Which state will he ship the bodies to?
Responding to an old post, but, I gotta ask, of all the books to reject, why Maccabes? While it’s certainly a religious book, it’s also a fairly straightforward account of historical events that are well attested by other sources. It seems like the easiest book for a non-Jew to accept.
Because there’s no way a Trump-fearin’ 'Murrican Protestant is going to worship some Australian burger joint!
Look up what the OT Canon of the Ethiopian Orthodox (Tewahedo) Church looks like. That’s some serious completists.
The Heritage Foundation wants DHS to deport Prince Harry because… reasons?
I guess they could thereby “prove” that they aren’t racist against people of non-European heritage–they treat European people just as badly as anyone else. (‘See! We stuck it to Prince Harry, an actual white guy, no matter who he married!!!’)
Of course there are bound to be people of Ginger heritage who cry foul, but…
Well, they’ll be looking into Melania Trump and her parents got in any day now!
And they’ll be whining about her anchor baby, too!
The Jews don’t accept it either, even though it makes us look pretty good. I suppose the reasons are either theological or more likely, political. Or maybe it’s just too new.
It’s possible that the ‘well attested by other sources’ makes the other books like bad?
Also, as a young Catholic I learned somewhere (priest? a magazine or book?) that the Catholic practice of praying for the dead (one of the things many non-Catholics normally look askance at?) is supported there (and hence the concept of Purgatory). Not that the Church has historically leaned all that hard on the Bible for teachings, of course.
Nah. I mean, it’s set centuries after even the latest portions of the bible, and nothing in it retroactively contradicts anything there, to the best of my knowledge.
What I meant was it is provably accurate at some level, unlike Genesis, Exodus and (I’m guessing here) a lot of stuff up through Kings at least. Which is potentially uncomfortable for Biblical literalists.
You’re thinking like a modern intellectual. Back in the Classical Era, proving things with evidence wasn’t part of the academic method.
True, and I suppose that that kind of thinking probably didn’t have much to do with what books ended up considered “canon” in various faiths.
Watch the reaction of the woman behind him as he lowers the boom.
Hey, we’re marginally better than ISIS and the Taliban, we just want to legally oppress gay people instead of tossing them off buildings. So quit calling us bigots!
As I understand it, it’s a matter of the provenance, not of the content. Most Protestant bibles are based on a particular collection of old scrolls that (for whatever reason) didn’t include those, while the compilers of the Catholic canon looked to a wider variety of sources.
That’s priceless.
You know, until you said this, I was assuming that “Book of Maccabes” was just what English speakers called the Megila for Hanukkah, which while certainly not part of the Tanach is still used by many Jewish communities; but reading up on it showed me that these are two distinct things. Learn something new every day!
I thought that was that one Altman film, Maccabes & Mrs Miller?