- Nov 28, 2003
- 21,630
- 12,160
- 58
- Country
- Australia
- Faith
- Eastern Orthodox
- Marital Status
- Married
Wasn't it Luther who described a snow covered dung heap?
Upvote
0
Wasn't it Luther who described a snow covered dung heap?
I have heard when I was a Protestant of the Evangelical type that Christ blood covers all sin but in essence if something is covered underneath it is still there, never understood that m
yself
What they are referring to is the debt of sin is covered meaning paid for. Not hidden. An example is if we go to eat at a restaurant and the bill is $35 I might give the cashier $40 and say here this should cover it. The bill was paid in full not covered up or hidden.
Nope they meant covered as in hidden I checked
Actually it is canonical it was man that took it out
Are you referring to all 4 Maccabees books, or just 3 and 4? 1 and 2 do show up in what is commonly referred to as the Apocrypha
Actually, we (and all of Christianity) for centuries base our Scriptures on the Septuagint because it WAS the recognized canon while Christ walked the earth. It is the Scriptures that were quoted by Him and the Apostles in the NT. We have to be careful basing our acceptance on Judaism centuries after already rejecting Christ as Messiah. One of their concerns was actually to not give any support to Christian understanding. So I'm afraid appealing to later century Jews to establish what should be canon, above the texts used and accepted by the Apostles and the rest of the early Christians, is not a safe practice.Maccabees is in the Septuagint. Jews don't even recognize it as being canonical today. That's why it is not in the Hebrew bible. You say that man took it out but it was man that put it in the Septuagint to begin with. Maccabees is a deuterocanonical book. It is not a protocanonical book. That means it was only put into the Septuagint as a testimony of history and not to be considered an authority to support ecclesiastical dogma such as purgatory or any other doctrines of the church. I'm glad it was removed from the bible because it causes too many to stumble from lack of understanding its intended purpose.
Agreed, with the note that this forum is actually not for debate. Discussion, but not debate. Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that as well.Why is it I have to remind people that this is a Traditional Theology forum? The RCC/EO/OO Churches consider the Apocrypha to be canon with some differences in what is included, Anglicans and Lutherans included the Apocrypha in their bibles. Please, refrain from making blanket statements when it doesn't apply to most of the individuals that debate in this forum.
Agreed, with the note that this forum is actually not for debate. Discussion, but not debate. Just wanted to take this opportunity to clarify that as well.
No, not at all. If you are part of a Traditional Church that rejects those books, that is fine. My point is that others who are part of Traditional Churches do. You're not against forum rules by believing what you do, but it's off topic to Traditional Theology to expect the forum to agree with that.By agreeing are you saying that because RCC,EO&OO recognize the apocrypha as canon but Protestants and Jews don't that I'm not in compliance with the rules of the forum?