Posted on 10/15/2001 6:54:40 AM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
I think I'll wait for Steven to test it out and report back. Maybe if you're one of those Phillistines who cooks all the life and flavor out of bacon, it might not make a difference. But if you believe that bacon should be chewy, like me, I remain skeptical.
SD
SD
Where does father christmas fit into all this?
Becky
John isn't talking about the day of the week. John is saying that he was transported, in spirit, to the Lords Day, the Day of the Lord, the prophesized end of time. It makes no sense at all for him to be mentioning a day of the week called "The Lords Day". The common way of referring to days of the week at the time was to number them. The first day, the second day, the seventh day, etc. This is consistent throughout the bible.
Christ rose on the 1st day,
Really? As far as I can see, they found the tomb empty at dawn on the first day, but he had been resurrected before then. So he could have been resurrected on the sabbath just as easily.
appeared on the first day to his disciples, pentecost happened on the first day,
They saw him on the first day, true. I can't find a scripture saying that Pentecost was on the first day...where did you find it?
the first day of the week is when the early church gathered. I would like to point you again to Act 20:7 "On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul began talking to them". The second clause is a compliment to the first. It is saying that the first day of the week is when they gather to break bread. So it could also be read like this. "On the first day of the week, the day we gather together to break bread, Paul began to talk to them".
See my response to Becky on this verse, post 6739.
Clearly, sunday was the day the early church gathered.
The only thing clear was that they kept the Sabbath.
I just usually read the first paragraph containing your editiorial remarks. Hey, you asked.
You are, my friend, a victim of a faulty translation of the Hebrew. The word ka-'ari does not mean 'pierce'. If 'pierce' were the intended meaning, the psalmist would have used a different word, probably nakar, which is used in 2 Kings 18:21:
Behold, you are relying now on Egypt, that broken reed of a staff, which will pierce the hand of any man who leans on it.
The faulty translation is based upon the assumption that the root of the word used is krh, which means 'to dig'. The problem is, karah refers to digging in the soil, and is made up of the letters kaph, resh and he. The actual word used (ka-'ari) is made up of kaph, 'aleph, resh, and yod.
The literal meaning of ka-'ari (and one which doesn't ignore the 'aleph) is "like a lion". A correct translation of the verse is "Like a lion they are gnawing at my hands and my feet." This ties in with the imagery of the rest of the psalm:
[13] they open wide their mouths at me,
like a ravening and roaring lion.
[16] Yea, dogs are round about me;
a company of evildoers encircle me;
Like a lion they are gnawing at my hands and my feet.
[21] Save me from the mouth of the lion...
Becky
That's different. How do you know that you fit in this category of people?
SD
Becky
Only the ones with cheese in them. :)
BigMack
Any relation to Steve Austin? We have the power, we have the technology. ;-)
SD
You give us a doctrine which teaches that outside the church there is no salvation, and that submission to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. In fact, you say that this is infallible. Then, you cite Vatican II and say that yes, in fact, those outside the church can achieve salvation. Then you tell us that both statements are simultaneously true. I'm sorry, but that is illogical. You assert two contradictory things. The two cannot be reconciled. Either salvation is possible outside the church, or it is not. If it is, then the "infallible" bull of Boniface is wrong, and Boniface was in error. Any person who was not bound by doctrine to believe in the inerrancy of the pope in matters of faith and morals would recognize this and be willing to say that Boniface was wrong.
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.