Posted on 03/30/2002 7:53:37 PM PST by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
How do you define "necessary"? And does it differ from whether any person is engaged in the role?
I can tell you that it is not "necessary" for God to have Mary distributing graces. But God is not limited to what is deemed "necessary."
SD
Says you.
SD
I've seen and read what you've written about the matter. Do let me know if and when you decide to back up your thoughts with Scripture references.
Absent those, we might as well debate about how many angels would fit on the head of a pin.
The bait. Once you take it then the switch. And from whom does He take that humanity, and only after She said it was ok.......
Fear of the Truth is not an argument against it. Explain to me how Jesus redeems humanity if He does not take on humanity.
Forget about Mary. He got His humanity by an angel taking sperm from David and an Egg from Rebekah. Let's assume that.
Now, how does He redeem us if He isn't one of us?
SD
If they're meditating while babbling pehaps this is what Jesus meant by vain repititions.
You're the one who has concluded that Mary did not give Jesus His humanity. i would think you'd be willing to consider the ramifications of that.
I guess I was wrong. Just proclaim what the Bible's secret message is, and to hell with the implications.
I've gotta become one of these guys.
SD
Your piety-sniping is ridiculous. Kiss my ring.
"God is able of these stones to raise up sons of Abraham" For the Nth time.
So now, we're the ones proclaiming a "secret message"?
The irony is killing me.
All clicked together? LOL. Yeah, right. It just made sense out of the blue because now it was bread and wine instead of a present tense directive to 'be ye therefore canibals' in John 6. Sure it makes sense now that you say it's just bread and wine and it's just a remembrance and these things are merely symbolic - oops went too far didn't I. When it is symbolic it doesn't make sense because they have to eat the book of the new covenant and lord knows one can't eat words - right. Not unless it's symbolic anyway - as in the OT examples of it being said and done.
It was only after the Resurrection, that Jesus commanded Baptism to be done that it became efficacious.
But you're mixing apples and oranges - Jesus' baptism is of spirit. He didn't command that people be dunked in water to get the spirit. He commanded that people be born again through belief and confessing Christ, then that they be baptised of the Holy spirit. No mention of water Baptism - much less of it becoming an all in one fix that some religions have seen fit to try and teach it as being. Form above substance.
Jesus sent the Apostles out to baptise the nations. As we are told repeatedly, the Greek word for "baptism" refers to dunking in water.
Once again, a secret code real meaning is needed, rather than what the text says.
SD
Yes, the idea that Jesus isn't "born of a woman" is pretty much a secret message you have distilled.
SD
No distillation whatsoever. Just a simple study, coupled with a desire for the truth, uninhibited by the traditions of men.
Sorry, I think all the handbaskets have been checked out. I'll check around back.
v.
Yeah, the general principal is that he was able to twist it to take a potshot at me. He don't care too much for me. Make him eat crow one time and you'll see what I mean.. LOL I love him; but, he's just got something against me because I've been rather effective at exposing the true face of his religion.
How many does one guy need these days?
(Havoc) Peter was commissioned to teach the lost tribes of Israel.
(Ventana) Again. No. Not Scriptural. Wrong. (sigh)
(Reg) How can you say this? Peter, and the others, definitely were commissioned to do so.
Matthew 10:
[5] These twelve Jesus sent out, charging them, "Go nowhere among the Gentiles, and enter no town of the Samaritans,
[6] but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.
Wow. Another completely unexpected deviation from the meaning I thought was common.
This command was given before the Resurrection. During Jesus' earthly ministry He sent His Disciples out in the Judean land to speak repentence and the Kingdom's inninence to the Jews.
After His Resurrection, He expanded the ministry to all nations. We see this when He tells them to make disciples of all the nations. The earlier, pre-Resurrection, ministry to the Jews was expanded.
To read this text as Jesus prohibiting the Apostles from ever, ever, going out to the nations is contrary not only to the later charge Jesus gives, but also to history, which is replete with far flung Churches established by Apostles.
A typical SD invention. Who ever said anything remotely akin to this statement?
(Reg) Is it your belief that the Lost Tribes and the lost sheep of the house of Israel are not one and the same?
The Lost Tribes are not the "lost sheep." The lost sheep are the ones in Israel at the time, the Jews who had fallen away, the ones that Jesus came to call to repent.
The Lost Tribes are in faraway lands, if known at all. Certainly the Apostles did not go to visit them while JEsus was on earth.
Could you provide one or more references which indicates the "house of Israel" doesn't refer to the Lost Tribes? Thanks.
Pay no attention to the rabbit behind the curtain.
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.