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 |
The dude died for the lack of sense to go to a doctor. He had stomach pains so he self-prescribed heroin for the pain.
SD
You're probably right. But the documentary was still fun to watch.
This is not Semantics. You and Havoc have equated the "Lost Tribes" with the 10 tribes also identifiable as the "House of Israel" as opposed to the universal use of the term. To focus Jesus' ministry on them only is to deny his ministry to the "House of Judah" meaning most all the Jews then living in the area.
I have not done so. I believe the "House of Israel" includes the 10 Lost Tribes.
Do you have difficulty in distinguishing between the meaning of "inclusive" and "exclusive"?
BTW, I am perfectly open to be persuaded differently. I am patiently waiting for source material, other than your dogmatic statements, that the "House of Israel" refers only to the two tribes known to be in the immediate vicinity.
Maybe he could get away with it. You don't have a chance.
Quite sad, indeed. But, when reading your posts, I make it a point to look past all that carnal, Pharasitic, holier-than-thou piety.
I'm guessing Havoc does, too. :-)
As usual, you direct your wrath the wrong way. Ventana and I agree with you, that the term is inclusive.
It is the other side that is insisting that this refers only to the lost tribes.
We say, for practical and historical reasons that the Apostles, when sent out on a mssion before Jesus' Crucifixion, went only to the "Jews" living in "Israel" at the time, and not to search for the lost tribes among the Gentile lands. The Bible says as much, and you quoted it. IT says do not go out among the Gentiles.
Why don't you try to straighten out the other side?
SD
Hi Sass, good to see you! I don't recall the specifics of that conversation, either, but you might find the book interesting.
I've been meaning to dip my toes into some Tillich, but I got a new shipment in from Amazon, and have been busy reading the Dead Sea Scrolls.
I'm guessing Havoc does, too. :-)
Speaking of carnal I think I must have hit on a very sensitive spot when I connected the pagan Easter ritual to the verse that strongly implies Jesus didn't come from Mary's egg. We all know how interconnected their many Marian doctrines are and that is why they are so defensive of each one of them. They have invented an equation that states it must be Mary's egg and at her consent that Jesus came therefore she is co-redemer. There certainly is a strong drive to glorify her and it certainly is not a drive that is in the scriptures.
"God: a Biography" does the same thing. I can't think of the author (Jack something?), but he is an ex-Jesuit and he applies the model to the entire Hebrew Bible. Starting at day one and seing what we learn of this character called "God."
SD
Egad! As a former English major who ruled out graduate study due to the dominance of modern critical theory in the field, I advise caution. You might find this article interesting:
No, you're just being idiotic.
We all know how interconnected their many Marian doctrines are and that is why they are so defensive of each one of them.
I know it's different from your method of having haphazard ideas that don't connect with, complement, or even agree with each other. It's a fault we have, having interconnected, coherent dogma.
They have invented an equation that states it must be Mary's egg and at her consent that Jesus came therefore she is co-redemer.
Wrong again. I have said numerous times that we don't know the machanics of how Jesus became man. So whether He used "her egg" or not doesn't matter.
I've said this many times, so what excuse do you have for sayign otherwise? Do you not understand the simple things I say, or are you eliberately lying?
The only, and I stress only, thing we hold as true is that Jesus used Mary's humanity to Incarnate as a man.
As for the co-redeemer idea somehow being a conclusion to the premise that Mary's egg was used, you are all wet. Wrong again, as usual.
Even if Mary was unrelated to Jesus, she still fulfilled her role in the Salvation history. She would still be co-redeemer.
you would think that with all the ignorant statements made here daily by you and Havoc and your ilk, that you would be embarrased. Instead, you still present yourselves as knowledgeable, and the cretins lap it up. It's sad.
SD
That shotgun blast to the head didn't help much either.
BigMack
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.