Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
I’ll stick with scripture thanks.
Sorry to hear that. My faith was started by the shed blood of Jesus Christ.
God doesn't think so. Seems that you're at odds with Him. Would that make it an intentional or unintentional sin?
Leviticus 4:1-3 1And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, 2"Speak to the people of Israel, saying, If anyone sins unintentionally in any of the LORD’s commandments about things not to be done, and does any one of them, 3if it is the anointed priest who sins, thus bringing guilt on the people, then he shall offer for the sin that he has committed a bull from the herd without blemish to the LORD for a sin offering.
Leviticus 5:1-6 1"If anyone sins in that he hears a public adjuration to testify, and though he is a witness, whether he has seen or come to know the matter, yet does not speak, he shall bear his iniquity; 2or if anyone touches an unclean thing, whether a carcass of an unclean wild animal or a carcass of unclean livestock or a carcass of unclean swarming things, and it is hidden from him and he has become unclean, and he realizes his guilt; 3or if he touches human uncleanness, of whatever sort the uncleanness may be with which one becomes unclean, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it, and realizes his guilt; 4or if anyone utters with his lips a rash oath to do evil or to do good, any sort of rash oath that people swear, and it is hidden from him, when he comes to know it, and he realizes his guilt in any of these; 5when he realizes his guilt in any of these and confesses the sin he has committed, 6he shall bring to the LORD as his compensation for the sin that he has committed, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin offering. And the priest shall make atonement for him for his sin.
Answer the question.
Do you know for a fact that “ so many who prate the verse ‘that every knee will bow’ actually never do it”?
"Whosoever" means you, too, Mark, if you'll only accept it.
It's not pointless. Do you even have any idea WHY the Law was given in the first place?
Check post 1070 of CB’’s. You might want to have a chat with him. I told him your sins were none of his business, when he asked me what they were.
But then, it isn't about Scripture is it, it is about the interpretation of Scripture. Aquinas cites Scripture extensively and assembles its meaning in a very logical and methodical manner. If the foundations of my faith were as weak as yours appears to be I might be afraid of Aquinas too.
Anyone can read the translators’ comments in the AV and realize that they viewed their efforts as imperfect and needing revision as time went by.
The need of correction is just as evident in translations like the DR(Douay) and for the same reason, thus the NAB attempts to correct the reading of Gen. 3:15 over the DR. (see the footnote). The Vulgate reading is misleading and few would, Catholic, Protestant or otherwise accepts it as accurate or justified by either context or the rest of the Scriptures.
This is but one example. Bible translation is always going to be an ongoing work but claims that someone was put on the path to hell because of poor translation is just silly.
And you said what?
Post 1072:”Nope. That’s between her and God, and none of your business.
We could look at some of her falsehoods, but it isn’t necessary.”
You said I posted falsehoods (IOW lied)
What exactly are the ones to which you’re referring?
LOL Asking you to prove your accusation is asking what those sins are? Oy!
Yep, it’s about scripture and not injecting beliefs into it like the CC does.
Your faith didn’t begin until the reformation. Try again.
People can believe you or they can believe God...
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
Shall not come into condemnation tomorrow, next week, or next year...
There you go again making assumptions and making accusations. My faith is in the shed blood of Jesus and His complete and finished sacrifice for all time. That was long before the “reformation”.
SOP for those who are unable to defend their point of view is to "kill the messenger". Those "hillbillies" you disparage are NOT wrong when they say "Shamash" is the Babylonian sun god. I think it SHOULD be discussed why the Roman Catholic religion employs symbols and signs that originated with pagan religions. A quick look at Wikipedia shows this about Shamash:
Shamash (Akkadian Šamaš "Sun") was a native Mesopotamian deity and the sun god in the Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian pantheons. Shamash was the god of justice in Babylonia and Assyria, corresponding to Sumerian Utu. Akkadian šamaš is cognate to Hebrew שמש šemeš and Arabic شمس šams.
Together with Nannar-Sin and Ishtar, Shamash completes another triad by the side of Anu, Enlil and Ea. The three powers Sin, Shamash and Ishtar symbolized three great forces of nature: the moon, the sun, and the life-giving force of the earth, respectively. At times instead of Ishtar we find Adad, the storm-god, associated with Sin and Shamash, and it may be that these two sets of triads represent the doctrines of two different schools of theological thought in Babylonia which were subsequently harmonized by the recognition of a group consisting of all four deities. The consort of Shamash was known as Aya. She is, however, rarely mentioned in the inscriptions except in combination with Shamash.
Another reference to Shamash is the Babylonian epic Gilgamesh. When Gilgamesh and Enkidu travel to slay Humbaba, each morning they pray and make libation to shamash in the direction of the rising sun for safe travels. Gilgamesh receives dreams from Shamash, which Enkidu then interprets, and at their battle with Humbaba, it is Shamash's favor for Gilgamesh that enables them to defeat the monster.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shamash)
If you are thinking of mocking the use of Wikipedia, here's the Encyclopedia Britannica's info:
Shamash, (Akkadian), Sumerian Utu, in Mesopotamian religion, the god of the sun, who, with the moon god, Sin (Sumerian: Nanna), and Ishtar (Sumerian: Inanna), the goddess of Venus, was part of an astral triad of divinities. Shamash was the son of Sin.
Shamash, as the solar deity, exercised the power of light over darkness and evil. In this capacity he became known as the god of justice and equity and was the judge of both gods and men. (According to legend, the Babylonian king Hammurabi received his code of laws from Shamash.) At night, Shamash became judge of the underworld.
Shamash was not only the god of justice but also governor of the whole universe; in this aspect he was pictured seated on a throne, holding in his hand the symbols of justice and righteousness, a staff and a ring. Also associated with Shamash is the notched dagger. The god is often pictured with a disk that symbolized the Sun.
As the god of the sun, Shamash was the heroic conqueror of night and death who swept across the heavens on horseback or, in some representations, in a boat or chariot. He bestowed light and life. Because he was of a heroic and wholly ethical character, he only rarely figured in mythology, where the gods behaved all too often like mortals. The chief centres of his cult were at Larsa in Sumer and at Sippar in Akkad. Shamash’s consort was Aya, who was later absorbed by Ishtar.(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/538274/Shamash
As far as your take on "El", the Britannica says:
El, the general term for “deity” in Semitic languages as well as the name of the chief deity of the West Semites. In the ancient texts from Ras Shamra (ancient Ugarit) in Syria, El was described as the titular head of the pantheon, husband of Asherah, and father of all the other gods (except for Baal). His most common epithet was “the Bull,” but he was also sometimes called “Creator/Possessor of Heaven and Earth.” Although a venerable deity, he was not active in the myths, which primarily concerned his daughters and sons.
He was usually portrayed as an old man with a long beard and, often, two wings. He was the equivalent of the Hurrian god Kumarbi and the Greek god Cronus. In the Old Testament, El is commonly used as a synonym for Yahweh and less commonly as the general term for “deity.” (http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/181687/El
Some more interesting info, now that you brought it up:
The evidence available is primarily the product of the small, wealthy, ruling elites of these societies. It bears witness primarily to their religion, giving only indirect testimony to the beliefs or practices of the vast majority of the population. This official religion is polytheistic, the anthropomorphic gods as a whole being referred to as an extended family, or an assembly, or by other collective terms. Most earlier sources come from more cosmopolitan contexts and reflect that fact in their attention to a variety of gods. The sources from the 1st millennium suggest a greater concentration on a few gods or indeed on one supreme god.
Some divine names appear through most of the period from 3000 to 300 bc. In other cases, different names appear in different periods and in different regions or languages, and often titles are used instead of names. Consequently, it is sometimes not possible to determine to what extent new names have been assigned to gods whose cult is continuous across these boundaries and to what extent different gods may lie behind the same title. In general, it appears that a few types prevailed and persisted over the centuries.
The most pervasive type was the storm god (Hadad, Baal, Teshub), who was associated with rain, thunder, and lightning—and thus with fertility and war. Another type was a more patriarchal creator god, bearing the simple name El (“God”). The major female deities appear to have been of either the belligerent type (Anath, Astarte) or the matriarchal type (Asherah). These often, but not always, served as the respective consorts of the two male types. Also prominent throughout the period were a solar and a lunar deity.
Consistent with the sources of documentation, the monarch emerges as a significant medium between god and people, acting on the people’s behalf in the cult of the god and on the god’s behalf in the care of the people. The cult was generally practiced in a “house” of the god, where a professional priesthood attended to the daily needs of the god, represented in effigy.
The most recurrent concerns in the written sources are (1) the good relations between monarch and god and the well-being of the monarch and his family (alive and deceased), on which the order of society depended, and (2) the natural conditions—rainfall, sunshine, fertility of soil, flocks, and herds—on which most people depended directly for survival and on which the agrarian economy as a whole depended.(http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/578986/Syrian-and-Palestinian-religion/68294/Nature-and-significance?anchor=ref559451
Nope, its about whose beliefs are being "injected". It all goes back to authority. Protestants, like you, begin with the premise that "no Guinea bastard is gonna tell me what to think" so you reject a priori any and all things taught by the Church in favor of anything taught by anyone who similarly rejects the Church. Your refusal to even consider the writings of Aquinas, a Doctor of the Church and a man recognized as a giant by many Protestant theologians speaks to the willful ignorance of Protestantism.
Because nobody really CARES what the *church fathers* thought.
Their opinions are meaningless and worthless in regard to salvation.
Everything we need to know to be saved can be found in Scripture. If the opinions of those you call *church fathers* was needed, they would have been included in Scripture.
Since God didn't see fit to ensure that those opinion pieces were God breathed, they aren't necessary.
The Bible contains enough to keep anyone busy for a lifetime since there is no limit to what we can learn from and about God.
Obviously your religion isn't too big on pressing the issue of these verses...
Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
Rom 8:15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
Rom 8:16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
These are not mere idol words...
Even if you don't have that witness it doesn't mean that others don't...
I’ve read much of the writings of the church fathers. After about 200AD and especially after 400AD there is a serious falling away. One only needs to read Revelation to see that there were churches already in trouble in 96AD.
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.