Posted on 03/16/2004 3:01:44 PM PST by ChinaGotTheGoodsOnClinton
For instance, Anglicans/Episcopalians do not outright reject the books.
I don't know any Protestants who "outright reject" 1 Maccabees (assuming, of course, that they know of the book's existence). It's an excellent historical record. However, the works of Eusebius are also excellent historical records--that in and of itself does not mean that a book belongs in the canon.
The real issue concerns 2 Maccabees, in particular 12:43-46. Catholics latch onto this book because it supports prayer for the dead, a practice that Protestants and, by extension, Evangelicals reject.
The problem is that no major doctrine (and darn few minor ones) in the Bible rests upon a single passage. Indeed, you can trace any theme--salvation, eschatology, the afterlife and Resurrection, ecclesiology--through the Scriptures as a whole. You could remove any book or even several books of the Bible and still not lose the essential teachings, though you might have to dig deeper and might lose some resolution.
Therefore, when you find in a single book--2 Macc., for example--a teaching that is absent from and contradicted by the rest of Scripture, the proper response is that taken by the Reformation: You recognize that the book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit "for God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).
If 2 Macc. truely deserves to be in the Scriptures, you should be able to produce verse after verse from the undisputed books supporting prayer for the dead, and by extension, Purgatory (without which prayer for the dead becomes an entirely moot point). The only support the Catholic can find for Purgatory is an extremly strained interpretation of 1 Cor. 3:12-15--once again, as he does to show the pre-eminence of Peter (necessary to the Papacy), depending on the heavily-disputed interpretation of a single verse of Scripture rather than a solid thread of teaching throughout the Bible as a whole.
In any case, even Catholics refer to these disputed books as the Deuterocanonical books ("the second canon"), and therefore treat them as separate from and inferior to the "first" canon.
Back to the subject of the thread: Heck, I hope Gibson does. I'd love to see the Maccabean revolt captured on the big screen, and I don't see any reason that such a project could be construed as pro-Catholic or anti-Protestant--it'd be all pro-Jew.
Makes sense to me. Why would some people get the idea that you can pray people out of Hades?
I don't see anything in the Bible to support it.
Wrong!Eastern Orthodox DO NOT consider them on the same level as the other scriptures. They are used for teaching purposes, etc., and historical value. Only the Roman Catholics consider them "canon" (Their Council of Trent.)
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
Many scholars disagree with your assessment.
For instance, the The Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Maccabee books:
Maccabees also spelled Machabees four books, none of which is in the Hebrew Bible but all of which appear in some manuscripts of the Septuagint. The first two books only are part of canonical scripture in the Septuagint and the Vulgate (hence are canonical to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy) and are included in the Protestant Apocrypha.Orthodox Bishop Nathanael explains why the Orthodox Church rejects the smaller Hebrew canon, the basis for the Protestant Old Testament:
This translation, shown to be the result of the concerted effort of the entire Old Testament Church, received the appellation "Septuagint," i.e. "Of the Seventy," and has become the authoritative version of the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament for Orthodox Christians.Considerably later (apparently about the first century B.C. for the Old Testament portion of the Holy Scriptures and about the beginning of the second century A.D. for the New Testament portion), a translation of the Holy Scriptures into Aramaic appeared, known as the Peshitta, which coincides on all important points with the Septuagint translation.
But if the texts coincide so on all the important points, why do the Greek and Aramaic translations hold greater authority for Orthodox Christians than the Hebrew original? Because the Greek and Aramaic translations have been preserved free of corruption in the Church of Christ by the grace of God and the struggles of grace-bearing men whereas the Hebrew text in the Jewish community was saved by technical means.
I know a few :-)
I gave a Catholic Bible to a coworker. To my astonishment, she told me that her pastor asked her cut off the "apocryphal" books and mutilate the Bible.
Therefore, when you find in a single book--2 Macc., for example--a teaching that is absent from and contradicted by the rest of Scripture, the proper response is that taken by the Reformation: You recognize that the book is not inspired by the Holy Spirit "for God is not the author of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33).
Thank you for posting a Protestant outlook on the Maccabees.
Of course, I disagree with your argument, since such reasoning can be used to reject James [jusfication by works, not faith alone] versus Romans [justification by faith alone].
At any rate, these minor religious arguments are never going to be settled among Christians, but I enjoyed reading your well-thought-out post.
He didn't have the authority. His changes were all undone.
And I predicted The Passion will be the first one-billion dollar movie. The first movie to gross a billion.
Who will be the first one-billion dollar athlete---one billion in lifetime earnings for endorsements plus salary? Tiger Woods? Sports fans, help me here.
Can you imagine the shareholders' meetings at Hollyweird movie companies right now?
"Mr. CEO, where were our marketing people? There were HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars out there ripe for the taking, pent up demand waiting to pour forth at a rate of one hundred million dollars a WEEK----and after your focus groups and surveys and white papers and consultants, you didn't see how we could be raking in millions and some one else---Mel Gibson---is eating our lunch? You're fired!"
I studied it. The story is magnificent. Those interested in eschatology might find Antiochus IV interesting in that he is a type of antichrist.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.