Search results

Ahh, so he rejected 1 Maccabees later. Like, when? He wrote this in his intro to 2 Maccabees.

But he specifically said he doesn’t view 1 Maccabees as Apocryphal. He says 1 Maccabees should be included among sacred scripture. He says the reason is because of understanding Daniel 11. Do you agree?

“just as it is proper for the first book (of Maccabees) to be included among the sacred Scriptures, so it is proper that this second book should be thrown out,” -Martin Luther - Preface to the Second Book of Maccabees (1534) The Apocrypha & Luther via Catholic Answers

The Apocrypha belongs in the Bible. People who take it out will be judged by God with the judgment that comes to people who remove things from the scripture.

I think I was clear enough for any normal person to understand. You don’t always have to specify every aspect in every technical detail in order for people to get what you’re saying. Even people who haven’t read the Bible know that Jesus was buried after dying in the cross. You’re splitting...

I used to think that this scripture contradicts the idea that Jesus descended into Hell: “And Jesus said to him, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise.” -Luke 23:43 - Bible Gateway passage: Luke 23:43 - New King James Version Jesus didn’t go to Hell! He went to...

Can you show a scripture verse that contradicts the claim that Jesus descended into Hell?

I didn’t walk off the plane straight into my hotel room. I had to leave the airport first. Just thought I’d clarify that, because you might not have known otherwise.

Thanks for telling me. I wouldn't have known otherwise. Seriously? You're just being technical.

God said that the 430 years starts with Abraham and ends with Moses

Overwhelming consensus? Paul the Apostle makes it clear that the 430 years starts with Abraham receiving the promise. When you put them in Egypt for 430 years, you can't add up all the ages. You'd have to add extra generations in there in order for it to fit. But if you go with 215 as Paul...

What do you mean? If you really want to get technical, then yea "when he was buried" is what I meant. What's the difference? He was buried when he died on the cross. I don't understand what you're getting at. It's like me saying "I went to a hotel when I landed in Chicago" And then you correct...

Sounds good. I’m cool with that. Point is they were using the word for what it actually means.

The modern church doesn’t want to believe what the Bible plainly says. But the early church had no problem believing. E.T. Phone home? [emoji338]

I just hate reading a lot on my phone. But since this is a PDF, I’ll download it and print it. Thanks.

If you look up the Council of Nicaea on Wikipedia, it says that one of the things discussed was when to celebrate Easter. But that’s actually not true. The early church fathers who spoke Greek used the word “Pascha”. That word is used 29 times in our New Testament and is translated as...

Why not just believe what it plainly says? “For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.” -Matthew 12:40 - Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 12:40 - New King James Version “by whom...

Dubious? Let’s see what that means: DUBIOUS, a. [L. See Doubt. The primary sense is probably to turn or to waver.] 1. Doubtful; wavering or fluctuating in opinion; not settled; not determined; as, the mind is in a dubious state. 2. Uncertain; that of which the truth is not ascertained or...

The beliefs of the early church were drastically different than the beliefs of the modern church. That’s not supposed to happen in your view, yet here we are.

Why is it better?