Posted on 01/11/2005 6:18:33 PM PST by malakhi
| Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. |
After a nine month hiatus, The Neverending Story, the granddaddy of daily threads, has returned to Free Republic. Originally begun on March 24, 2001, as a religious discussion thread, the NES evolved over time into a daily thread spanning a wide variety of topics. The new and improved Neverending Story will feature conversation on religion, politics, culture, current events, business, sports, family, hobbies, general fellowship and more. We welcome you to hang your hat in our little corner of FR. We ask you to abide by the FR posting rules and, even in the midst of serious debate, to keep the discussion friendly and respectful. Those who wish to "duke it out" are asked to take it over to the Smoky Backroom. I placed this thread in "General/Chat" for a reason, so play nice and have fun! :o)
You see that the losing presidental candidates magazine of choice denied a Bible ad. Does this mean that they consider themselves part of the government.
No comment about my answer regarding Mary and Joseph?:')
That don't mean anything to them, the folks they follow have spun that nine ways to heaven. Just watch you'll soon find out just how stupid you really are.
BigMack
So what length of leases have you signed with your tenants? Did you do any sort of credit check on them first?
I wasn't talking about you.
BigMack
Who are them?
Can you supply a link? Everything I've read of his indicates that the entire collection dates from 200BC to 70AD. Did this one fragment somehow slip in a few decades later?
Second... it actually begs the question if you see HOW they date it to that period. He's actually taking your assumption and working backwards.
Fine. I won't explain the original context of a "DUAL" prophecy anymore. You'll think its spin.
Interesting. There is no one who disputes the historical reality of the birth of Jesus.
By "reality" I meant that He was born of a Virgin.
You are willing to cede it was not foretold in the Old Testament?
I said what I said. "it [is] possible to cede that it doesn't technically say "virgin" without affecting the reality of Jesus' [virgin] birth."
SD
You know I've never been a fan of dismissing other's arguments and beliefs as "spin." I get it continually from some elements here. And, no, it doesn't feel good.
My choice seems to be A) to be regarded as spiritually blind, or B) to be regarded as perfidious.
Or C) part of God's plan in a way we don't fully understand. That's what the Ratzinger document is saying about the Jews waiting for the Messiah.
SD
Oh ok thanx. Man its fun getting mail. I haven't had any in awhile. :-)
Ok I gotta hear this.
Is it ok if I use the word "forced" every now and then. :)
BigMack
Sure if you don't use it while spinning. :-)
Just curious. Do you consider yourself a Baptist anymore?
Please allow me to edit my response to Dave (#798). I didn't make it clear that I was speaking specifically of the virgin birth.
"Interesting. There is no one who disputes the historical reality of the birth of Jesus. You are willing to cede it the virgin birth was not foretold in the Old Testament?"
No. They have alot right, salvation, but they have enough wrong too that I do not want to be considered part of them.
We stopped going to church and are more or less a home church.
BigMack
????????????????????????? Post #?
Cool. Refreshing to see others who aren't opposed to change when the heart dictates.
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.