| Your Monster Name is Merciless Alinsky Troll |
 You Lurk Around In: Free Repuplic threads You Especially Like to Torment: Christian Conservatives |
Posted on 09/20/2013 4:29:03 AM PDT by spirited irish
| Your Monster Name is Merciless Alinsky Troll |
|
You Lurk Around In: Free Repuplic threads You Especially Like to Torment: Christian Conservatives |
[W]e have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. . . . Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
(Source: John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Co. 1854), Vol. IX, p. 229, October 11, 1798.)
Like I said way back...just what we need,another pointy debate with lots of sharp pricks.
As to Jesus' self reference to being the Son of God and the religious Jews of his time reacting the way they did, is a pretty good indicator that it meant much more than an example of "extravagant praise". From the link The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity , we read:
His eternal participation in the Divine glory itself ("the glory which I had with thee," in fellowship, community with Thee "before the world was," xvii. 5). So clear is it that in speaking currently of Himself as God's Son (v.25; ix. 35; XI 4; cf. x. 36), He meant, in accordance with the underlying significance of the idea of Sonship in Semitic speech (founded on the natural implication that whatever the father is that the son is also; cf. xvi. 15; xvii. 10), to make Himself, as the Jews with exact appreciation of His meaning perceived, "equal with God" (v.18), or, to put it brusquely, just "God" (x. 33). How He, being thus equal or rather identical with God, was in the world, He explains as involving a coming forth on His part, not merely from the presence of God (xvi. 30; cf. xiii. 3) or from fellowship with God (xvi. 27; xvii. 8), but from out of God Himself (viii. 42; xvi. 28). And in the very act of thus asserting that His eternal home is in the depths of the Divine Being, He throws up, into as strong an emphasis as stressed pronouns can convey, His personal distinctness from the Father. 'If God were your Father,' says He (viii. 42), 'ye would love me: for I came forth and am come out of God; for neither have I come of myself, but it was He that sent me.' Again, He says (xvi. 26, 27):' In that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you that I will make request of the Father for you; for the Father Himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that it was from fellowship with the Father that I came forth; I came from out of the Father, and have come into the world.' Less pointedly, but still distinctly, He says again (xvii. 8): ' They know of a truth that it was from fellowship with Thee that I came forth, and they believed that it was Thou that didst send me.'
It is not necessary to illustrate more at large a form of expression so characteristic of the discourses of Our Lord recorded by John that it meets us on every page: a form of expression which combines a clear implication of a unity of Father and Son which is identity of Being, and an equally clear implication of a distinction of Person between them such as allows not merely for the play of emotions between them, as, for instance, of love (xvii. 24; cf. xv. 9 [iii. 35]; xiv. 31), but also of an action and reaction upon one another which argues a high measure, if not of exteriority, yet certainly of exteriorization. Thus, to instance only one of the most outstanding facts of Our Lord's discourses (not indeed confined to those in John's Gospel, but found also in His sayings recorded in the Synoptists, as e.g., Lk. Iv 43 [cf. j Mk. i. 38]; ix. 48; x. 16; iv. 34; v.32; vii. 19; xix. 10), He continually represents Himself as on the one hand sent by God, and as, on the other, having come forth from the Father (e. g., Jn. Viii 42; x. 36; xvii. 3; v.23).
Jesus is not a blasphemer because He IS God. He was telling them the truth and some refused to receive it just as many do to this day.
“Thy throne O God” is not talking about an earthly king. See verse 6 of Psalm 45.
So is it the Father or Son in Revelation 1:8? The modifier is in verse 7. Discussed again in verse 9.
It is what I call the lexicon shuffle. The prederists do it to try to prove all prophecy fulfilled to include the second coming of Christ and the resurrection of all mankind.
The Mormons do it to try to prove Joe Smith is one of the Revelation witnesses.
The FRomans do the lexicon shuffle to try to prove the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Mary.
So we are to believe every instance of “theos” means ‘god’ instead of God. And every instance in the OT of elohiym is god or gods.
That’s quite dishonest. How many Psalms that are Messianic start and end within context? It becomes quite clear the shift in verse 6. It is talking about God’s Throne.
Sir, I have read a number of books on George Washington to include his daily use of The English Book of Prayer. So to be fair I will post a prayer from Washington which I am sure will end up on someone’s site in the future. Here it is from the man with firery red hair and legs like tree trunks:
“O most Glorious God, in Jesus Christ my merciful and loving father, I acknowledge and confess my guilt, in the weak and imperfect performance of the duties of this day. I have called on thee for pardon and forgiveness of sins, but so coldly and carelessly, that my jjrgyers are become my sin and stand in need of pardon. I have heard thy holy word, but with such deadness of spirit that I have been an unprofitable and forgetful hearer, so that, O Lord, tho’ I have done thy work, yet it hath been so negligently that I may rather expect a curse than a blessing from thee. But, O God, who art rich in mercy and plenteous in redemption, mark not, I beseech thee, what I have done amiss; remember that I am but dust, and remit my transgressions, negligences & ignorances, and cover them all with the absolute obedience of thy dear Son, that those sacrifices which I have offered may be accepted by thee, in and for the sacrifice of Jesus Christ offered upon the cross for me; for his sake, ease me of the burden of my sins, and give me grace that by the call of the Gospel I may rise from the slumber of sin into the newness of life. Let me live according to those holy rules which thou hast this day prescribed in thy holy word; make me to know what is acceptable in thy sight, and therein to delight, open the eyes of my understanding, and help me thoroughly to examine myself concerning my knowledge, faith and repentance, increase my faith, and direct me to the true object Jesus Christ the way, the truth and the life, bless, O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou hast appointed to rule over us in church & state, continue thy goodness to me this night. These weak petitions I humbly implore thee to hear accept and ans. for the sake of thy Dear Son Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”
A most wise and measured response. I will add if anyone one wants to become an internet forum martyr, all they have to do is drop in an RC caucus:)
You would have to go to another site to find people to claim the founders were homosexual:) Not here. Jim would not go for such talk.
The only posters who talk a bunch about the founders being secret Masons and doing human sacrifices are foreigners and Democratic Underground.
You’ve been setting traps, and you got caught when you let it slip. Then you deny it and try to blame it on someone else. Who’d want a theology that makes a person do that?
No kidding.
Catholic habits die hard.
Where did I set a trap, troll? Just because I hope you fall into one, doesn’t mean I set it.
You’re such a despicable troll.
On the contrary, Jesus even claimed to forgive sins, for which He was charged with blasphemy (Mk 2:5–7), because He was fully aware only God can forgive sin.
In perhaps the clearest indication of His claims about Himself, when the high priest asked Jesus if He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus plainly declared that He was. Then He further asserted that He was also the Son of Man who would coreign on God’s throne and come on the clouds in judgment. The high priest pronounced these claims blasphemy (Mk 14:61–64). Judgment is reserved for God alone.
Ain’t that the truth! ;o)
***News to me. Do you have some bible verses to back up this contention?
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect—if that were possible.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Mt 24:24).
For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform signs and miracles to deceive the elect—if that were possible.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (Mk 13:22)
Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.
The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). (1 Jn 2:18).
How did you know there were traps? No one else mentioned them.
TL:How did you know there were traps? No one else mentioned them.
Except YOU did tl, in post 2,582
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3069049/posts?page=2582#2582
I followed the conversation back and found that post of yours where you first mentioned it.
That was the first mention of it I saw on the thread.
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.