Posted on 12/04/2006 7:52:47 PM PST by Pyro7480
Our Churches agree on that, but, repeating Kolo's key point, we simply don't know when she became κεχαριτωμενη.
As a child, she would not have sinned.
But I will go one step further and personally disagree with your statement, simply because Mary's nature was different from Eve's. Which makes Mary's perfect obedience a greater feat than would have been Eve's perfect obedience!
Adam and Eve would have been immortal had they been obedient; Mary's flesh and therefore Christ's flesh were not. This was certainly not because they sinned, but because Baptism and sinlessness in life cannot change our mortal nature and make us immortal.
So the effects or our ancestor's sin is present in all of us, as mortality. Baptism does not erase that and make us immortal. Being under grace does not change our mortal nature.
Other than that, we are born with no sin of our own, so it is pointless to speak of removing the "original sin" in Mary unless it implies that she was made immortal. My understanding is that some Catholics hold to that belief but the Church remains silent on it.
Adam was neither perfect nor God. There is no comparison.
No, Christ had free will and could have rejected the Cross
Christ is perfect God and perfect Man. Therefore His human nature is perfectly united with the Divine nature. Adam's nature was potentially perfect and potentially fallen. Christ was never in that predicament.
The temptation was for Christ to use His own Deity and not to depend on the Father
Christ's deity is not "His" own. The Godhead has only one divine essence, shared equally, and eternally by all Three Hypostases.
That was a mystery revealed to the church (Col.2:9)
As much as it is tempting to agree with +Paul's statement, I believe he did not mean it the way it is often interpreted.
I don't know where you are getting the Spirit in Col 2:9-10, and yes the essence is implied by fullness of deity in flesh and fullness of Christ in us. At least that's how it comes across.
I'm not aware of any credible dispute as to the authorship of these books
You need to read more about the Bible.
I think "image" has survived as a good description here. An "image" is a visible perception. "God" is not normally visible, but in Christ He is. That's all he meant
But, see, we are an "image" of God (whose "likeness" we lost). That does not make us divine.
"Nature" is a perfectly good translation (or use) of "morphe" (Strong's 3444)
I disagree. Morphe is the form by which a person or thing strikes the vision; external appearance. That is not our nature or essence (Gr. ousia)
That's because, first one must assert that Paul was not a Christian, that he was not born again
Paul never said he was a Christian. I have no doubt that when he was converted, whether the way he claims or not — it doesn't matter, he did not think he was "switching" to a new religion. He considered himself a Jew, and his faith, whether with or without Christ was always Jewish. The fact that he treated Gentiles as 'second class citizens" as far as Mosaic Law was concerned, circumcision and kosher habits does not mean he considered the faith to something new and not Jewish.
Christianity began to separate from Judaism when its members no longer constituted mostly Jews, but mostly Gentiles, towards the end of the 1st century, but not during Paul's lifetime. By the end of the 1st century, Christianity was de facto as well as de jure (Jamnia) a different religion.
The disciples HAD no worries, comparatively, but when Jesus went to Gethsemane, we saw His human nature
Christ is a perfect fusion but not confusion of two perfect nature's, one divine, the other human. What that means is that their relationship is in perfect harmony. Christ may have felt human needs and desires but He never did anything to counter His divine nature. The two were are in perfect harmony. Otherwise, Christ would not be perfect.
So, no, at not time was Christ not aware of His human or divine nature. If by "His human nature" you mean doubt, that would be an indication that He was not perfect and did not believe in Himself, but fell for the temptation of doubt.
Yes, of course. Adam was born with a potential to live eternally with God or to disobey and die. Our ancestral parents were created neither mortal nor immortal. What happened to them was their own decision with the freedom God gave them (freely, as He gives us all our blessings freely). ...... The only thing Adam and Eve did not need was Baptism. They were already born under grace. And they are perfect example that those under grace can lose it by their own choice.
But when formed, what did they need saving FROM? You are right that they had potential to sin, but that is not a crime. It was the sin itself that doomed them. They were formed with grace, but I contend that it was a grace of a different kind than "saving grace". I think most of us generally think of them as being in Heaven now, but the grace that made that happen didn't come until later, after the Fall. They repented.
This is why some of us (like me) consider being Protestant "easy." You just confess to God, say "Lord, I am sorry," and keep on sinning (boldly, to bring up Luther again) knowing that as long as we believe we don't have to change our sinful ways" because we are "saved."
While Jesus does tell us that His burden is light, the scripture explicitly contradicts all that you say we think. That's why we don't think it. We can and HAVE posted all the Biblical doctrine proving that it doesn't work like this. That's all we can do.
FK: "I don't think the doctrine of Invincible Ignorance ONLY applies to those who do not know Christ. My understanding is that it generally applies to those with beliefs outside those of the Roman Catholic Church."
Maybe, but as an Orthodox Christian I can only understand ignorance of Christ as applying to those who are not Christians. Christians who leave or stay outside the Church do so knowingly.
I can see that for those who believed, but then left your faith. What about the millions who know nothing about Orthodoxy, like me before FR?
I must say that my comments are just that, mine. As I said, I don’t like +Paul and never did. I don’t like to take medicine either, but the doctor tells me to take it and I have confidence he knows what he’s talking about. The Church tells me that +Paul’s writings are important for my theosis. I believe the Church.
Exactly my sentiment, even though I don't see them as such myself.
But this "closure" business: I am pretty sure there is none to be had! First of all, there is no "certainty" in a contingent world. Secondly, and of vastly greater importance, is the seeming fact that religion and theology address precisely those questions that must ever remain "open"
Only because they remain imperfect. Certainty is very much present in the contingent world: our intelligence and knowledge and perceptive abilities are finite; they may be greatly advanced, but still finite; in other words: finality is our certainty.
I am a devoted student of Eric Voegelin, who says that truth is never a final possession of mankind
My point exactly. Which is why we can only "approach" God by denial; we "know" what God is not more than what He is.
By asserting cataphatic (positive) statements of God, we find complimentary descriptions as open-ended approximations and not as facts.
All complementarity really says is although you can know the state of two apparently mutually-exclusive things that together form a system, you cannot know them both at one and the same time
That shows our finite intellect and knowledge. But even the two models which are "mutually exclusive" are that way only in our limited brains. This is where the spiritual and not noëtic approach takes over in the ascent to God.
I do disagree with you here, kosta!!! Just because we can't see the whole ball of wax entire, doesn't mean we can't know anything about the whole ball of wax
I say that we know nothing of what heaven is like. We know nothing outside of basic astronomical facts. We know not the worlds that exist nor will we ever know them in life on earth.
The only way we can talk about God is through anthropomorphism and spiritual "revelations" that are almost impossible to narrate.
And I imagine that what and how we think is amazingly consequential to the unfoldment of divine reality
I don't think so. That would make us essential elements in God's plan. Our rejection of God only hurts us, not God's plan. God is impartial, perfect Judge.
It would take a book to explain that. But then, my very dear friend Alamo-Girl and I are working on one, working title: "God and the Observer problem." God willing, we'll finish it some day Thanks again on your correspondence.
Well, hurry up and both of you autograph one for me! :)
Christ is a perfect fusion but not confusion of two perfect nature's, one divine, the other human. What that means is that their relationship is in perfect harmony. Christ may have felt human needs and desires but He never did anything to counter His divine nature. The two were are in perfect harmony. Otherwise, Christ would not be perfect.
I personally still don't have the capacity to discuss this awesome subject well, but I have kept a certain CD in my stereo for going on two weeks now so that it plays in the rotation while I'm spring cleaning - Michael Card and John Michael Talbot, Brother to Brother. Their song The Final Word, encapsulates my understanding of Christ as God Incarnate:
You and me we use so very many clumsy words
The noise of what we often say is not worth being heard
When the Father's wisdom wanted to communicate His love
He spoke it in one final perfect Word
He spoke the Incarnation and so was born the Son
His final word was Jesus, He needed no other one
Spoke flesh and blood so He could bleed and make a way divine
And so was born the baby who would die to make it mine
And so the Light became alive and manna became manHe spoke the Incarnation and so was born the Son
Eternity stepped into time so we could understand
His final word was Jesus, He needed no other one
Spoke flesh and blood so He could bleed and make a way divine
And so was born the baby who would die to make it mine
You and me we use so very many clumsy words
The noise of what we often say is not worth being heard
When the Father's wisdom wanted to communicate His love
He spoke it in one final perfect Word.
~Michael Card
He is the Good Shepherd
He's laid down His life for His sheep
So out of many nations
He's gathered one fold and one faith
And He has built His church
On the rock foundation of faith
On apostles and prophets
Who shepherd the people in His place
There is one faith, one hope, one baptism
On God and Father of all
There is one church, one body, one life in the Spirit
Now given so freely to all
He gave to Simon Peter
And to all of the twelve
The keys of the Kingdom
So darkness would never prevail
But some of the shepherds
Have pastured themselves on their sheep
So He has come out against them
And scattered His people of faith
There is one faith, one hope, one baptism
On God and Father of all
There is one church, one body, one life in the Spirit
Now given so freely to all
In good pasture He will shepherd His people
On the mountain top He feeds His sheep
He will lead the poor and afflicted
To the prisoner He brings release
There is one faith, one hope, one baptism
On God and Father of all
There is one church, one body, one life in the Spirit
Now given so freely to all
But He'll not forsake His people
He'll claim His sheep for His own
He'll send out His word to the nations
Regather His people back home
For He is the Good Shepherd
He's laid down His life for His sheep
So out of many nations
He's gathered one fold and one faith
Nice try, FK, but no go. :) +Paul says it was always his ambition.
What? You are referring to Rom. 15:20, but he obviously meant AFTER his conversion. Before that his ambition was to kill Christians. Paul also preaches against selfish ambition in Phil 2:3.
Hi AG! What's even weirder is that both died to the day on the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. What are the odds? :)
I hope you realize that is all our fancy and not God speaking.
Sure, absolutely. I really don't know. I can't think of where God tells us of what a "day" in the life will be like in Heaven (as you go on to say). Whatever it is, I know I'll like it. :) We do know that God Himself is very busy in Heaven, having done many many things within time throughout history. We also know that the angels are busy. So, I have no problem in thinking that we will be also, in whatever form.
However, the Scripture tells us that we will be judged according to our deeds. And that means there will be eternal inequality as well.
We're probably at similar ends by different means. I don't think one can be "more saved" than the next guy in Heaven, but whatever "rewards" means will lead to inequality on some level. I don't even know if that suggests permanency. In any event it appears to me that we are purposefully left in the dark on these matters so our thoughts will be much farther away from doing works "to get that thing".
Alex just told me that salvation and justification are interchangeable. Perhaps I am misunderstanding one of you. I would use salvation and election interchangeably in certain cases, but not in others. Maybe that's part of it. If you meant that the assurance of justification was potentially temporary, i.e., one could "take off" the mind of Christ and lose his justification, then I think that would match what Alex was saying. (Of course in that case, "assurance" would have no meaning of worth.) If true, then I would take it that you both do think of the concept of election as being a permanent status? I think of all three as being permanent.
If Paul himself could speak of his "disqualification" in 1 Cor 9, what makes you supposedly a "super Apostle" that you have been given assurance that Paul was not given? Such thoughts are not Scriptural.
The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:
1 Cor 3:14-15 : 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Besides, if you want to have a verse-off on whether Paul taught, preached, lived, slept and ate assurance of salvation/election, I would be more than happy to. I am CERTAIN of the outcome of THAT. :)
FK: "But you know better than I that there were plenty of heresies on things even more basic (and core) than the Trinity, such as Christ's identity. There are heresies about everything."
Which proves the error of your idea that a person can pick up the Bible and come to the same conclusions...
This goes back to the distinction I drew between understanding and belief. Anyone can read the Bible and understand the basics of my views, but to believe them is only by an act of God. To come away with Catholicism from the Bible I think would take an act of God in both understanding and belief.
FK: "That is unknowable. {there was no heresies on the Eucharist or Apostolic succession because "everyone" knew about it and was taught it.} Are you telling me that screwups like the Corinthians got tons of things wrong, but on these issues they got it exactly right? ..."
Are you aware of the VAST amount of Christian writings of the period we are discussing? I am sure you know there is a 34 volume book set that has SOME of the Church Father writings in them, from the second century up to maybe the seventh century?
What, these writings covered the truth of the Eucharist, but not Christ?
Your argument is invalid because it HOPES that SOMEONE taught that the Eucharist was not Christ. Yet, we have no evidence that an orthodox Christian taught that. Many taught or thought that Christ was the Adopted Son, was not the essence of the Father, and many other such matters.
Your argument is invalid because it presumes that the Eucharist was a better developed and accepted idea than the identity of Christ Himself. Therefore you are saying that some or many were completely wrong about Christ, but had the Eucharist just right. Unless you put the Eucharist higher than Christ, and I don't think you do, then this is impossible. It's not me hoping that I'm right, it's just logic. A false belief in Christ means a false Eucharist, which could include any number of errors about the sacrament itself. That's whether we have evidence of anyone writing about it or not.
Again, I will give you the analogy of receiving a text book on day one of Calculus.
Well, OK, but that DOES involve change in belief. The Episcopalian would say the God being against homosexuality was merely a teaching leading to the greater understanding that God thinks it's just ducky. All we need to do is reinterpret scripture using our greater understanding and all of this is clear, etc. The earlier Neanderthals up until the homosexual movement couldn't handle the truth, etc. The point is that anyone can simply SAY that in order to justify any change they want. "Evolving" to a greater consistent truth is all in the eye of the beholder. I thought that you would reject that. I put that into the same category of saying that we have a "living" Constitution.
What did the angel tell Mary again? And what did Mary do? Contemplate it in her heart, no? Read it more carefully. I do agree that all was not revealed to Mary. Nor was it revealed to Paul. That was my point, FK.
Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion. We don't know when Mary was converted, except that it was sometime after the scene at the Temple. Mary clearly didn't "get it" at that point, or do you argue against that? Would you talk to Jesus like that? :) Her thoughts are even revealed to us to prove the point. The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)
FK: "We don't honor her as you do, but none of the Protestants here I call friends has anything against Mary."
You are joking, right?
Nope. That is, unless you define not venerating her to your levels as having something against her. In that case the whole world hates Mary except you guys. :) There are tons of Biblical characters whom I would be "against" because they were bad actors, unrepentant sinners, etc. Mary is none of those. She was a wonderful and blessed woman, a role model for all of us in her faith. Is that having something against Mary? I've read everything from near the beginning of this thread and can't think of any examples from my friends on this side to the contrary at all.
But the following verses trouble me: "When the Father's wisdom wanted to communicate His love, He spoke it in one final perfect Word. He spoke the Incarnation and so was born the Son"
The only-begotten Logos (Word) existed all along (John 1:1), but not in Flesh. The Father did not make Him.
So many a believer drifts into this false notion that God the Father "made" Jesus, because it is somehow easier to "understand," and relate to.
Definitely agreed, kosta50!
I wrote: "And I imagine that what and how we think is amazingly consequential to the unfoldment of divine reality."
And you replied: "I don't think so. That would make us essential elements in God's plan. Our rejection of God only hurts us, not God's plan. God is impartial, perfect Judge."
Forgive me if I continue to think that human beings are critically important (in a way I admit is inscrutible to me) to God's plan for Creation. Were that not so, God would not have made humans "stewards" of all Creation; and when man fell, the Creation would not have fallen with him. FWIW.
I continue to think that human beings are critically important (in a way I admit is inscrutible to me) to God's plan for Creation
That sounds a bit narcissistic to me. Believing that we are God's central creation created the Old World Order. With Aristotelian logic (combining the First Cause with the Final Cause) and even using gravity to 'prove' it (proof here being only that it "makes sense") with his famous "things fall towards the center" revelation, the ecclesial notion that man is God's central creation was even more so reinforced by such working mathematical models of as Ptolemy's navigational system.
Three independent sources of human knowledge, logic, faith and science, all came to the same conclusion! We are not only God's central creation, but are even physically in the center of that Creation. That was a powerful constellation of human brain power that was so hard to shake, even when evidence to the contrary became unquestionable.
We must not start with the narcissistic conclusion, and then try to find evidence to support it. The fact that God created us, and the rest of the world, is all important, even perhaps critical. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of that Creation and say we are critical and everything else is not.
Because everything is interrelated, our fall caused the Creation to fall as well. It is not an individual's importance that is critial, but an individual's responsibility towards the the rest that is, because we drag others, and everything else to fall down with us if we fall.
They are. However, so we can speak on the same level, at times I will refer to salvation as that one-time event when we first receive Christ. Knowing that we can lose our inheritance, though, this salvation is not necessarily permanent. As such, neither is justification - the currently wicked are not jusified.
If you meant that the assurance of justification was potentially temporary, i.e., one could "take off" the mind of Christ and lose his justification, then I think that would match what Alex was saying. (Of course in that case, "assurance" would have no meaning of worth.) If true, then I would take it that you both do think of the concept of election as being a permanent status? I think of all three as being permanent.
I don't think Catholics think of "assurance" in the same way you do. We don't see salvation/justification as a legal issue, but a familial one. While it does have components of being legal, our relationship with God is described as between a Father and a child. There are legal issues in such a relationship, but these matters are very much secondary in our daily lives. Thus, we are told to persevere in our Father's love.
As to election, I think it is fair to say that we see it from the future looking back upon our past as we stand in front of Christ at judgment time and He says to us "well done, good and faithful servant, enter into my presence". Only at that time will we KNOW we are of the elect. I think we can say with relative certitude that we are of the elect when we look at our current actions and behavior, but this is not absolute certitude - we ALL can potentially fail. Thus, a man can abide in Christ today, thinking he is of the elect today, and then turn around and fall away - revoking Christ. Is such a man still of the elect? I would say the Scriptures refer to this sin of apostasy as sufficient to lose one's salvation. IF this happens even once somewhere, then absolute salvation guaranteed is false.
The "disqualification" he speaks of at the end of 9 does not refer to salvation. He switches gears in first talking about the aimless person, and then about beating his own, already saved, breast. It refers to the same rewards in Heaven he speaks of in 1 Cor. 3:14-15:
He doesn't say that FK. Where does he say he is already saved?
1 Cor 3:14-15 : 14 If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward. 15 If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
Really? You sure you want to discuss 1 Cor 3:14-17? Read 1 Cor 3:17 and you will find that Paul is not talking about rewards and rewards lost in heaven! First of all, in YOUR understanding of salvation, a person is not "just barely saved as if running out of a burning building"! Either you are saved or not. And it is not even your own doing. Thus, how can someone just "barely" be saved? Second of all, we have already discussed the Scriptures regarding rewards in heaven or loss of them. The Bible doesn't speak that way. Either one loses salvation and is condemned to eternal fire or they enter heaven. Have you not read the story of the vineyard workers who ALL received the same pay for various times at work? We ALL will receive the reward of heaven. These verses more properly would refer to the Catholic understanding of purgation.
Besides, if you want to have a verse-off on whether Paul taught, preached, lived, slept and ate assurance of salvation/election, I would be more than happy to. I am CERTAIN of the outcome of THAT. :)
I don't do "verse-off's" anymore because that rarely settles any issues. That is the problem with Bible alone. It doesn't solve much of anything because people can always dig up and twist Scriptures to suit their needs. I would prefer to look at what the first Christians thought on the matter, since they heard with their own ears the ORAL AND WRITTEN teachings given by them. Your tradition is 1500 years removed from the Apostles.
Anyone can read the Bible and understand the basics of my views, but to believe them is only by an act of God. To come away with Catholicism from the Bible I think would take an act of God in both understanding and belief.
I disagree, because I didn't come out that way. I was one of those unbiased persons who wanted to come to Christ and I didn't find the Protestant view satisfactory - I found it contradictory in many places, esp. sola scripture and sola fide. When I read the first Christians, I noticed they didn't believe what you claim was taught by the Apostles. If I believe the Apostles' witness, if I believe they were guided by God, I cannot fathom the Protestant viewpoint. While I don't fully understand everything Catholic, I trust that it is the fullness of God's Church on earth. Knowing God transcends our understanding, I have accepted that some things will not be fully understood by me.
Your argument is invalid because it presumes that the Eucharist was a better developed and accepted idea than the identity of Christ Himself. Therefore you are saying that some or many were completely wrong about Christ, but had the Eucharist just right.
No it is not invalid because the Eucharist WAS better developed in terms of its reality. The identity of Christ was NOT universally known and accepted by those same writers. All you need to do is read, FK. The evidence is clearly there. The major themes of the first three Councils were the identity of Christ. One of the greatest heresies was called Arianism - the idea that Christ was NOT the essence of God. Many in the East followed this teaching. Where do you find such disagreement on the Eucharist, FK? Again, if you want to know how the first Christians read the bible and understood the Apostles, you'll have to begin reading the Fathers of the first 2 centuries. That is how I became Catholic - by seeing that the Christian church was Catholic in beliefs and understanding of the Scriptures.
The point is that anyone can simply SAY that in order to justify any change they want. "Evolving" to a greater consistent truth is all in the eye of the beholder. I thought that you would reject that. I put that into the same category of saying that we have a "living" Constitution.
Ah, but if something is taught by the universal Church "everywhere, by everyone, for all time", then it is considered an Apostolic Teaching and NOT subject to change. God protects this teaching. Thus, Rome CANNOT change such teachings. You will NEVER find the Church teaching contraception because it has been determined to be Apostolic in teaching and coming from God. The Spirit has guided the Church for 2000 years on this issue - and thus, CANNOT be changed.
Paul knew Christ's identity immediately upon conversion.
No, I disagree. That is not how God works - with ANYONE. Even Christ "learned" and "grew" in wisdom. I don't see Paul receiving divine revelation in an instant about His entire plan. The Scriptures tell us that HE ALSO stayed in Antioch and learned the faith immediately following his conversion.
Mary clearly didn't "get it" at that point, or do you argue against that?
I think this is what makes Mary's faith in God so great. While some theologians may say that Mary's knowledge exceeded all else about Christ (which may very well be true), I think, by the way God works, that He prefers to place us in opportunities where we must TRUST in Him. That is how we grow in Christ - not by instant, freely given knowledge, but by experience Christ through the difficult and often dry moments in our lives. I think Mary's act of faith would be more meritorious and pleasing in God's eyes had she NOT knew everything and merely trusted that God would do what He promised. Paul also struggled throughout - I don't think he knew everything. And his faith in God was that much more meritorious.
The centurion was obviously fully converted when he spoke, so he had greater faith than Mary. It would be better for your side to say that Mary WASN'T converted by then. :)
I don't understand how you came up with that one. The centurion was fully converted? Which Scripture commentary makes such a statement? As to Mary not being converted, I guess it is your natural aversion of the Mother of God. I suppose Jesus really appreciates such thoughts about His human mother whom He fashioned from scratch. I suppose this is another stellar example of your "veneration" and "honor" you give to Mary. With friends like you, who needs enemies...
Yes, you are joking that "reformed" Protestants give honor to Mary. There are some Protestants who give Mary some honor - as Martin Luther did. But most do not. Sadly, they are missing the profound link between Mary and the Church.
Nope I was referring to Phil 1:20 "Christ will even now, as always, be exalted in my body, whether by life or by death."
Christ was not always exalted in his body. Combine this with Gal 1:16, where he says that God revealed "His Son in me."
Was Christ "in" Him all along, i.e. always, but he wasn't conscious of it until God [sic] revealed (i.e. uncovered) this to Paul?
I think this is one of the reasons Kolo (and I) find Paul difficult, even disagreeable, and wonder why would anyone ever listen to him.
He is verbose and pompous and his language is inaccurate; to me he sounds like a used cars salesmen. You never know what exactly he is saying because he could be saying all sorts of thing, and he is saying different things to different audiences.
Paul also preaches against selfish ambition in Phil 2:3
Yeah, well go back to Romans 15 and read nothing but boasting and conceit that comes out of +Paul.
That really alienates him from the rest. Of all the Apostles, he lacks humility so cruicial for Christian phronema.
Narcissism has nothing to do with it kosta50. I'm not "starting with a conclusion," then struggling to find evidence to support it. Actually, in this case, the evidence came first.... (Actually, it's quite a scary idea....) Nor do I hold any brief for regarding ourselves as "isolated from the rest of creation." Nothing could be further from the truth!
Tsk, tsk, tsk: You are using "either/or" thinking here!!!!! :^) LOLOL!
I disagree.
Tsk, tsk, tsk: You are using "either/or" thinking here!!!!!
The entire Bible is an "if-then" (either-or) proposition, betty boop. :)
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.