[Dutchboy88]

"Lol ... finally, a post that quotes scripture, on which we both agree,"

Be extremely cautious in describing what I think about matters. We definitely do not agree upon the aberrant hermeneutics used in this article. You may enjoy placing yourself anywhere in the biblical story, but if so it explains why you endorse the errors of Rome.

And, for those lurkers who wish to run to Rome's defense, this is not an "anti-Catholic screed". It is a call to be anti-error with regard to biblical interpretation.

I am more than happy to identify myself as a biblicist, paying close attention to the unfolding story of the Scriptures. I am more than happy to endorse proper hermeneutics to recognize what the original writers' intents are and how that actually applies to us non-jews in the 21st century. The writer of the article needs some tutoring along this line.

[verga]

I am more than happy to identify myself as a biblicist, paying close attention to the unfolding story of the Scriptures. I am more than happy to endorse proper hermeneutics to recognize what the original writers' intents are and how that actually applies to us non-jews in the 21st century. The writer of the article needs some tutoring along this line.

And we should accept your interpretation because.....?

[narses]

And, for those lurkers who wish to run to Rome's defense, this is not an "anti-Catholic screed".

[smvoice]

..like the three most important questions to ask when reading Scripture, and in this order.

1. Who said or wrote it?

2. To whom were they speaking?

3. What did they say?

To jump to number three before knowing the answers to one and two is to cause nothing but confusion and biblical error. Guaranteed.

[dangus]

So sad to see such a beautiful set of scripture reflections marred by such fanatical hatred.