"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."
ROTFLMAO!!!
| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
|
Locked on 02/07/2013 8:58:03 AM PST by Religion Moderator, reason:
Childish behavior |
Posted on 01/16/2013 8:57:49 AM PST by marshmallow
General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."
Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "
And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.
Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".
The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...
(Excerpt) Read more at asianews.it ...
So you would deny the indwelling of the Holy Spirit thus the faith we exhibit is the faith of the Holy Spirit? You would actually take credit yourself for that faith?
Knowing your denomination identity does not enable to judge your salvation, it enables to determine your likely doctrines and practices. That’s pretty much what a denomination is, a group with similar doctrinal distinctives and practices. So, even if you say, “non-denominational”, that doesn’t really fly. You will have distinctives and practices.
For example, do you believe “tongues” ended with the apostolic age or that they continue until today? Do you celebrate Christmas or don’t you? Do you celebrate the feast of Tabernacles or don’t you?
BTW, were you a Romney supporter or weren’t you? (That’s not a religious question, but political.) It helps get a handle on where you come from politically, though.
ROFL! Nice try.
I don’t need to coerce any answer. You already answered. You’re not a Trinitarian.
No, I’m not.
I like my nice, quiet, peaceful, boring existence.
Nor do I see the need to drag my family into it. They don’t need to deal with some nutjob stalking them to get at me.
It’s not fear. It’s wisdom.
And that’s not going to provoke me into an answer either.
Your answers full of fear say you are fearful.
There are by and large, 2 branches, one of which was pure Anglo-Israelism without the racism.
There are by and large, 2 branches, one of which was pure Anglo-Israelism without the racism.
But, just to clarify, they are reluctant to ID themselves when in polite company, too. And they claim to use the scriptures.
There are by and large, 2 branches, one of which was pure Anglo-Israelism without the racism.
But, just to clarify, they are reluctant to ID themselves when in polite company, too. And they claim to use the scriptures.
Only if you want to broad brush a person.
And just what difference do my practices make to anyone anyway? What difference would it make to anyone if I celebrated the Feast of Tabernacles or Christmas?
And the same with my doctrines. Measure what I say against Scripture, not some statement of faith.
BTW, were you a Romney supporter or weren’t you? (That’s not a religious question, but political.) It helps get a handle on where you come from politically, though.
Oh.....my..... word......
You think metmom is fearful. Bwahahahahahaha! BTW Aren’t you getting a little personal again? That’s several times you have projected something onto the individual. Are you capable of reading minds through what they type? If so you need to apply to the CIA and be one of those government boys.
So rather than address my point, you point your finger at me and try to imply that my interpretation of that passage is still not as good as yours.
Frankly I don't have a solid opinion on whether the word "IN" or "OF" should be there. The fact of the matter is that neither of them are.
You can't admit that you were wrong, can you? You corrected Betty Boop using a word that was added to the scripture by the KJV translators and hence you were relying on the interpretations of the KJV Scholars to develop your peculiar doctrine. And to make it worse, you underscored that word as if it were clearly in the original manuscript and that what you posted was exactly what everyone must consider as the "final authority".
But in this case your "final authority" was not the scriptures, but the interpretation of the KJV translators.
You earlier insisted that a translation cannot possibly an "interpretation" and then you go and rely on what is obviously an "interpretation" as if the words you underscored were, in fact, as important, if not more important, than the words which are in the scriptures which preceded and followed the interpolation.
Your whole argument about relying solely on the "Scriptures" and not on the interpretations of men has been dismantled and blown apart by your own posts here.
When that sinks in cry Praise you Jesus and to God be the glory!
:-)
Well put.
If one uses a sociological definition, a cult is just a new religious movement that could grow into a sect and then a church.
If one uses the common understanding, a cult is a new movement entirely or one out of an established religious group, that has elements of it that are “sick religion”, to borrow from Dr. Wayne Oates.
Not interested in *religion*.
Just Jesus and His word.
It’s relying on the “whole” of scripture. If you think it’s your faith go right ahead. I know that my faith is the faith OF Christ living in me. Scripture is rather clear that in my carnal state I cannot have that type of faith. So take credit if you wish and justify it any way you want.
I think you missed the point. CB was correcting BB by underscoring a word that does not exist in the original manuscript. He (and you) claim that you NEVER EVER rely on the interpretations of men and that you only rely on scripture, but you fail to realize that each and every word in your English Bible is an interpretation of some word or phrase or an interpolation of some word that is implied and is not the original manuscript. To make matters worse for you, if you have studied biblical hermenutics, you would know that many of the original manuscripts vary on certain words and phrases and that the words or phrases that are finally determined to be good enough for inclusion in a translation are the words and phrases that the committee of translators voted to include.
If you want to say that you believe only the scriptures, then not only would you have to be fluent in the original languages, but you would also have to have in your hand the original autograph of the gospels and the letters and the scrolls so that there would be no doubt that what you were relying upon was the actual inspired word of God.
What we have in every translation is, like ourselves, something that is not perfect.
Exactly what is the problem with it?
You tell me. He quoted the KJV which uses the word "OF". You referred me to the ESV as the source of all truth and the ESV uses "IN". Which one do you believe is correct? Which of the two versions is "scripture" and which is just the interpretations of men?
You underscored a word that is not in the original manuscripts but was an interpretation of men and used it to admonish BB. When it is pointed out to you, then you respond by attacking me and making some snide remark about "If you think it’s your faith go right ahead."
Why can't you just admit that you goofed?
Where's that humility you bragged about earlier?
"That depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..."
ROTFLMAO!!!
I don't think so... Non-denoms are notoriously hard to measure. I think they are growing exponentially, well beyond any statistical evaluation. The mainline branches are just dying on the vine, which is fine with me. That does not mean the vine itself has withered.
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.