Posted on 09/02/2011 9:07:47 AM PDT by marshmallow
Minneapolis, Minnesota (CNN) –Prior to 2006, few people even knew that then-Minnesota state legislator Keith Ellison was a Muslim. Because of his English name, he said, no one thought to ask.
But five years ago, when he ran for a seat in the United States House of Representatives - a race he would go on to win - word of his religious affiliation began to spread.
“When I started running for Congress it actually took me by surprise that so many people were fascinated with me being the first Muslim in Congress,” said Ellison, a Democrat now serving his third term in the House.
“But someone said to me, ‘Look Keith, think of a person of Japanese origin running for Congress six years after Pearl Harbor–this might be a news story.’”
Though Ellison's status as the first Muslim elected to Congress is widely known, fewer are aware that he was born into a Catholic family in Detroit and was brought up attending Catholic schools.
But he said he was never comfortable with that faith.
“I just felt it was ritual and dogma,” Ellison said. “Of course, that’s not the reality of Catholicism, but it’s the reality I lived. So I just kind of lost interest and stopped going to Mass unless I was required to.”
It wasn’t until he was a student at Wayne State University in Detroit when Ellison began, “looking for other things.”
(Excerpt) Read more at religion.blogs.cnn.com ...
Sorry, the proper translation of that verse is "To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood -". Some translations use the word "freed" and others "loosed". It was an atonement, not an abultion. The Greek word used was λύσαντι meaning "released" (see Strong's Concordance 3089). Those translations that say "washed" are just wrong.
Ping to post #2981. (I'm not tearing anything).
"...even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word..." (Ephesians 5:25-26)
Hey, Iscool, after you said: "You need a pope to interpret the scripture and you need a pope to interpret the catechism", it appears we are now told we must need a pope to interpret their posts on Free Republic! ;o)
Do they use purified water and are they sure it’s pure or is it symbolic?
Hebrews 10:22 Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water.
Do they practice emersion or is the sprinkling symbolic?
Colossians 2:12 Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.
Or is the washing of water by the word?
Ephesians 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
They think the water makes them clean but Jesus says it’s the word He “has spoken”.
John 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Looks to me like they have to deny portions of scripture to make their theory work. But that applies to more that they teach.
The phrase "Washed by the Blood" of may appear in your hymnal, but it doesn't appear in your Bible.
Excellent observation!
It's obvious you need somebody because you are failing miserably on your own.
"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of GOd." Rom. 3:25.
"Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him." Rom. 5:9.
"In whom we have REDEMPTION THROUGH HIS BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, according to the riches of his grace.." Eph. 1:7.
"In whom we have redemption through his blood, EVEN THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS." Col. 1:14.
Hebrews 9:6-28. " And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; And WITHOUT SHEDDING OF BLOOD IS NO REMISSION." Heb. 9:22.
"And they sung a new song, saying, THou are worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou was slain, and HAST REDEEMED US TO GOD BY THY BLOOD out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation, " Rev. 5:9.
Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Let's see...John Chrysostom, or God???
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.
Nothing but the blood of Jesus...Ever...
Add to that this one
Rev 7:14 And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
A primary verb; to "loosen" (literally or figuratively) -- break (up), destroy, dissolve, (un-)loose, melt, put off.
NASB Word Usage
annuls (1), break (1), breaking (1), broke down (1), broken (4), destroy (2), destroyed (3),
loose (2), loosed (2), putting an end to (1), release (1), released (7), removed (1),
take off (1), unbind (1), untie (8), untied (1), untying (4). Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
No matter how you look at it, it was the blood that removed our sins from us. Play silly word games if you want. It doesn’t change what the scriptures say. The only revisions of the Bible that don’t render it “wash” are the new “per-versions” (http://www.av1611.org/wash.html). The older versions used “washed” for a reason. I’ll keep looking.
Understanding the bible is not a matter of philosophy...Do you find the statement you just made in the scriptures??? Did the Holy Ghost reveal it to you???
Likely your statement has a great deal to do with Plato...
The entire book of Revelation is a revelation to the Apostle John, from Jesus...So YOU are profoundly, fundamentally, and sadly WRONG...
However the translation reads. It’s obvious that it was Jesus blood that removed our sins from us NOT the water used at baptism.
The reading “set free” (λύσαντι, lusanti) has better ms support (Ì18 א A C 1611 2050 2329 2351 ÏA sy) than its rival, λούσαντι (lousanti, “washed”; found in P 1006 1841 1854 2053 2062 ÏK lat bo). Internally, it seems that the reading “washed” could have arisen in at least one of three ways: (1) as an error of hearing (both “released” and “washed” are pronounced similarly in Greek); (2) an error of sight (both “released” and “washed” look very similar – a difference of only one letter – which could have resulted in a simple error during the copying of a ms); (3) through scribal inability to appreciate that the Hebrew preposition ב can be used with a noun to indicate the price paid for something. Since the author of Revelation is influenced significantly by a Semitic form of Greek (e.g., 13:10), and since the Hebrew preposition “in” (ב) can indicate the price paid for something, and is often translated with the preposition “in” (ἐν, en) in the LXX, the author may have tried to communicate by the use of ἐν the idea of a price paid for something. That is, John was trying to say that Christ delivered us at the price of his own blood. This whole process, however, may have been lost on a later scribe, who being unfamiliar with Hebrew, found the expression “delivered in his blood” too difficult, and noticing the obvious similarities between λύσαντι and λούσαντι, assumed an error and then proceeded to change the text to “washed in his blood” – a thought more tolerable in his mind. Both readings, of course, are true to scripture; the current question is what the author wrote in this verse.
{ http://bible.org/netbible/index.htm}
AMEN, Lera. And thanks for this one. It is obvious to anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear, that it means what it says. It may be denied, but that does not change the truth. Thanks again!
smvoice
“Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others: For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement: So Christ was ONCE OFFERED to BEAR THE SINS OF MANY; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” Heb. 9:25-28.
*blink*,*blink* : |
Are you assuming this is the physical bosom of Abraham? The Bosom of Abraham is a place, otherwise known as Paradise. It is not heaven, for it is below us. It is Sheol.
Is the story of Abraham just a ghost story?
WHAT story of Abraham?
It may do you well to understand the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man by reading the surrounding context, and understanding WHO would be clothed in fine linen of purple.
Moses is with Jesus at the Transfiguration. [...] Was Moses a vision conjured up Jesus?
Perhaps, but I don't think so. But likewise, we don't KNOW the mechanics of what the Disciples testified to wrt the transfiguration. There may well be a time element involved - When seeing something of heaven, one has to remember it is outside of the constrictions of time - I am not saying this is the case, but one speculation is exactly as good as the next...
And what happened to all those who rose from their graves at the time of the crucifixion?
These were the first fruits - the emptying out of Paradise - Those who came before the Blood who were made justified. They were the true, real 'waive offering' before the Father which Yeshua performed... The early harvest. These were all translated to heaven early on Sunday morning (after Yeshua met Mary Magdalene at the tomb, but before His appearance on the road to Emmaus). A reasonable understanding of the Holy Days of YHWH and the duties of the High Priest will resolve these questions completely.
What we read in Scripture is not just a telling or retelling of stories, they are lessons to be learned, in them we learn of the glory of God, the history of His relationship to His Children and how He has redeemed us with His own Son. Scripture is written so that we can grasp these things and believe.
TRUE. But that does not give us license to make up what they mean out of whole cloth, or we will wind up believing something other than the Gospel and the Kingdom. What we KNOW of Abraham is that he died and was buried. We might assume he was later tranfigured and translated (and no doubt he was, as part of the emptying out of Paradise at the resurrection). But we are not allowed to just pull a rabbit out of our hat and create doctrine (not to mention dogma) that feeeeels good, but denies the plain text of the Scriptures which came before. To say that Abraham was transfigured immediately may well have happened - But that is not what the Bible explicitly says. To derive some implication beyond what the Bible actually says is a very dangerous thing.
They knew Scriptures backwards and forwards and yet could not see Jesus as the Christ even when He stood right before them. They were hard of heart and tied to their book and could not see past what they thought the Messiah was and would do. Scripture gives testimony of Jesus, but it did not contain all that there was to know of Him and because it didn’t they did not know Him.
I would submit that their imperfect knowledge came with their pious hubris, and their insistence upon their traditions. One might have a better grasp of this if one were to study the Talmud (the Jewish oral law) to see all the FALSE expectations about Messiah which were treated as equal to YHWH's word.
God will reveal what He will reveal, when He will reveal it.
AMEN to that! But making things up that clearly confound the Scriptures will blind the eyes when those revelations come - Even as many already have.
The entire book of Revelation is a revelation to the Apostle John, from Jesus...So YOU are profoundly, fundamentally, and sadly WRONG...
Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
Christ is an eternal priest. If He is priest FOREVER, there can be NO priestly succession. As long as man has access to God, there can be no need of vicars of Christ, among men.
That would seem to annihilate the claims of the RCC and their priestly succession.
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.