I'm afraid that you're probably right. 
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 ...
Why did God send His Son to save us and not a daughter? Sin came through woman and grace comes through woman. Is this part of the Mary thing?
Compare Calvin's Geneva with both East Germany under Honecker and Iran under the Ayatollahs for evidence.
In order to remove Biblical Ignorance about the renaming of Abram to Abraham and Sarai to Sarah. When YHvH blessed then He added the Heh sound to their names as it is the breath of Elohim.
It is also the sound of those laughing at this offering.
YHvH states that Isaac is Abraham's only son
That is in Chapter 22. In Chapter 21, He says that:
9Sarah noticed the son whom Hagar the Egyptian had borne to Abraham playing with her son Isaac; 10so she demanded of Abraham: “Drive out that slave and her son! No son of that slave is going to share the inheritance with my son Isaac!”f 11Abraham was greatly distressed because it concerned a son of his.* 12But God said to Abraham: Do not be distressed about the boy or about your slave woman. Obey Sarah, no matter what she asks of you; for it is through Isaac that descendants will bear your name.g 13As for the son of the slave woman, I will make a nation of him also,* since he too is your offspring.
14Early the next morning Abraham got some bread and a skin of water and gave them to Hagar. Then, placing the child on her back,* he sent her away. As she roamed aimlessly in the wilderness of Beer-sheba, 15the water in the skin was used up. So she put the child down under one of the bushes, 16and then went and sat down opposite him, about a bowshot away; for she said to herself, “I cannot watch the child die.” As she sat opposite him, she wept aloud. 17God heard the boy’s voice, and God’s angel called to Hagar from heaven: “What is the matter, Hagar? Do not fear; God has heard the boy’s voice in this plight of his.h 18Get up, lift up the boy and hold him by the hand; for I will make of him a great nation.” 19Then God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water. She went and filled the skin with water, and then let the boy drink.
20God was with the boy as he grew up. He lived in the wilderness and became an expert bowman.
God does not throw any of His Creations away, regardless of the heartlessness of those who defend a heartless religion such as Calvinism.
Good question.
However, it is somewhat irrelevant because even if God told Eve Himself, Adam was still told first and knew what God had told HIM.
And he STILL watched the exchange between Eve and Satan and allowed her to eat.
Adam had been given dominion over all the earth. The responsibility was his.
Sorry - - but sadly you're wrong. From the Catechism of the [Roman} Catholic Church:
"969 "This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."
Emphasis mine.
Well, it appears here that the Roman Catholic Church teaches (as this is a direct quote from the Roman Catholic Catechism, from the Vatican website) that Mary is an intercessor for mankind -- that she brings gifts of eternal salvation. It also ascribes to her the title of 'Mediatrix.' This is NOT Biblical....
1 Tim. 2:5-6:
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time."
One mediator. Not two. Yet the Roman Catholic Church teaches that Mary is a Mediatrix. Who is right? God's word, or the Roman Catholic Catechism?
The Roman Catholic Church also teaches that she is a co-redemptrix with Christ:
"494 At the announcement that she would give birth to "the Son of the Most High" without knowing man, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Mary responded with the obedience of faith, certain that "with God nothing will be impossible": "Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be [done] to me according to your word."139 Thus, giving her consent to God's word, Mary becomes the mother of Jesus. Espousing the divine will for salvation wholeheartedly, without a single sin to restrain her, she gave herself entirely to the person and to the work of her Son; she did so in order to serve the mystery of redemption with him and dependent on him, by God's grace:"
Emphasis mine.
"..to serve the mystery of redemption WITH HIM...." Really? According the Jesus Christ himself in John 14:6:
"Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
Who to believe? Jesus, or the Roman Catholic Church?
Hoss. "
Ah, ah, ah. I shared nothing of the kind. I only quoted Scripture. The Church teaches that original sin is inherited and is silent on the passage through either mother or father.
Let's put it this way. We will quite probably have a human born of two human eggs very shortly. If the sin nature ONLY passes through the father, does that mean that the resulting girl has no sin?
We have had some good discourse recently. Please don't reverse the gains that we have made.
If I use my study Bible and it has dates and what was happening on those dates, and a website has those dates and what was happening on those dates, am I to search the Internet for quotes on dates that could or could not have come from a study Bible? You see, I wouldn’t be the one accessing a website. I’m accessing my study Bible for information. If a website accesses study Bibles for information, then how can I personally be accused of quoting from a website? It’s all very confusing to me. But I can ASSURE you I used NO website. And how do I PROVE I did not if the website itself is using study Bible material? Sounds like a stupid question I guess, but it also sounds like this is exactly what happened here. I was in my study Bible not on a website. And I do not understand how I can be held responsible for a website’s contents that I have never visited. Thanks for your patience, smvoice
No fair. That's a trick question.
Well, let me give you a little hint to see if you may want to do some study before you go off half cocked. I’ll give you the hint by pointing you to one source I used extensively. I have never actually found a list as I posted but have put it together from sources such as the following. I’m not sure you will judge the source reliable or not but it is what it is.
This is a quote from the site.
The following answers have been given by the Biblical Commission to inquiries about the Gospel of St. Matthew: In view of the universal and constant agreement of the Church, as shown by the testimony of the Fathers, the inscription of Gospel codices, most ancient versions of the Sacred Books and lists handed down by the Holy Fathers, ecclesiastical writers, popes and councils, and finally by liturgical usage in the Eastern and Western Church, it may and should be held that Matthew, an Apostle of Christ, is really the author of the Gospel that goes by his name. The belief that Matthew preceded the other Evangelists in writing, and that the first Gospel was written in the native language of the Jews then in Palestine, is to be considered as based on Tradition.
I have bolded the statement of who the author is. I will trust you can do your own reading to find the accepted date it was written and presumably learn enough to continue with the other books of the New Testament.
The source that quote is taken from is …………………………………………… ready for this?
Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10057a.htm
Go argue with them if you wish.
I'm afraid that you're probably right.
And the significance?
Fair enough. I may give a shout to you for your impression, Pauline snippet or not.
More and more the admonition must be repeated. “"Come out of her, my people, so that you will not share in her sins, so that you will not receive any of her plagues;”
This demonstrates a blazing ignorance about both Calvinism and Islam. Compare Calvin's Geneva with both East Germany under Honecker and Iran under the Ayatollahs for evidence.
You don't want to go there as the Popes
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
murdered more followers of Yah'shua
than Hitler kill Jews.
It does not seem to be supported by your own Roman Catholic catechism. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. "The Gospel According to Rome". James G. McCarthy. Of Mary. "...in the first instant of her conception.. was preserved free from all stain of original sin..." Now that would be your Catechism paragraph [491]. - Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus.
And then there is the Annunciation, the angel Gabriel's announcement of Christ's incarnation to Mary: "Hail,full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women" (Luke 1:28 Douay Rheims), Catechism 490-491. This says the Church, reveals that Mary "was never subject to the curse"* and that she was "immune from all sin, personal or inherited."**
* -Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus. **-Pope Pius X11, Mediator Dei. no. 73.
So just exactly was she in need of a Savior, if she had no sin to be saved from? And if this is true, why teach she had no sin, personal or inherited?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2772644/posts?page=627#627
You’re the one who brought up the number.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2772644/posts?page=627#627
Did you forget that you mentioned Catholic and that number in the same sentence?
I was just trying to show everyone that it was all Old Testament text.
Please explain further as I am not sure what error Peter recognized. In the story of Paul’s conversion, it is to Ananais that the Lord reveals Paul’s mission. We do not hear Paul speak of this special mission until later.
The whole story seems to indicate that Paul was converted by Jesus, and then Paul was accepted by the others, a form of imprimatur. He preaches for a time in Damascus, but then seems to go on a sabbatical of sorts for three years. After that time, he returns and spends 15 days with Peter after which he begins his ministry.
Paul sets himself apart from the others yet claims that they accept him and his reception of the Gospel. So, he sees his mission as different than theirs, but still teaches that the Gospel he received is the same as that of the others.
Now, if we pay close attention to the Gospel, we hear Jesus tell them to go out to ALL the world making them disciples and baptizing them. So the word ALL would seem to include Gentiles.
So, it is a bit complicated, but we have God giving the initial reception of Gentiles to Peter, who then brings it to the council in Jerusalem and then Paul declaring himself the Apostle to the Gentiles in Galatians.
Well, my wife doesn't really persuade me to move the couch, but somehow it's me that ends up moving it-- and then wondering why everything is different.
He watched the whole conversation with Satan and did NOTHING to stop it.
It doesn't say that either. The text is pretty sparse.
Human understanding again? So if your mil was born in 1948 did her generation end with the birth of her first offspring? Can there not be concurrent generations alive at the same time. You yourself said there were four generations that will sit together. It’s evident that the generation of your mother in law didn’t end with the birth of her first offspring. Or did her generation end and she became part of the generation of her offspring.
The length of you mil’s generation is from the time she is born until the time she dies. Scripture clearly defines the average length of a generation as 70 years as I have previously shown FROM SCRIPTURE.
sssshhhhh...be vehwy vehwy quiet...count-your-change and Mark Bsnr are hunting for Pauline snippets. Snippet traps are probably everywhere...just waiting to be sprung..Ignore the partial Pauline snippet bait..it could be a trap..hunters of Pauline snippets are a dangerous group. They hear something and just start firing in all directions..lol
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.