Posted on 03/21/2016 3:43:44 PM PDT by NYer
LOL ... thanks, I needed that!
Why should any of us come to your every pathetic beck and call to your pet-peeve: evolution, when you know very well where each of us stand on it. At least two of us haven’t even posted on this thread.
Why should anyone come to the call of a Christ-denier who doesn’t believe in half of the Bible? And then accuses them of not telling the truth when they refuse to address his each and every ping.
Get lost. If you think I’m a liar, why do you keep pinging me for my opinion?
According to his calculations: the time and date of the creation as the entrance of the night preceding the 23rd day of October... the year before Christ 4004; that is, around 6 pm on 22 October 4004 BC according to the proleptic Julian calendar.
Ah yes . . . those rascally Calvinists! They're to blame for the silly un-Catholic idea that G-d doesn't make mistakes or tell lies! How dare they???
Certainly we know that NO Catholic ever in 2000 years ever believed in creationism. Why, Catholics believed in evolution from the beginning! They prosecuted Galileo for Biblical literalism! And I'm sure everyone knows that there was no such thing as a literal interpretation of Genesis 1-11 until Charles Darwin came along with his "new" theory (which Catholics had always believed for 2000 years anyway) at which point a bunch of "inbred morons" (as opposed to the illiterate intellectuals in Guatemala) suddenly invented total Biblical inerrancy out of whole cloth! Why, they'll fry in hell for doing that![/sarcasm]
Now that you have paraded your ignorance for all to see, I wish to inform you that we do know when the universe was created. It is Halakhah that the universe was created ex nihilo going on 5776 years ago. The first day of creation was 'Elul 25 and the sixth day was 1 Tishrei--Ro'sh HaShanah.
I really wish I could show you some of my books right now--none of which were written by Protestants of any persuasion.
“How wonderfully far-sighted of you not to be disabled. Why didn’t I do that? ‘Cause I’m evil, I suppose.”
No, but if you can use a keyboard, you can work.
“It wouldn’t matter if you did. You wouldn’t have objected anyway.”
You’ll never know.
“I have reached the conclusion that your one-time claim of being a creationist was nothing but hooey.”
And all you’re doing is proving me right about that obsession issue thingy you and I have talked about several dozen times now.
It is impossible for a man to fully think or feel without both.
To disregard one over the other splits a person up and nullifies the action of both faith and reason.
Thank you for admitting that the issue is of no concern to you. And until I see one of you actually respond to your evolutionist co-religionists I don't know that about any of you. Why should I believe something of which I have no proof whatsoever? That's what Catholics expect me to do with regard to evolution!
Why should anyone come to the call of a Christ-denier
Ironically, according to Fundamentalist Protestants Catholics are "Chr*st deniers" because they deny that salvation is a totally gratuitous legal loophole requiring no human participation whatsoever. Some of them even call people like you "Judaizers." After all . . . circumcision, baptism . . . what's the difference?
who doesnt believe in half of the Bible?
Again, I'm really doubting your status as a Profound Intellectual right about now, because you're missing the point that I'm asking you to defend a part of your own Bible, whereas you're asking me to defend something that to me is no different from the "book of mormon." But you just keep on using that as a (pardon the expression) "fig leaf."
And then accuses them of not telling the truth when they refuse to address his each and every ping.
None of you (you and the other FReepers you have pinged) have ever addressed a single one of my pings on this subject. Ever. You have all claimed to believe Genesis is inerrantly true, yet none of you has ever even a single time rebuked an evolutionist, higher critical Catholic, even when the evolutionist Catholic was claiming that creationism is itself heretical and un-Catholic. On top of that, most of you claim to never see any of these posts. That's hard to believe, since I see so many of them.
Only two Catholics have ever publicly opposed evolutionism on this forum. One is my friend wideawake who used to do yeoman battle the evolutionists until he got sick and tired of the whole business. Ethan Clive Osgoode actually has an anti-evolution and anti-Darwin web site, though I've never seen him respond to a "Catholicism mandates evolutionism" post on the forum. (Courtesy ping to both.)
Get lost. If you think Im a liar, why do you keep pinging me for my opinion?
Please forgive my emotional reaction at seeing an "ancient, unchanged" religion attacking other people for simply standing up for the truth of the so-called "Catholic" Bible--a reaction based on nothing more nor less than an antipathy to the poor rural Anglo-Saxon population of this country (which includes me). I will endeavor from now on to just file you away as being on the other side.
How wonderfully far-sighted of you not to be disabled. Why didnt I do that? Cause Im evil, I suppose.
No, but if you can use a keyboard, you can work.
You have no idea all the things that can be wrong with a person, do you? You're lucky.
It wouldnt matter if you did. You wouldnt have objected anyway.
Youll never know.
I know that you seem to hate me to a point almost inconceivable. Believe me, it's the same thing.
I have reached the conclusion that your one-time claim of being a creationist was nothing but hooey.
And all youre doing is proving me right about that obsession issue thingy you and I have talked about several dozen times now.
Ah yes, good Catholics can't be obsessed with such things. Catholics have to be obsessed about those things they disagree with the "rednecks" about. Obviously those are the most important things, since The Accursed People don't accept them.
And you know this how? My an uncritical reading of Rev. Hislop? Have you checked his footnotes? They are phony.
By the way, Non-English speakers, overwhelmingly refer to the celebration of the Resurrection as Pascha (Greek) or Pasqua (Portuguese) or dome other translation of Passover (Pesach).
Easter was used in English after the goddess Eostre (NOT Ishtar).
How long does it take God to move the oceans to reveal land? Or to create man?
Good.
**..continual re-sacrificing of Christ over and over and over again.**
I’ve asked them about the over and over and over again, but never seem to get the same answer. The closest thing to giving the same answer is something like: “It makes me feel close to God, the ceremony etc.”
In other words, it eases people’s conscience because it makes them feel religious. So repeating the ritual seems to be mostly for that purpose.
If it is partaken of for eternal life, why does it take more than once?
If it does take more than once, why does it wear off?
In that case, when does one know that it has worn off?
Why do some partake of it everyday? and some once a week? and some when they find the time?
Genesis 1:2 describes the first flood. Jeremiah and Peter also talk about the first flood.
Peter says that a thousand years is a day with God. The dove finding that green leaf is not described as a miraculous tree planting. Look to the reason for the flood.. Where ever the ‘sons of God polluted God’’s creation is where the flood occurred.
To claim to eat the divinity of God The Father in the personal flesh of Jesus The Christ is blasphemy for certain. but since the god of Modern catholiciism is not God The Father Almighty, nor Jesus the Christ, the exercise is as effective as the pagan religions that taught the same ritual for use of the food sacrificed to idols, which the First Church council advised against.
“You have no idea all the things that can be wrong with a person, do you?”
Yes, I do. You’re showing several.
“You’re lucky.”
I don’t believe in luck.
“I know that you seem to hate me to a point almost inconceivable.”
I don’t hate you at all. I just think you need to get help. I’ve told you this before. In detail.
“Believe me, it’s the same thing.”
I have no idea what that means.
“Ah yes, good Catholics can’t be obsessed with such things.”
It has nothing to do with “good” Catholics. It has nothing to do with “bad” Catholics. Your problem is your problem.
“Catholics have to be obsessed about those things they disagree with the “rednecks” about. Obviously those are the most important things, since The Accursed People don’t accept them.”
Keep projecting in a ridiculous fashion. It only proves my point.
Your surmise is so wrong, and MHGinTN's statement is so right, that it is almost laughable that his truth should be contested. Actually, my Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, says that "Easter" is from the prehistoric West Germanic name of a pagan spring festival derived from the root of "east" or "eastern."
In Bible history, Baal and Ashtaroth were the god and goddess of the pagans subverting Israelites (Jdg. 2:13. 10:6; 1 Sam. 7:3-4, 12:10), after whom places and cities were named.
These spring ceremonies were still being observed in Jesus' time by Gentiles, unarguably so. Now looking at Acts 12:1-4, and knowing that by Jewish law, Passover always precedes (Galilean) or starts (Jewish) the days of azumos (unleavened), Peter was arrestedduring those days, so Passover had already passed. But the other Gentile spring feast of Easter very close to Passover had not yet occurred, because it was after "Easter" when Herod intended to bring Peter out to the people (probably to execute him).
And this is why, despite some popular commentators as well as newer mistranslations, both the Authorized Version and MHGunTN are correct.
For more on this, click on:
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/easter_is_not_a_mistranslation.htm
Over and over again, in the Old Testament, one sees the planting of, or resort to "groves" (asherim) forbidden by Moses:
"Thou shalt not plant thee a grove of any trees near unto the altar of the LORD thy God, which thou shalt make thee" (Deut 16:21AV).
Strong's Number H842
אשׁירה / אשׁרה
'ăshêrâh / 'ăshêyrâh
Brown, Driver, & Briggs Definition:
Ashera(h) = groves (for idol worship)
1) a Babylonian (Astarte)-Canaanite goddess (of fortune and
happiness), the supposed consort of Baal, her images
. . 1a) the goddess, goddesses
. . 1b) her images
. . 1c) sacred trees or poles set up near an altar
Part of Speech: noun proper feminine
This is the same Ashtaroth spoken of above.
I think the rumor is true that the statist church shifted the allegiance of proto-paganists to their culturally prechristian feasts and revelries by renaming them with religion-related identifications--holidays of "saints", of supposed "miracles" (In Hoc Signo), etc. Regarding Easter, why not bunnies, eggs, feasting meals, etc.
In the spring, deliberately slated to not fall on the Jewish Passover days, so as to get the religious observers away from both the Jewish and pagan feast days, yet not altogether abandoning them, but rather collaborating so as to be everything to everybody, the statist "church" exercised its catholicity to ease the native Gentiles into a corrupted, but not true, form of "christianity."
True Bible-believers do not honor these days in ways or manners that would undercut the meaning of the Cross and the Resurrection/Ascension of Our Eternal High Priest.
So be it.
Yes, Peter says a thousand years is like a day with God but that is completely out of context with the creation account in Genesis.
Everywhere the Hebrew word yom is used with an ordinal number in the OT it means a 24 hour day as we understand it.
Is it beyond God's ability to create everything we know in six days?
If it is, then this coming Sunday might be a problem for Him also.
You can't have the ability to do one without the other.
Those threads are very useful for evangelization; they're why we make so many converts.
If you have not seen it before, the link in post #55, to the essay by Gerald Schroeder might interest you. How long something takes to happen can be very different in perspective depending upon the frame of reference. Even Albert E came to understand this and shared a math solution for us, in a limited sense ... the Lorentz transformations had been around for a long time by Albert’s time.
I often think about the extent to which Freepers bash each other and then I go and do it. I stand by my points but I really wish I had shared them in a more friendly way.
By the way, you can check-out Ralph Woodrow's re-evaluation of Hislop at www.equip.org/article/the-two-babylons/. At one point he was the biggest proponent of Hislop's work.
Newberger
No worries. I am not familiar with ‘Hislop”? But appreciate yet another name to trail off after.
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.