You wrote:
“You’re missing the main point.”
No, I don’t think I did. Besides, did I say I was talking about his main point?
“You’re making too fine a distinction. Maccabees are not part of the Hebrew Bible, commonly known as the Old Testament.”
Sorry, that seems more like a Protestant claim than reality. Show me the Jewish canon as written in a Hebrew document BEFORE Christ walked the earth. Oh, that’s right. There isn’t one.
“That they were placed there in some canons is only because the events described therein took place before the events of the New Testament.”
Uh, buddy, EVERY BOOK OF THE OLD TESTAMENT describes events that “took place before the events of the New Testament.”
“The reference the author made was to an allusion that was particular to Greek/Roman times versus pre-Greek/Roman times in Biblical history. In this sense, then, Maccabbees are part of Greek/Roman times and the appearance of ‘parousia’ underscores the author’s point.”
Then you are clearly missing the point because this is the line I quoted and commented on:
Original comment: “He said the background for this word has no counterpart in OT scriptures...”
I said: “Nonsense. It’s right there in 2 Maccabees 8:12 and 15:21. That’s why people who have complete Bibles (unlike most Protestants) aren’t freaking out over all of this rapture nonsense.”
And now you’re saing: “In this sense, then, Maccabbees are part of Greek/Roman times and the appearance of ‘parousia’ underscores the author’s point.”
Which is of course EXACTLY WHAT I SAID: “It’s right there in 2 Maccabees 8:12 and 15:21.”
” You’re still missing the main point.”
Show me where I EVER SAID i was commenting on the main point.