Can this dispute be solved with a clear, explicit quote?

[Sinke]

Thank you, Sinke. You came through for me.

Hebrews 11:35 looks like as good a passage as I’m going to get.

It is certainly not an explicit quote, but does refer to something that, although surely happened many times throughout the history of God’s people, can not be found explicitly recorded anywhere outside of 2 Maccabees 7.

The fact that the author also references someone being cut in half 2 verses later tells us he was pulling from a number of various sources, most of them probably known to the readers of that time but lost to us.

Unless someone responds soon with a startling new piece of information, I will be forced to agree with Todd Easton and proceed to my second question.

I believe that levels of explicitness are something we can all call for our arguments. The fact that apostle clearly citates Biblical passages until the mentioning of Maccabees is something which suggests his usage in their case as well.

I can’t find a line which speaks about a person cut in half. Could you be more specific?

 

[ryanoneil]

ryanoneil,

i have not found a passage in Tobit that provides the answer to the saducees’ question. the answer is found in verses 30-32.

Understood. Even if there was, they would have rejected it. The Sadducees only accepted the five books of Moses (Gen -Deut), and rejected the full authority of the OT prophets.

this is to me clear example of your being trapped in a vicious circle. perhaps try lying on your side while reading this to get a different perspective:

I’m not sure what you mean by a vicious circle.

the nonbelievers asked a ridiculous question, and they were rebuked because they didn’t understand the nature of our future resurrection.

They rejected the belief in the resurrection.

they were asking whose wife she would be in Heaven, and the rebuke was that they didn’t understand what Scripture had to say about that. she wouldn’t be a wife at all. she would be “like the angels in heaven.”

I don’t think the OT mentions the marital status of remarried dead women at the resurrection.

Unless I’m mistaken, Jesus is speaking with authority in verse 30.

the fact that they asked about 7 husbands instead of 2 or 3 or 4 or 5 or 6 or (the correct number) 8, is not even necessarily due to the referenced passage. do you see what i see? the number 7 comes up a lot, even when people are asking hypothetical questions. it does not necessarily have to come from the disputed text. it would be a much more convincing argument if they had chosen the number 8. unless they were asking about a circumcision, it would not seem likely that they would pick that number out of the sky. unlike the number 7, which seems to be synonymous with “alot”. (not alot like a million, but alot like more than just a couple.) oh, and it would be a much more convincing argument if by chance they chose the number 8 since THAT’S THE CORRECT NUMBER! blind as they were to the deity of our Lord, i really do find it hard to believe these guys were so insanely stupid they couldn’t even count. sarah had 7 dead husbands plus tobiah. THEN she died.

We’ll I don’t know what to tell you about the number discrepency. Seven is the number of perfection, but I can’t say that has anything to do with it. I can only speculate.

You are right. We can not say difinitively they are talking about Tobit. There is strong evidence they are though.

i’m eager to hear your explanation of the Matthew account, including where the Lord’s answer was somehow related to the Tobit account.

Just to be clear, I’m not saying Jesus derived his answer from Tobit (because they would have rejected it). Jesus could have easily cited passages from the prophets (Is 26:19; Ezek 37:1-14; Dan 12:2) to justify the resurrection, but they would have rejected that as well.

It makes the most sense that the Sadducees are asking a hypothetical question based on Tobit hoping to stump Jesus with an unanswerable question. (even though it is not clear and explicit that Tobit is being refered to).

It is clear that they were trying to trip him up on the levirate law. (Mat 22:24)

"When brothers live together and one of them dies without a son, the widow of the deceased shall not marry anyone outside the family; but her husband’s brother shall go to her and perform the duty of a brother-in-law by marrying her. The first-born son she bears shall continue the line of the deceased brother, that his name may not be blotted out from Israel. (Deut 25:5-6)

Then Jesus astonishes the crowd with his teaching. He affirms the belief in the resurrection (which was the majority belief) and says that earthly marriage ends at the resurrection. We will no longer have to help our spouses advance toward holiness and beget children (which was the reason for the law).

Then he does one better by tailoring his response specifically to them. He cites one of the books of Moses in verse 32, which they cannot argue against.

**I am the God of your father," he continued, “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob.” Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. (Ex 3:6) **

So, I’m just going to concede your point about Tobit. It seems very clear to me, and I see no reason to change my mind about it.

Peace

 

[dlerhetal]

I can’t find a line which speaks about a person cut in half. Could you be more specific?

Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—

 

[dlerhetal]

I’m not sure what you mean by a vicious circle.
…

We’ll I don’t know what to tell you about the number discrepency.

…

You are right. We can not say difinitively they are talking about Tobit. There is strong evidence they are though.

…

Just to be clear, I’m not saying Jesus derived his answer from Tobit (because they would have rejected it).

…

It makes the most sense that the Sadducees are asking a hypothetical question based on Tobit hoping to stump Jesus with an unanswerable question. (even though it is not clear and explicit that Tobit is being refered to).

…

So, I’m just going to concede your point about Tobit. It seems very clear to me, and I see no reason to change my mind about it.

I think we’ll agree to charitably disagree on some of the insignificant details of this conversation. If we were face to face and I had a flip chart and could draw you a diagram and were a better communicator, I would like to walk you through why the claim that it is a valid reference is actually comical, but you and I seem to agree that it’s just not that important.

The original purpose for my question was that I had heard too many people saying that the disputed works were never quoted ever by anyone of significance and yada yada yada and I so found that to sound like a crock because even godless pagans got a few nods here and there (like by the Apostle Paul) but I was really frustrated by the references being offered because they just are not references. In fact, it’s somewhat insulting to me for them even to be called references.

Now that I feel that I’ve somewhat exhausted this particular question, my next one will be, “What are the doctrinal implications for including the Deuterocanon?”

 

[ryanoneil]

I think we’ll agree to charitably disagree on some of the insignificant details of this conversation. If we were face to face and I had a flip chart and could draw you a diagram and were a better communicator, I would like to walk you through why the claim that it is a valid reference is actually comical, but you and I seem to agree that it’s just not that important.

Yes

Now that I feel that I’ve somewhat exhausted this particular question, my next one will be, “What are the doctrinal implications for including the Deuterocanon?”

Do you mean implications of saying they are refered to in the New Testament?
OR
Implications of the Deuterocanon being included in the canon. (actual books of the Bible)?

 

[Sinke]

Hebrews 11:37 They were stoned, they were sawn in two, they were killed with the sword. They went about in skins of sheep and goats, destitute, afflicted, mistreated—

That’s not how my version of Bible looks like, but I have no reason not to believe you. That apostles citate various sources is no secret.

I, however, think that the passage we are talking about clearly speaks of Deuterocanon. We could say that many people died in hope of resurrection, but that would be insisting on much less possibility.