Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
Ergo (your stated credentials notwithstanding), fundamentalists are hicks. Or perhaps the hickiest of all the hicks who practice such hickery. Ya, I got that already.
But Roamer...
Are you NOT glad you ain’t like no darned ol’ publican?
Yup. :D
I would wear my redneckery right on my sleeve - That is, if I HAD sleeves (my right to bare arms) ; )
Baloney! The monks of Ireland spread the Gospel all over Western Europe during the Dark Ages. They also preserved on parchment many of the surviving works of the classical period after the paparyus originals were crumbling to dust after the Arab pirates stopped trade on the Med. And during the Middle Ages, the monks operated probably the best farms in Europe. Some hold that they were the first to established “business hours” for production of a range of goods, and by regular accounting created a capital surplus while lay land lords and bishops depended on the Jews.
When St,Bernard of Clairvaux perceived that the traditional abbeys were growing to “soft.” he started an order than went into the wildest parts of the land and developed it, working so hard that the average monk lived but seven years. The Friars—not technically monks,because they were intinerants, helped make Paris the great university it was and were the preachers who with a Paris Bible in their gowns, preached the Gospel in town squares all over Europe.
Paul set the example a long time ago. If you want to devote your whole life to a cause, don’t get married.
Well, Our Lord seems to have lived without it.
Peter, the guy Catholics claim as their first pope, was married.
Do as I say, not as I do, eh?
Or does Scripture only have authority when it supports RCC doctrine and decisions?
RC priests were allowed to be married for a long time before Rome changed that. And I am continually being reassured that they are still allowed to be married except when they aren’t. Whenever I say priests aren’t allowed to be married, I get chastised. I know at least one priest who was forced to leave the priesthood because he wanted to get married.
There’s a huge difference between what the RCC says and what it allows in practice.
We were talking about a MARRIED man - have you forgotten?
We are talking about a married man who had his whole world-view turned upside down. He was like Moses after his encounter of the Burning Bush. His life mission changed. More important things than his libido!
Golly!
I missed the ANGEL telling him that part!
Thanks; Church of Rome!
The Birth of Jesus Christ
18This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. 19Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.
20But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,c because he will save his people from their sins.”
22All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: 23“The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel”d—which means, “God with us.”
24When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. 25But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.
Missing the part about the side trip to Egypt because the climate in Bethlehem had suddenly got too hot. But what’s this “Church of Rome,” thing? Don’t you know that all the Eastern Churches hold to the views I am sharing with you?
Verses 16-25 can be summarized as follows: Joseph was not the natural father of Jesus, with the birth of Jesus being the end of the genealogy.
We in fact know about Joseph only what is found in Matthew and Luke, but there is an alternative to the traditional narrative about the Holy nuclear family living in Nazareth, and that is that Joseph was an older man, a widower with children by another wife. If the New Testament says nothing about this, the New Testament says nothing about many things, such as the events of the life of Our Lord between his early childhood and his ministry. There are many things hidden to us by time, things not necessarily hidden to all the auditors of Matthew and Luke.
Well then; that's makes it ok then.
I guess one could 'summarize' it this way, or another way - or each 6-7 OTHER ways if one wanted.
I choose to NOT listen to a megachurch with an adgenda to push and just READ the text!
That's mighty handy; isn't it: using something OTHER than the BIBLE to try to define what the Bible says.
Now just WHERE have I heard of THAT modus operandi before?
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.