Raf

First of all, the Abraham's seed reference I made was not the same as the one that you made. I just wanted that noted for the record. Second, there is plenty to suggest that Jesus took their literal lineage, denied it, and replaced it with a figurative lineage. In fact, it makes PERFECT sense. These people REALLY WERE Abraham's seed, but Jesus looks at them and says "No you're not? IF YOU WERE ABRAHAM'S SEED YOU WOULD BELIEVE ME." Now let's look at that: are they, literally, Abraham's seed? Yes. But Jesus says "IF IF IF IF you were Abraham's seed..." Why is he denying what he knows to be true? Because he's not addressing a literal lineage. He's addressing a figurative one, one borne of their failure/refusal to believe him. They are of their father, the devil. Literal father? No. Figurative father, just like Abraham is figuratively not their father. I'm just saying, WTH, that I disagree with you. But I have no difficulty with you continuing to believe what you do. (Yes, I know he acknowledged their physical lineage. But in denying it, he was showing that he was not being literal. Just my opinion).

It had to be intentional. They wanted to up the civilian casualty rate in the states to justify the war on terror.

But WTH, there ARE figurative usages of "child" in the Bible that don't mean "offspring." Best example: Abraham is the father of all who believe. It's not literal. I don't have Abraham's seed in me. It's saying that those who believe take after him. Just like those who are children of the devil take after him: it doesn't mean they have seed that cannot be removed.

That is ABSOLUTELY HILARIOUS! Almost as funny as the Church of Scientology running the Cult Awareness Network... BAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

The Bible, SRTS.

Schatzenfrazzle.

I've got no desire to pursue that argument SRS. Everyone here knows what I meant by scripture. I'm not talking about the Way Magazine. If you meant "verses," then note that I said examinations, plural, of scripture. I did not mean just one verse.

Ohhhhhh kay then. I'll just wish you a happy birthday. From afar. ;)-->

Now, now... you're supposed to be gracious in victory. Otherwise I would have to say that because of their victory, the Red Sox are now just another team, and when they play the Cubs everyone will be rootin fer Chicahguh.

Satori, I've been trying to figure out how to say that for years and years. Thank you for your post. On the difference between forgiveness and absolution, I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Manny Ramirez got the Series MVP. I think the whole team deserves it. This was history. AWESOME!

The Cards look like they're imploding, although they DID manage to get out of that eighth inning jam (bases loaded, no outs, but in the end no runs scored).

There are safeguards in place. The names of absentee voters are recorded before they're counted. If someone votes early, or on election day, their absentee ballot will be thrown away. Once you've voted, the computer system has you down. If I tried to vote again, I would be stopped as soon as I tried to check in.

Go SOX! 3-0 in the 6th. Meanwhile, South Park is a RIOT!!!

GeorgeStGeorge: Please check your private topics.

Any registered voter in Florida may vote early. The advantages: 1. You don't have to make sure you vote at the right precinct. You precinct comes to you, so to speak. The technology is there so that when you arrive at the polling place, you are given a ballot that matches the one you would have received at your proper precinct. For folks like me, who do not KNOW the correct precinct, this is handy. You DO have to show up in the right county, though. 2. Ostensibly, its purpose is to cut the lines on election day. I don't quite understand this, as the lines on early voting days are longer. But c'est la guerre. 3. It makes it easier for those who will not be in town on Election Day but don't want to deal with the hassle of an absentee ballot (which, it turns out, has been QUITE the hassle here in Broward County). 4. Fewer and fewer states and municipalities recognize election day as a "day off," and the number is even lower for private businesses. On one day, you may not find the time to vote. But over a two week period, it might be easier. One major drawback: Once you've voted, it's just like casting the ballot on Election Day. You cannot change your mind.

And just by coincidence (or is it?) the moon turns to blood tonight.

Why isn't "no way in hayl" one of the options? "You eat pieces of s**t for breakfast?" Happy Gilmore

UNCLE!

True, malefactor does not mean robber. However, as ol vic pointed out, ALL robbers are malefactors, so the fact that they used two different words does not negate the possibility that the same people are being discussed. Allos does not mean heteros, tis true, but GOP and Republican are synonyms. As seen on the Actual Errors thread and list, Wierwille's definitions of allos and heteros are provably false, again blurring the distinctions between the robbers and the malefactors. Wierwille highlighted the use of the word THEN in discussing the four crucified to show that two people were crucified at the same time as Jesus, and THEN two people were crucified afterward. Only by accepting THEN as meaning "after all that we have previously discussed" can one come to the conclusion that four were crucified with Christ. If one reads that verse as saying "at that time," or "around that time, giving less concern to the chronology than to the actuality of the events, one can easily conclude we're talking about the same people. I agree that these positions are worth considering, and I considered and held them for more than a decade. After careful thought, I've discarded them, not as the rantings of a small town preacher turned cult leader, but as the well-intentioned but mistaken attempts to harmonize scriptures that appear to contradict each other. Alternative explanations of the apparent contradictions make more sense to me.

Rather than get into a doctrinal debate, I refer you to http://www.christianheritageonline.com and the related article, which seeks to answer your questions on this.

I think close examinations of scripture reveal, at the very least, the first three doctrines to be in error. In each of the four gospels, only two others are mentioned being crucified. In each of the four gospels, only three denials are recorded. Not one gospel records more than three denials. The difficult must be interpreted in light of the clear, not vice versa. It's clear there were three denials and not more. And the notion that one may be born of the devil's seed, irreversible, is simply unbiblical. God is able to save to the uttermost those who believe. If there exists a category of people God cannot save, then there is something beyond uttermost, which is silly. If there's something beyond uttermost, then THAT is the uttermost, and God can save them. For this reason, I reject all three of those TWI doctrines. I was never exposed to the fourth.

It should be noted that in the Greek, there's a definite article before the word "faith" the first time (both times, actually). If this were English, that would support what George is saying. Further study, if honest, can only help, so study on.

Go Sox! I'll say here what I've said before: The Sox had better win: if they went through the trouble of humiliating my Yankees the way they did, only to LOSE the World Series, I'll be more ticked off than ANY Bosox fan.

Sorry I didn't see this sooner. BTW: I would have been torn if the Astros were meeting the Sox, but now it's no contest. Go Beantown!