his church on rock. Jesus was famous for speaking in parables. He gave just enough wiggle room for protestants.
Always your lectures fill so many gaps; how the Essenes broke off and their anticipations, expectations; the whole of the period, the probabilities, contingencies... thank you thank you! 🙏🏻🌎❤️
Oh, I love that John and Centre Place are still doing these. I love them, and recco them to anyone who will listen. I think it’s my catholic upbringing, but the diversity and inclusion is also heartwarming to see. [instead of exclusion and personal denial / oppression.]
Go back to Catholicism. It’s incredibly more welcoming
😊
@@Christiancatholic7it’s also pagan idolatry but who cares about that part
I know, I’m so used to modern Christianity being all about Christians trying to force their beliefs on others, while preaching science denial, anti-scholarship, hate, division, intolerance, racism and bigotry. This channel is a breath of fresh air.
I am addicted to your fascinating lectures ❤
So many fascinating lectures to look forward to...
Great lecture. So glad to have participated. Thank you John for your answer. Great fan.
Thanks!
I so appreciate these lectures
Thanks Centre Place !
Excellent as always.
First find... Now a fan watching 31st May....2023
superb supplements to conventional history books, Thanks you.
This was an excellent one. Very well done, y’all!
This looks great I have to check it out later!
Another wonderful lecture. Learned so much. Thanks. 👍 Time to read some Maccabees again.
this guy explains it all ~~
Excellent lecture, like always.
The intertestamental writings would also make a good topic.
I missed it. Caught it about halfway through on my way home from work. Then immediately ran over a nail and had to get a dude with a pickup to get me and my bike. It's heavy and electric. Pffft. So now home and relaxing, I can enjoy the lecture. Guess you all got a break from my questions this week 😅
I love my electric bike. I also carry a tire patch with me just in case. The only downside to having an electric bike is the risk of theft. Bikes are always a target for crack head thieves but electric bikes are at the top of the list. I use the New York D lock but even that can be disabled by a thief, however, they need to use power tools and/or specialized lock pics. Thieves are the lowest scum on the planet.
@@ObjectiveEthics I had a kryptonite U lock that seized on me once. My dad helped me cut it off with an angle grinder. 3 batteries and 10 minutes later, no one at chic FIL a even asked us if it was my bike.
@@rayne6719 I know brother. People are too self absorbed or too scared to even question a situation that looks shadey. BTW I had a kryptonite lock break on me also. I got it cheap at Walmart so I guess I got what I deserved. Fortunately for me the lock broke before I got my bike locked up as I was just trying to get it off the bike so all I had to do was take off my seat to get the lock off but if I had actually locked the bike to the bike rack I would have had to cut the lock. That's why I started to test my lock every time before I actually secure it to the bike rack. I also spent the extra money to get a name brand high quality lock.
Wow, dramatic times
@@cinnamondan4984 update: got the bike patched and new tubes and pump ready in my backpack
I heard a very compelling argument that the book of Daniel was actually a political propaganda piece written by an orthodox Jew during the Macabeen revolt. The idea that the Macabeen revolt was actually a civil war between the orthodox Jews and Helenized Jews is also quite interesting.
I love knowing this 🤔🤔🤔
The book of Daniel is quite authentic🤩 an inspired book. Anyone who perceives it as propaganda [in any age] might be one of the 'bad actors' it talks about, who would infiltrate the ranks of the righteous through false means and claims.
"But they who know their God shall stand!!!"🤩🤩🤩
@@TheEbble The author of Daniel doesn't even know who Xerxes is lol. The book was written a few hundred years after the time period it is set in and the author was so bad at history that he thinks Xerxes is Darius father.... it was in fact the other way around. King Xerxes was actually King Darius son. Not to mention they were both Persians and not Medes. The were no Xerxes or Darius Medes lol.
You can lie to yourself if it makes you feel better
@@ObjectiveEthics lol i didn't think you would actually respond to me 😂😂😂
You speak like one who doesn't understand the gist of the conversation being had in the book 😅😅😅 You people who just listen to what misguided scholars who are barely enlightened say, when you don't even understand the book for yourself...you astound me lol But yes....i shall continue to 'lie to myself', and you shall remain where you are too. I prefer it 'here'.🤗🤗🤗
"THE MACCABEES," IS ONE OF THE MOST POWERFUL SERIES EVER RELEASED. PLEASE READ THEM, STUDY THEM CLOSELY, AND ENJOY THE JOURNEY. JOHN WILL BE YOUR GUIDE.
I agree 💯
Have you read them all? They sound interesting.
REQUEST: PLEASE DO A LECTURE ON THE EVOLUTION OF JEWISH & ST. THOMAS CHRISTIANITY, WHICH NEVER WENT EXTINCT. It continues to exist, to varying extents, in India (eg, Mar Thoma Church), Ethiopian Church, Syriac Church, Armenian, Georgian etc. Also the Aramaic speaking oriental christian church in the Levant. COPTIC IS CLOSELY RELATED.
Is there a program for making the timelines? Thanks for another great lecture. Very informative.
These in depth historically critical lectures are so very rare and very insightful. Thank you. As an atheist though, i’m still rather puzzled as to how your community pairs the (abundance of) historical truth to any kind of prescribed faith, since they seem contradictory. Can anyone enlighten me?
These 'scriptures' are actually 'historical accounts'.🤔🤔🤔
These particular 'historical accounts' have been relegated to 'myth and speculation', in submission to 'history' as we know it today...as prescribed by the 'scribes and scholars' of the winners of historical wars 🤔🤔🤔 'Religion' is the current custodian of the human history that the 'academic historians' [of this age] have prescribed as 'mythical' for this civilization.🤭🤭🤭
I spent a year praying and begging, God if you're there I need you to show yourself. He drove me to the perfect church for me, and introduced me to his son Jesus.
I simply can not deny what I know to be true. I see God everywhere around me and in my life since my eyes have been opened. I know the Bible can not be taken as literal, but I don't see Christianity as a religion I see it as a relationship with God, through my savior Jesus Christ.
Once you've got Jesus, the Bible reads different.
I remember, pretty long ago now, when I read myself out of Christianity (by studying the historical and biblical scholarship), trying to still believe in a God who cared about me and my interests. Eventually, though, reality caught up to me and I realized there was really no reason to believe in God at all. My guess is that people who believe in God, despite understanding the paucity of evidence for such an entity, find some kind of value in the belief. Or perhaps they value the community and fellowship-which is the one part of Christianity I find I do miss. Secular society really has nothing comparable to it. At least not that I’ve been able to find.
Brother this is an excellent job, God bless u 🎉
I AM WHAT I AM LORD
Why can't I find this video on the Centre Place page?
If Daniel is in the Septuagent how could he have written in the future?
Daniel is not likely the author of Daniel, right.
The Book of Daniel was written around the same time as the Septuagint. Hope this helps.
The Ethiopian, and Eritrean Orthodox Old Testament includes 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Meqabyan, which are not the same as any of the Books of Macabees in Catholic and Eastern Orthodox canons.
Wow, the Russian Bible contains everything they can find. It will be fun to attend church there.
Ethiopian cannon is more expansive
@@cinnamondan4984 Really? By more books or by more details in stories?
Apocalypse and apocrypha may not be the same but they are related as one is revealing, one is concealing
Where does it say that one can change or add to the word (the entirety) aside from Revelation ?
“Do not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall you subtract from it, that you may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” -Deuteronomy 4:2
I’d be interested to see this lecturer’s credentials and a bibliography for his lectures.
He has a master’s in cartography I believe, I know he has a MA and a background in academic publishing he’s fairly up front and open about his being an amateur with a lifelong interest in history. I will say I’ve never caught him saying anything inaccurate or biased his position he takes in his history lectures are usually if not always the consensus of the field. The only time I thought he messed up was on his historical Jesus lecture when he mispresented the myth it’s position but that’s sadly pretty typical even among leading biblical scholars and historians & just a minor gripe considering he is a pastor so of course he thinks there’s a historical Jesus.
*mythicist
WHY DON'T YOU READ 1 MACC 3:27-28 WHEN IT TELL ON THE HEATHENS PAINT THEIR IMAGE IN THE BOOK OF THE LAW/BIBLE
NABRE translation of these books and the footnotes are dope as flip.
Went to Catholic school and loved reading 2nd Maccabees especially. When I was 17 I ordered the Oxford Classics of the KJV wanting to know what the Apocrypha were all about. I was surprised to find that 95% of the books in the Apocrypha were already in my Catholic Bible.
The 7 books that are in the Catholic Bible but not in the protestant Bible are the Deuterocanonical books, or second canon, they are not apocryphal books. The apocryphal books are ones such as the Gospel of Thomas.
@@brucebarber4104 Yes, I know.
Are you saying there was a Scottish clan out there?
You said you were from the community of Christ church, which is the reorganized church of the LDS which is a form of Mormonism. So, my question is all this interpretation & explaining of the Apocryphal Books of the Maccabees is based on the reorganized church off JCLDS?
No, John Hamer is a historian that creates presentations from his and his colleagues research. I don't believe that Community of Chirst holds a specific position on the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books.
I always saw deep parallels between the Maccabees and the Taliban and groups before them in Afghanistan.
No one forced the taliban to eat pork, stop being Muslim
A pseudepigraphical work is one in which the author claims to be someone they are not. Neither the gospels nor the books of the Pentateuch qualify. Those involve false attribution by others. The Pastoral Epistles and the epistles of Peter, for example, do qualify.
How do the Gospels and the Pentateuch not qualify?
@@ethanmatlock5579 Neither the Pentateuch nor the gospels themselves claim to be written by any specific persons. Others latter made claims about who wrote them.
where is this guy reading from he is doing it
Only to Protestants
IKR
😊
It was a decision to ban this books from the old testament by Luther who for some reasons or not decided to follow the canon fixed by rabbinic jews in the second century a. D. although they had been part of the so called Septuagint.
Which is always like an abbot and Costello, who's on first argument.
Why didn't you include X In the Christian Bible?
Because the ancient jews didn't include it.
So you don't include books the ancient jews don't approve of?
That's correct.
So why were the new testament books included if the ancient Jewish people did not approve?
😂😂
Wrong. Macc. Is in the Catholic and Orthodox Canon, and in the Septuagint that the apostles used.
Thank you, they are the deuterocanonical books not the apocryphal books.
what religion does this guy represent ~
John Hamer is a member of Community of Christ.
Mecca 🐝
👏👍💯.
Maccabes is not apocrypha. It belongs to canon right from the begining of the bible.
For us catholics, yes
To say that Jesus would NOT have been quoting out of the Greek text is extra scriptural. In other words, he's making things up (again). Luke, in the 4th chapter, shows Jesus reading out of the scroll of Isaiah (I mean Esias) and He reads it from the Greek (LXX). We know this because the Greek is not the same as the Hebrew (MT). "Recovery of sight to the blind" is not in the MT.
This is how we know that Jesus and the apostles used the Septuagint and not the Hebrew Old Testament. We don't have to guess and say things like "He would not have been quoting out of the Greek" because we know what He read from. The Greek scrolls were in the synagogue and so anyone who would be reading and quoting out of the Law or the Prophets would be quoting from the Greek (LXX).
MITHRA
Did you seriously just say Enoch was a mythical character?
A person referenced by the apostles and Jesus directly?
So Noah is a mythical character as well since he was Enoch's grandson?
you caught that too lol😂😂😂
Yes. There is no archeological reality to anything written about in the Bible taking place prior to the 8th century BCE.
I can referrence mythical characters too. I can use stories that are mythical to make a point.
I always thought "apocryphal" was just Greek for "bullshit".🤔
Wow, calling Enoch a mythical character sure rustled some jimmies. Folks, this is an academic approach to Christianity, not a theological one. This ain't a theology channel. In the real world, people don't live to 365 years and don't get beamed up to heaven by God. If you believe they do, that's fine, but within an academic framework, the thought-stopping "I believe" doesn't cut it. I could argue that Obi-Wan Kenobi was a historical figure but the burden of proof would be on me. No one ever proved Enoch was a historical figure, nor would proving so be possible. Neither was Moses. Jesus quoting or referencing them (in the Gospels, which are also literary works) doesn't change that.
Why say 'Enoch is not a historical figure'? There is no proof at all for that suggestion. He could well have been, since he's so extensively mentioned by the scriptures.
Likewise, there is no proof for his existence either. Which we would expect definitely if his grandson was Noah and a giant flood really wiped out all life & plants on the planet. But there isn’t one single shred of evidence for that either.
How sure are we that Enoch is a mythical character?lol i study the book [still am] and it only feels like inspiration 🤩🤩🤩 it feels like an inspired book.
What we have called the book of Enoch was written in about the 3rd century and is not the same book quoted by Jude.
@@Cajunmichael i know all about that. Have you read the subject matter though? have you tested how it stands against the other inspired books? this is what i've been doing. so my argument is from understanding what is written in it, regardless what scholars might say about it. i studied it after 'hearing about it', and my conclusion is those who 'talk about it' might actually have been 'closed off' from seeing the truth hidden in the book.
@@Cajunmichael and you mentioned it not being the one Jude quoted from, yet the way it is quoted in Jude is exactly the way it is in the current book of Enoch, so what say you to that?😅😅😅 Just so you know, i am a nerd for this stuff.lol🤓🤓🤓
Omg 😳 this is amazing. I would like to know how you suggest we read “The Holy Bible “?
@@melanieford2511 you have to do something like 'immersing yourself' in the words 🤔🤔🤔 See them like a movie unfolding as you read the details, even the ones you don't quite understand.
If any scripture is inspired, it will do some 'light things' inside your mind lol Anyway, i love God for giving us minds, because it is like virtual space you can literally do anything with. So, when studying the scriptures [note, i say scriptures to emphasise that the bible is not the only source for God's true word, seek and you shall find🙂]...when studying the scriptures, allow the details to be painted into your mind as they are being spoken. After that, in your mind again, look at the image that has formed, the impression left by what was being said 🤔
look at it long enough to discern logical patterns you can understand [i'm giving you the literal steps i realize 🤭]. Once you discern a pattern, you then look for where the pattern 'fits' in the world. If a scripture discribes an aspect of life you are able to connect to any principle you understand...only enlightenment follows.🤩 Which is actually what the scriptures are meant to do. Understanding brings enlightenment. What i have just described is what happens when you meditate on the scriptures until you understand what finally what is being said. "Happy hunting!!!"🤗🤗🤗
Calling Maccabees Apocrypha is sectarian that’s a Protestant term. Deuterocanon is the Catholic term
🎯
Ive seen many of his videos- there are many fslse assumptions that hes made that can be proven false- Jesus did read from the GREEK Isaiah-and that is a fact. And ive also heard him say that Jesus and his Apostles only spoke and read Aramaic- that is EASILY proven false. AND he has to realize- no matter who wrote what or how the books got in the Bible- it was ALL inspired by God!!! There is a reason and plan for it all. Stop taking the Bible APART and understand its design and purpose as a WHOLE
How can you prove that Jesus didn't speak aramaic?
@@nosuchthing8 what cha talking bout?? He spoke Hebrew Aramaic and Greek
The term "apocrypha" has come to mean, "Books that break canon". Actually, most of them don't break canon but the Catholic Church tends to use them to break canon.
Maccabees is used to support praying to the dead or praying for the dead (one or the other) but just because somebody does that - even in the scriptures - doesn't mean that it's authorized. When Saul prayed to Samuel (through the Witch of Endor), that event was roundly criticized. We know that praying to the dead is defacto necromancy and is the same as idolatry. Do we pray to things or beings other than God? No. Why? Because it breaks canon. God ceases to be our source if we're accessing the heavens via some other path.
Generally, if the text is within the bounds of canon, it is permitted. The canon came first and then the texts were written later. The canon exists independent of text or denomination. This fact takes all the wind out of the sales of Catholicism when she teaches, "The Catholic Church canonized the bible." No. No denomination told God what His truth is. That kind of thing is cart-before-the-horse theology.
Isn't the whole point of macabees to make amends for some sins? What's the point if new sins are introduced?
I find your whole argument highly circular. Things in the bible you don't approve of are defacto not approved of? Sounds very convenient to me.
@@nosuchthing8 - Find support for praying to or for the dead in any other book of the bible. Did Moses approve of such practice? Ancestor worship was certainly a thing in his day. Do we have any record of Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob praying to or for dead people? No. It's not found in the Law (Torah). Do we have any support for this practice in the Prophets? No. Okay, so it's not approved by the Law or the Prophets. Do we have support for it (i.e. teaching about it) in the Gospels? No. None. Do we have any teaching about it in the Epistles? Nope. Can't find any.
So along comes a story about some folks praying for dead people. The story itself isn't supporting or demeaning the practice - it's just recording that it happened. Were any of the people involved in this considered inspired by the Holy Spirit (i.e. a Prophet of God)? No. It's just some people doing it.
Proper scripture interpretation, therefore, rejects the practice as unauthorized. We would need the testimony of two or three witnesses to establish this doctrine.
@GizmoFromPizmo who cares? If murder is only prohibited in one book of the bible, do we just throw that out?
And if you are REALLY curious, simply check out catholic answers, they have a ton of reasons outside macabees.
@@nosuchthing8 - There's not enough information there to spin a coherent theology. These mentions in the bible of peripheral matters are fertile ground for hucksters. Take Matthew 16, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." Catholicism takes that and weaves all manner of completely unrelated doctrines. To a Catholic, Matthew 16 is authority for apostolic succession, the papacy and every trickle down abomination derived therefrom.
Nobody reads any other contract that way but religionists treat the bible with no respect. The bible is the Rodney Dangerfield of contracts. I'm an old union official and if any of my rank and file members treated the Contract the way some of these churches treat the bible there would be total chaos at all times (like there is in the denominational world).
Reading doctrines into the bible is called eisegesis. Allowing the bible to teach us is called exegesis. And a scoring system is part of interpreting the scriptures. The Apostle Paul uses it in his teaching. The passage is from the Law of Moses, "By the mouth of two or three witnesses let all things be established." So, yeah. If "Thou shalt not kill" only appeared once in the scriptures then it could be argued that that's not a valid commandment.
In 1 Corinthians, Paul mentions something about baptism for the dead. It's only briefly mentioned once and nothing more is ever said about it. The Mormons come along 18 centuries later and give us a whole theology around this practice. That's out of bounds. We're not allowed to do that.
Enoch is mentioned in Genesis briefly. Nothing more about him is said in the scriptures and from this silence 4 volumes of fiction emerges. The silence of the scriptures is fertile ground for charlatans and hucksters and the denominational world is jam packed with them.
@GizmoFromPizmo he changed his name from Simon TO rock. Remember the original was in aramaic. And would have been cephas.
And then said he would build his church on rock.
Jesus was famous for speaking in parables. He gave just enough wiggle room for protestants.
It's Not apocryphal bro. Thanks Luther.
Enoch was fictional? Jesus spoke of him, so that makes Jesus fictional?
Most (if not all) of what is written in the Gospels about Jesus is fictional. This is the scholarly consensus. Yes.
I can speak of fictional characters, this does not make me fictional. I don't feel like I have to explain this.
no clue lies