Reading Intelligent Atheist's comments to date I think any fair minded person will soon realise who is intolerant. "Priests of all religions" have not been involved in child abuse, chiefly RC priests. The RC Church opposed Copernicus, as did many of his fellow scientists. In your first comment you said you approved of all kinds of love, which is why I asked if you approved of paedophilia. Read "The Pink Swastika" for a well documented account of Nazi homosexuality. Ernst Roehm was not executed for being a homosexual but because he was head of 600,000 plus Brown Shirts and had spoken out against Hitler. The homosexuals who were put in concentration camps were mostly Communists or political opponents of Hitler. Some were incarcerated for being homosexual in order to cover up the widespread homosexuality among the Nazis.
Does Intelligent Atheist believe that paedophilia is love? The Bible, God's word calls homosexuality "vile affections" and "lust". Those that practice these things have been given over to a "reprobate mind". Intelligent Atheist obviously isn't aware that many of the top Nazis were homosexual. In fact homosexuality was known as the "German Disease" in the Thirties. The only chance that Jewish boys had of surviving the concentration camps was to become the lovers of the camp guards. Incidentally, "Intelligent Atheist" isn't that intelligent judging by his spelling ability.
Huh wrote: If they were full of faith, how could they come empty handed? There were sacrifices provided for the poor so that none should come empty handed. So, do you have any examples of people of faith coming empty handed, or is this theoretical to make, what you consider, an important point, Mr Schwab?!
At what point did the OT believer, weekly synagogue-goer, sacrifice-carrying, annual Temple-attender become justified -- that is totally saved for all eternity?
John UK wrote: Quote: I have it in mind that the OT saints were saved by the new covenant in Christ's blood, just as we are. They had types by way of animal sacrifices (which could not take away sin), yet in trusting to these sacrifices they were effectively trusting in Christ (who, though future, would take away sin) and thus were saved by grace via the atoning blood of sacrifice, even though the OT blood was merely a type. Hence "Christ our Passover is sacrificed for us.."
When these OT believers came empty-handed to the Temple but full of faith, was that enough?