Posted on 10/03/2014 2:33:43 PM PDT by NYer
You have the root word fallacy that imagines the root must define how it is used today.
My, you look nice today.” That sounds like a kind thing to say, right? But imagine if you said this to a woman who then slapped you, screaming: “How dare you insult me! The word nice comes from an old French word nice that means “careless, clumsy; weak; poor, needy; simple, stupid, silly, foolish.” And that French word in turn comes from an even older Latin term, nescius. That word is made up of ne-, which means “not,” and scire, which means “to know” and it related to our word science. The Latin word means ignorant. So you just called me stupid and ignorant! How dare you!” - http://www.rightreason.org/2013/nuts-and-bolts-016-the-root-fallacy/
But in defining how a word was originally used by what it came to denote (like priest ), you have the etymological fallacy that
holds, erroneously, that the present-day meaning of a word or phrase should necessarily be similar to its historical meaning...A variant of the etymological fallacy involves...claiming that a word should be used in a particular way because it has a particular etymology...The word apologize comes from the Greek word ἀπολογία (apologia) which originally only meant "a speech in defence"...The word began to be used eventually as only expressing regret mainly because words of remorse would often accompany explanations, - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy.
How about something like "since the Catholic church has decreed that Catholic doctrine, as authoritatively proposed by the Church, has the same God as its author as the Scriptures it is the steward of, then Catholic doctrine should be the supreme law, and all interpretation is foolish and false which is opposed to the doctrine of the Church." If she does say autocratically so herself.
Sorry, I'm fresh out of patience on this issue.
Too many tax collectors.
Send the bill to those on your own "team".
God works in mysterious ways...
That was an excellent quote, it was great to read it again!
bump
You’re making no sense at all.
Playing tag with logic.
The meaning of Nicolaitan is also obvious because we know that Yeshua despised the Pharisees, who were certainly nicolaitans of that time.
The vast majority of Yeshua’s earthly ministry was centered on discrediting and making fools of the Pharisees.
His first miracle was to mock their hand washing pots by making wine in them
[6] And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews...
And from then onward, every time he encountered them he found a way of ridiculing one of their Takanot.
Nicolaitans were then, as they are even more so now, the greatest stumbling block to the spread of his Way.
Those that are themselves nicolaitans do chafe at this, as would be expected.
>> “of course one sardonic carpenter said not all those who say lord lord will enter the kingdom, but only those who does the work of the father.” <<
.
Amen!
That sentence encapsulates the core message of the entire New Testament.
Everyone thinks that verse means someone else.
.
Playing tag with truth. If Nicolaitan means what you say, in context, make your case. Jesus used logic. God invented logic. No need to hide from the logic unless you’ve got no case.
Yes he did but it has evidently gone clear over your head.
What? I say a simple formula to get saved? Presto! Halleluyah!
Then I guess I can go around proudy ridiculing everyone since I am saved, not like the rest of you sinners.
No.
We had a heated discussion about whether Jesus was sufficient for salvation. It seems some are reluctant to make that simple statement.
Of course to be saved one must put their faith upon Him. There’s no other way to the Kingdom of God.
What do you believe?
“The phrase “seem to me” makes the statement an expression of the poster’s own mind rather than a reading of the correspondent’s mind.”
That’s what lawyers call a “loophole.”
No, my points are more nuanced than that.
“Nuanced?” John Kerry would approve your message.
At the time Paul was around, there already WAS a Greek translation of the Hebrew books of Moses - and probably some of the prophets, as well. Ever hear of the Septuagint? Your "obviously" isn't obvious at all!
Why don't you ever post proof of the contentions you make? Where are all the manuscript fragments of these "original" NT documents? What proof do you have other than conjecture, supposition and modern-day legend and myth? Do you expect anyone who knows anything about textual criticism to just concede you are right and Christians for the last two thousand years have been missing out on all the fullness of the truth God wants to give?
The "desire to defeat God's word" sounds like it is coming from yours and Michael Rood's side than that of those who believe God can communicate HIS truth no matter what language it is spoken/written in. Your view is the one that seems to be deliberately ignoring that point and depends upon foolish fables.
BTW...do you speak and read fluent Hebrew? If not, who are you to be telling genuine believers they can't understand God's word and are really unbelievers?
It's just a diversionary tactic and one used by the RCC to convince its followers that they can't understand Scripture and thus to keep them away from simply reading and following it.
There's far less interpretation needed for Scripture than is imagined by the average RC.
They just use it as an excuse to not read and obey.
No, as a Catholic I pray for the dead; including my younger brother, my family members and friends who have gone before me. If you find this wrong, don’t do it.
Anything else you do not understand?
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel. (Douay)Observe this grammatical wonder: Our Lady's seed is "it" in one part of the sentence but it is equipped with "his heel". Not "its heel".
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (KJV)
The point remains that however you render it, Mary is right there in the context in which the crushing occurs.
I answered what you asked, to my knowledge. If I missed something, ask again. Short sentences and short posts work best.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.