Posted on 12/17/2010 7:31:07 AM PST by marshmallow
my idol wasnt worshipped, she was ventilated
She received grace; salvific grace... but it didn’t make her sinless in her person as in born sinless. Just showed you the scriptures to that effect and it went right over your head. Or you choose to ignore God’s word.
Hoss
What staff treatment decision are you talking about?
What part of nursing practice, other than directly participaing in an abortion, which the conscience clause protects nurses against, do you speculate would be influenced by a particular religion? Setting up IVs? Starting TPN? Giving a bedbath? Changing dressings? Administering medication? Irrigating a PICC line? Very seldom are nurses even aware of client religion or lack of it. Doing an EKG? Assessing body systems from head to toe? Sitting in a treatment plan meeting? Charting?
No... you didn’t. You put words in his mouth. Since you’re having trouble with this, let me refresh your memory:
roamer_1, post 877
“I use the Protestant canon primarily (because it is made of the books which are absolutely accepted by all), but yes, I do have Maccabees, and have studied it quite a bit, as with the many other books which might even remotely be attributed to the prophets/agents of YHWH. “
You, from post 884
“Interesting. Not the reply I expected. So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use? Have I understood you correctly?”
He in no way said ANYTHING about making a personal Canon. Yet, you ask him, ‘So you believe in making your own Canon for your own personal use?’
You put words in his mouth. That is disingenuous at best. And you won’t admit to it. You try to change the conversation. Sorry — but it’s in black and white. You didn’t ask if you understood him correctly; you set it up to make it seem as if he had said had made his own personal Canon.
Big BIG difference.
Hoss
Slick.
They each illustrate and answer a part of your question - kneeling, honoring, etc..
How do you communicate with them? How do you wing your requests to them?
I pray.
How do you make them hear you?
I pray louder. :)
Kidding aside, you would need to understand and more fully know the Communion of Saints as in the creeds. Without this, the rest is, at least in part, incomprehensible to you.
In short, we are one, as Jesus prayed in the garden. One in the Body of Christ. In communion - unity. There is no separation, no one outside to yell at in order to make them hear us.
OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
but it DOES! In a list of places well documented hereon. However, INSTITUTIONALIZED BLINDNESS prevails.
Clearly you don't. Nor do a list of other RC's hereon. Shocking.
I don't have the time and energy etc. to give even a short course in psycho-linguistics nor socio-linguistics. However, for some lurkers who still have the capacity to reason and some at least minimally functioning ears to hear and eyes to see . . .
GOD BEARER =
Bearing God; Carrying God; Transporting God; serving God as a cup bearer serves a king . . .
MOTHER OF GOD
brazenly IMPLIES, HINTS AT, ASSERTS PSYCHO-LINGUISTICALLY AND SOCIOLINGUISTICALLY THAT
Mary was BEFORE AND/OR ABOVE GOD ALMIGHTY and continues in some sort of PARENTAL ROLE over HIM.
THAT IS BLATANTLY FALSE, WRONG, INACCURATE, A DECEPTION, A LIE.
That the Vatican Alice In Wonderland School of Theology and Reality Mangling edifice is so brazenly stubborn about CONTINUING TO PROPAGATE THAT DECEPTION, THAT LIE, THAT IMPLICATION
IS VERY TELLING in terms of the idolatries involved.
Now, of course, the weasel worded rationalizations and denials will begin.
Correct. There are numerous man-made additions and expansions (see Mary) which are simply not supported, or even implied, by scripture.
I believe these additions to be both unnecessary and potentially hazardous, inasmuch that we as Christians should attempt neither to add nor take away from God's Word.
You’ll likely become a fossilized marblized rock waiting for RC’s hereon to apologize.
It’s against their RELIGION.
There’s probably a pile of White Hanky orders against it.
Excellent - I am very partial to Enoch. Sadly, it is fairly far from it's roots, but I do think the roots are there. It would be interesting to find out what your final analysis is... And one should read Jasher right after Enoch - They kinda go together...
There was some talk of starting a thread on Enoch... Quite a few of the Protestants are reading it - Duno what happened to that idea.
[roamer_1:] So, until the original (Hebrew) texts emerge, It is my opinion that the “new” must be proved in the “old” - quite the reverse of what is commonly insisted upon.
Too true. Too true. Kindred soul here. Yes, it is most unfortunate that we do not possess hebrew originals. Even the earliest Greek stuff only goes back to mid 4th century. There’s a lot of miles left to go.
You may be interested in the Shem Tov Matthew. No doubt it is far from it's root too, but there are tantalizing bits and pieces that are really enlightening. This vid is very enjoyable - Nehemiah Gordon, a Karaite Jew and scholar, speaks about the implications wrt Matthew 23. Note that I do not endorse the Shem Tov in it's current form, but Gordon makes a lot of sense. Pop me a FRe-mail and tell me what you think.
... An Old Covenant seeking Catholic... Now THAT's interesting...
I’d be more comfortable with the Masoretic text if they had an earlier date. I’m not sure quite what Jerome used, but there is a fair gap from the earliest Masoretic texts we have and Jerome.
I find that to be less of a problem. The Pharisees are the single official body from the Temple proper, where the main (official) copies of the Tanakh were kept. Equally worthy of consideration, the solemn duty with which the Scriptures were kept - Especially in the Hebrew, and one would think, particularly among those of the Temple.
The Oracles of YHWH were committed to the Hebrews- Why would I be interested in translations rather than the existing source? And, as it turns out, the DSS support the Masoretic texts, almost exclusively - bumping them back (albeit fragmented in some/most cases) to the 2nd Temple period.
Thank you for your time sir, and I hope you have a wonderful day.
Same to you, and I mean that. I probably wouldn't see any reply today, as we are off to my mother's house for an early Christmas ... with dinner, and PIE. So I fully expect to be an over-stuffed sodden lump for the remainder of the day.
Classification Protestant
Theology Reformed Evangelical
Governance Presbyterian
Origin June 11, 1936
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Separated from Presbyterian Church in the United States of America
Separations Bible Presbyterian Church
Congregations 255
Members 29,421
(ministers: 485
communicants: 21,123
non-communicants: 7,813)
Statistics for 2009[1]
Well son of a gun. We have a here a church founded by men. Not Christ, not God, and not growing.
Where does scripture say that Mary was not bodily assumed? Scripture says nothing about it.
Why that's obvious--it's in the same chapter that declares that Mary was not a streetwalker. Probably before the verse that says she was not a carnival barker nor a mine laying porpoise. It might have been after the verses declaring that she was NOT an astronaut nor a tight-rope walker.
I don't recall if it was before or after the paragraphs declaring that she was NOT a channeler of fallen angels/ET's; . . . that she was NOT a dog trainer nor a calf roper; nor a DIMRAT politician; nor a TV talk show hostess; nor a hog feeder; nor a mud wrestler; nor a snake charmmer; nor a sewer cleaner; nor a cake decorator; nor a makeup-artist; nor a rock star; nor a TSA airport groper.
Where does it say that Mary was sinful? Not found in scripture either.
Ahhhhhhhhhhh but you are 100% WRONG, THERE.
Romans 3:23
“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,”
I realize that the Vatican Vulcanized psudo-'bible' may well not have that verse in it.
I also realize that thick layers of White Hanky'd rationalizations, weasel worded justifications etc. will negate any Scripture the Vatican AIWSOTARM finds inconvenient to its idolatries.
EXCEPT, when IT IS CONTRARY TO SCRIPTURE, of course.
...Which would seem to be most of the time. ; )
Of course.
The White Hanky’d Encyclicals purportedly falling from Heaven always take priority over Scripture in the perspectives of a huge percentage of RC’s . . . at least as far as we can tell from the FR REPS of the VAIWSOTARM.
Evidently you are forgetting again . . .
that I never hired you as
—my style coach;
—my editor;
—my linguistic analyst;
—my vocabulary coach;
—my daffynitionary.
“Why would I be interested in translations rather than the existing source? And, as it turns out, the DSS support the Masoretic texts, almost exclusively - bumping them back (albeit fragmented in some/most cases) to the 2nd Temple period.”
I don’t disagree. My only qualm is the lateness of the Masoretic text in it’s entirety. The translation is only superior insofar as one assumes use of textual sources unavailable today. I don’t believe Jerome would have used anything but the best he had available, and sadly today we no longer have what he possessed.
Perhaps one day we will uncover his sources, as well as Origen’s Hexapla. That would push NT scholarship back another century.
News to me. Though I don’t always keep track of such things.
If there’s a problem with photos, I trust the RM will tell me.
I had one of those plastic icon image statues with the screw off bottom containing rosaries, also! Forgot about it.
Not too strange, that a Mary icon would be a first prize, then a saint and Jesus as last prize. All subtle propaganda in play.
Did they have the words ‘deception’ and ‘propaganda’ and ‘control’ in your spelling bee and use them in a sentence? ;) I’d have some fun with that if I knew back then what I know now. Perhaps, excommunication would be ‘the word for the day’.
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.