Posted on 04/08/2013 9:22:31 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Well I guess if you read just one verse and ignore all the other verses surrounding it you can make it say whatever you want it to say. But context is important to meaning and to translation.
At the end of verse 17 these words are used: σωμα του χριστου . Literally, and as used everywhere else in scripture, this means "the body of Christ".
The King James ADDS the word "is" to this:
Col 2:17 Which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ.
New King James:
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.
Note that "is" is added again and body is now "substance".
But if it's allowed to read what it actually says, "body of Christ" the entire meaning is changed and it then matches the context of the rest of the chapter:
Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ.
In other words, let no one judge you regarding a sabbath or holy days EXCEPT the body of Christ. In other words, outsiders from the body of Christ shouldn't be judging you gentiles in HOW you're observing the holy days.
And note that Paul said these ARE (not WERE) shadows. Shadows are cast by objects. A shadow exists. The sabbath and holy days certainly ARE shadows of things to come. They have prophetic significance. For example, the weekly sabbath represents the future reign of Christ during the millenium.
I realize this goes against what tradition has taught you what these verses mean and I understand that. It's just that the traditional church cannot interpret this any other way because to do so would mean they would have to admit that the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ are still valid today...something that hasn't been officially acknowledged for 1800 or 1900 years.
“We have 2000 years of Sacred Tradition and the magesterium on our side.”
No you don’t. You think you do, but you actually don’t.
For example, review all the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement, all writing before the end of the first century or early into the second. You will not find one quote referencing the Papacy, the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome, or any other aspect of Roman Catholicism. In fact, Ignatius, writing to Polycarp, called Polycarp’s head “God.” According to the Catechism, the Pope is the head of all the bishops and the church. None of these writers mention any higher position in the church than the Bishop, and the highest and, actually, the true authority is God. And whenever Peter is mentioned, he is mentioned alongside the other Apostles, with no hint or suggestion of his supremacy.
Fast forward 500 or so years, and even when the concept of Peter’s supremacy had taken hold, they still did not believe that the Bishop of Rome had primacy.
“Pope” Gregory the First, for example, says that the See of Peter is governed by three Bishops. Thus, the Bishops of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome are all equal:
“Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. — In the Eulogy’ to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Things only get worse for you when we examine the individual opinions of Church fathers. For example, here is Augustine promoting what the Papists today call Calvinism, which they utterly reject:
CHAP. 38 [XIX.]— WHAT IS THE VIEW OF THE PELAGIANS, AND WHAT OF THE SEMI-PELAGIANS, CONCERNING PREDESTINATION.
But these brethren of ours, about whom and on whose behalf we are now discoursing, say, perhaps, that the Pelagians are refuted by this apostolical testimony in which it is said that we are chosen in Christ and predestinated before the foundation of the world, in order that we should be holy and immaculate in His sight in love. For they think that “having received God’s commands we are of ourselves by the choice of our free will made holy and immaculate in His sight in love; and since God foresaw that this would be the case,” they say, “He therefore chose and predestinated us in Christ before the foundation of the world.” Although the apostle says that it was not because He foreknew that we should be such, but in order that we might be such by the same election of His grace, by which He showed us favour in His beloved Son. When, therefore, He predestinated us, He foreknew His own work by which He makes us holy and immaculate. Whence the Pelagian error is rightly refuted by this testimony. “But we say,” say they, “that God did not foreknow anything as ours except that faith by which we begin to believe, and that He chose and predestinated us before the foundation of the world, in order that we might be holy and immaculate by His grace and by His work.” But let them also hear in this testimony the words where he says, “We have obtained a lot, being predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things.” [Eph. 1.11.] He, therefore, work-eth the beginning of our belief who worketh all things; because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” [Rom. 11.29.] and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth” [Rom. 9.12.] (although He might have said, “of Him that believeth”); and the election which the Lord signified when He said: “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” [John 15.16.] For He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe. But all the many things which we have said concerning this matter need not be repeated.
http://www.covenanter.org/Predestination/augustin_predestination.html
Augustine also is on record calling the Eucharist figurative, rejecting the concept of Mary as being more blessed than other believers, and many other things. And this same process can be repeated with Jerome, with Cyril of Jerusalem, with Athanasius, with dozens of other Church fathers or Bishops who do not hold the same traditions which Rome has today, which you claim have existed for 2,000 years straight.
Well again Romans 14 NEVER mentions the sabbath or the holy days. Again, there are, with no exceptions, certain greek words used to denote the sabbath and the holy days of the Lord. They are NOT used here. That's why translators did NOT use them here. Compare that to Colossians 2 where they ARE used. Therefore the logical method of analysis would be to ascertain what days are being referred to and what food issues are being referred to and why they are related.
The food issue is discussed many times in the new testament by Paul..and it has to do with meat purchased in the market place. Another place it's discussed is 1 Corinthians 10.
Gal 2:12-16 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.
It's a misunderstanding that the issue here was about Peter eating food. It wasn't. It was about Peter associating with gentiles for fear that he would become "unclean".
This was a law of the jews, but not scriptural, that Jews should not associate with gentiles.
In Acts 10, Peter went to some gentiles and here's what he told them:
Act 10:28 Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man to keep company with or go to one of another nation. But God has shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean.
This was the issue. The early church was trying to separate itself from unbiblical laws and traditions of the Jews. There is no part of God's laws that say that Hebrews can't keep company with gentiles. it was a tradition because a tradition had grown up the supposed gentiles to be dirty, nasty and unclean.
Paul understood this and was brave enough to stand before jewish Christians for what was right. Peter was still liable to be influenced by Jewish Christians on these unscriptural laws and so would be hypocritical when they showed up.
“Well again Romans 14 NEVER mentions the sabbath or the holy days. Again, there are, with no exceptions, certain greek words used to denote the sabbath and the holy days of the Lord. “
I have already shown that the ‘days, months, times, years’ is in reference to Holy days, and so it is not necessary to give each specific name, whether it is passover, or any particular festival, or any particular day, since they had so many. The concept of “esteeming one day above another” can only be a reference to valuing certain days, Holy days, over regular days. No one esteems one day as better than another if it is not in reference to holy days. This is the natural reading. It’s not a coincidence that you didn’t bother to give an explanation for it, and merely asserted as if those verses don’t exist altogether.
“It’s a misunderstanding that the issue here was about Peter eating food. It wasn’t. It was about Peter associating with gentiles for fear that he would become “unclean”.”
A red herring. I said nothing about food, unless you also are a promoter of keeping the dietary laws. My reference was in directly pointing out that the Apostles “live as do the Gentiles.” If they are living as the gentiles, then they are not living as Jews in the observation of holy days.
The greek has no punctuation. Punctuation is added in English. Verses 16 and 17 are continuations of one thought:
Col 2:16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths,
Col 2:17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the body of Christ.
I left the "is" out of "body IS of Christ" because it's not in the greek. It's italicized in the KJV to show that it's not in the greek. It's there as a translator discretion.
Verse numbers and chapter are also added.
The following is completely grammatically correct and when thought of in the context of the entire chapter which remember is focused on things NOT scriptural but on manmade traditions makes sense.:
"So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths (which are a shadow of things to come) but the body of Christ."
The word translated "regarding" is also interesting...it means a division, or an allotment or share.
Thayer's Lexicon defines as: a part
1a) a part due or assigned to one
1b) lot, destiny
2) one of the constituent parts of a whole
2a) in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree, as
respects a part, severally, individually
2b) any particular, in regard to this, in this respect
Curious word to use IF the verse is talking about abolishing the holy days of the Lord. But perfect word to use if someone is criticizing Paul's congregation for HOW they are observing aspects, or parts, of the holy days and sabbaths.
It's no mystery that translators can't or won't translate this correctly. To do so would be an admission that there were gentile Christians observing the sabbath and holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ.
This fact has been almost erased from history...the traditional church, via the Roman church, has created it's own "days" and observes them instead of the days that Jesus Christ himself clearly created, kept and told his followers to keep.
The Roman church fell away from the Lord's holy days because the Jews had a series of revolts against the empire. The hatred of the Jews is evident in church literature from the 1st century on. Anybody that had practices that resembled the hated "jews" were persecuted in the Roman empire. So many that called themselves Christians took the politically expedient route and abandoned sabbath and holy day worship and other practices which might have labeled them as Jewish.
“The greek has no punctuation. Punctuation is added in English. Verses 16 and 17 are continuations of one thought:”
Which has absolutely no relevance to explaining the phrase “which is the shadow of things to come,” which follows immediately after the discussion of the Sabbath and other Holy days, which in turn is the counterpart to “body” which every actual translation and commentary acknowledges as the “body” that casts the shadow. You’ve given me no reason to reject the plain meaning of the phrase, for your convoluted one. There is no punctuation in the world or lack thereof which can make the “shadow” refer to anything but the Holy days it immediately follows. Unless you can explain what the “shadow” is referring to, your conception cannot stand, since your conception requires that the Holy Days are not shadows, but are things which the Body of Christ is allowed to judge you for in practice.
It’s so backwards of a meaning (that you use) that you basically overlook not only the context, but an entire clause to make it work.
“I left the “is” out of “body IS of Christ” because it’s not in the greek. “
Of course it’s not in Greek. “Is” is an English translation of a Greek word that can be rendered in English as is, this, are, of, and many other words, depending on the context, as has already been shown.
Please stop repeating the same arguments over and over again when they have already been refuted. Address the most recent points.
“Curious word to use IF the verse is talking about abolishing the holy days of the Lord. But perfect word to use if someone is criticizing Paul’s congregation for HOW they are observing aspects, or parts, of the holy days and sabbaths.”
Your definition includes:
Definition
a part
a part due or assigned to one
lot, destiny
one of the constituent parts of a whole
in part, partly, in a measure, to some degree, as respects a part, severally, individually
any particular, in regard to this, in this respect
“In regard to this, in this respect, individually any particular” are obviously perfectly acceptable uses of the word, and it is translated like that on multiple occasions. Including here. It also doesn’t in any way answer the challenges previously made. Thus, you make much ado about nothing.
“It’s no mystery that translators can’t or won’t translate this correctly. To do so would be an admission that there were gentile Christians observing the sabbath and holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ.”
When your cult requires a conspiracy theory for why no translator or commentator agrees with you, it’s time to find a more reasonable cult. Maybe Scientology. They avoid the Bible altogether.
Is this one of my church is an honour roll student or can beat up your church sort of threads?
Do you chauvinists really think God or the Christ care what church you attend short of apostate?
I'm not seeing your point. The phrase is "Which ARE the shadow of things to come.". Not "IS". It's saying that the sabbath's and holy days ARE shadows of things to come. They aren't a shadow of Jesus Christ except in a holy day replacement theology created centuries after his death.
The "body of Christ" in the phrase is the congregation of Christians that make up the body of Christ.
But even IF the body of Christ is referring directly to the risen Christ then you're still left with the fact that the holy days ARE, according to Paul, ARE shadows of Christ and Paul makes no claim that they done away with or not to be observed. None. You are completely reading that into it. And you still ignore the whole of the chapter which clearly shows that the controversy ISN'T about the holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ, but of a philsophy that is manmade, traditional, has to do with false humility and the worship of angels and is built on earthy principles.
The holy days of the Lord Jesus Christ are NONE Of these, yet you refuse to even offer an explanation as to why Paul mentions these things. Instead you focus on the only thing you know, the traditional church's "talking point" about two verses.
Nope. There's one church, those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ. This church is a spiritual organism that stretches across organizations.
Do you chauvinists really think God or the Christ care what church you attend short of apostate?
I'm not sure "care" is the right word. I think they're concerned with our spiritual development. Some organizations can help that spiritual development. Some organizations can hinder it. And some were created specifically to try and stop it. Christ predicted the rise of false religion:
Mat 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?'
Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!'
“I’m not seeing your point. The phrase is “Which ARE the shadow of things to come.”. Not “IS”. It’s saying that the sabbath’s and holy days ARE shadows of things to come. They aren’t a shadow of Jesus Christ except in a holy day replacement theology created centuries after his death.”
A ridiculous notion, since Christ is always called the fulfillment of the shadows of Old Testament ritual law.
For example,
Heb 10:1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.
In this example, the “things to come” is still in the same tense as the quote here in Colossians. Yet, you can’t argue that Christ’s sacrifice is not what has already fulfilled the law.
Heb 9:9-10 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (10) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
Note especially “carnal ordinances,” which refers to any rite or ceremony of the Old Testament.
Furthermore, you yourself cannot divorce the dietary laws, new moon, and all the Jewish holydays that you do not celebrate from the scripture in Colossians. If your reading is correct, then the dietary laws are still in force, as are ALL the Jewish festivals and rest days, as they are a “shadow” that we are still to celebrate, still being in ignorance of the “image” that you claim has not come.
But, of course, this understanding is absurd, no matter how many times you repeat it. As we are not under the law, but under grace.
In this example, the “things to come” is still in the same tense as the quote here in Colossians. Yet, you can’t argue that Christ’s sacrifice is not what has already fulfilled the law.
The book of Hebrews is clear and specific about the function of old covenant and what the new covenant means. For example, it's very clear that the sacrifice of Christ obviated the need for animals and any other types of sacrifice.
Chapter 7 covers specifically why the Levitical priesthood is no longer under new covenant...because Christ is our high priest.
But again you are ADDING to what is in scripture by saying that the sacrifice of Christ means that his holy days and especially his holy sabbath are done away with. There is NOWHERE in Hebrews that this is stated. It's another talking point, another fiction, that this is so.
In point of fact hebrews chapter 4 clearly and definitely affirms that there is still a sabbath keeping for the people of God.
Heb 9:9-10 Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect, as pertaining to the conscience; (10) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. Note especially “carnal ordinances,” which refers to any rite or ceremony of the Old Testament.
You are making a common mistake and confusing the books of the old testament with the terms and conditions of the old covenant. The old covenant is a specific agreement between God and Israel. Not all of the things in the books of the old testament are done away with under the new covenant. Basically it boils down to priestly functions, sacrifices and those things which can only apply to a civil state, such as civil and criminal penalties. Anything else is still in effect.
The observance of the sabbath and the holy days all PRECEDED the establishment of the old covenant...God's agreement with Israel. They are foretold being observed in the kingdom of God when Christ returns and they're observed by some Christians today.
I'll trust that you can do the study to find the scriptures yourself...if not and if you wish me to provide them I will.
“Nope. There’s one church, those who worship the Lord Jesus Christ. This church is a spiritual organism that stretches across organizations.”
You’ve already told us that we are not Christians, but that you are, because you’re a member of a particular religion called the “United Church of God.”
Having taken the time to do a bit of research, I discovered the following facts:
Here is a quote by your religion on the nature of God:
God: God consists of two different beings, Father and Son, in a ‘family.’
“...the one God is a family, presently consisting of God the Father and God the Son, Jesus Christ. And God is in the process of adding to the divine family multitudes of others - eventually all human beings who are willing and who faithfully choose to follow God’s way...the Father and Jesus Christ are both God...The real message in these pronouncements is that there is no other God apart from the true God’that is, outside the God family now consisting of two divine Beings, the Father and the Son. In short, the God family alone is God...the true God means the one God family to which others will yet be added.”
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/do-some-verses-deny-divine-family
The scriptures are clear on the unity of God:
Isa_44:8 Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
God is not defined as the “family of God.” There is only one God, and no one is being added into the Godhead.
Apparently, your religion teaches that man can “partake of divinity,” IOW, become God by joining into the ‘God Family.’
Isa_43:10 ... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
It goes on:
The Holy Spirit is God’s divine power. “...the Holy Spirit is the very nature, presence and expression of God’s power actively working in His servants...the very essence and life force through which the Father begets human beings as His spiritual children...The Holy Spirit is spoken of in many ways that demonstrate that it is not a divine person.”
“The Holy Spirit is received by the laying on of hands, after being water baptized by immersion.
http://www.ucg.org/booklet/god-trinity/holy-spirit-person/
http://www.ucg.org/fundamental-beliefs-info/
You should have been more honest about your full position when you first argued with me, as you never told me or made it clear that you denied that the Holy Spirit was a person. I thought, perhaps, you thought that the Father and the Holy Spirit were in reference to the same being. The fact that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person (and not an inanimate object) in the Godhead cannot be disputed. After all, if the Lord GOD and His Spirit are sending the Son, this is a decision made by two different persons, who are yet the same God, as is the Son.
Apparently, also, your religion claims that the Holy Spirit can only be passed on by directly being touched by someone in your church.
Of course, I already posted the scripture of Cornelius receiving the Holy Spirit merely at the preaching of Peter, even before water baptism. You never replied to it, and this explains why. The Holy Spirit is sovereign in the scriptures, and falls on whom He will. The fact that you are not being honest about this, while yet telling us we are not Christians, and then acting like the body of Christ crosses many different organizations, is good evidence of your overall deception.
It goes on:
“God will offer salvation all who have lived, including those of non-Christian religions, in a time described in Revelation 22: 5, 11-13 . This is a period known as the Great White Throne Judgment when God will offer salvation, through Christ, to those denied such opportunity in their life.”
http://www.ucg.org/blog/salvation-without-jesus
Apparently, like other religious cults as in the Jehovah’s Witnesses or Mormons, you offer salvation for those who have already passed away, even though those who die can only await the judgment:
Heb_9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:
You also deny the effectual calling of God for all those predestinated before the foundation of the world:
Rom 8:28-29 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Therefore, you are not a Christian, and you have nothing in common with the body of Christ.
I completely agree that we are under grace. But at the same time Christ completely predicted the heresy that HIS law would be ignored in the end times:
Mat 24:11 `And many false prophets shall arise, and shall lead many astray;
Mat 24:12 and because of the abounding of the lawlessness, the love of the many shall become cold;
Mat 24:13 but he who did endure to the end, he shall be saved;
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, lord, have we not in thy name prophesied? and in thy name cast out demons? and in thy name done many mighty things?
Mat 7:23 and then I will acknowledge to them, that--I never knew you, depart from me ye who are working lawlessness.
2Th 2:7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way.
2Th 2:8 And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming.
2Th 2:9 The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders,
2Th 2:10 and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
The truth, my friend, is that the mystery of lawlessness is now strong within the churches of the world.
Mat 5:18 For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.
Mat 5:19 Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
The 4th commandment has been broken by the traditional church. It has systematically destroyed the teaching of scripture, Christ and the disciples through it's tradition and taught others to disobey it. That doesn't preclude those who break it from the kingdom of heaven, but it sure isn't a good thing to do.
I did no such thing. In fact I've said many times on this thread that I am not the judge of someones Christianity. I have no way of telling. Scripture teaches that the vast majority of people who believe in Christ will be saved despite the deception of Satan.
Well all I can say is thank God it's not your job to determine my salvation. That's the role of the Lord and his angels :-)
You would do well to read the parable of the wheats and the tares my friend.
And thanks for all the links to the wonderful booklets. I dont' agree with your characterizations of course but those following the discussion can feel free to follow the links. When they do that they will see that yes, the bible disagrees with what some of traditional Christianity teaches. But that's only because traditional Christianity decided to rely on tradition rather than scripture to teach the truth of Christ.
“I completely agree that we are under grace. But at the same time Christ completely predicted the heresy that HIS law would be ignored in the end times:”
And how does one fulfill the law of Christ?
Rom 13:8-9 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (9) For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
No reference of any Jewish festival or holy day, not even the Sabbath.
In fact, to dispute over these things (trying to get people to follow your holy day of choice or refrain from your meat of choice) is something Paul commands us against, as seen in Romans 14.
But as for “agreeing that we are under grace,” your religion does not agree that we are under grace, but actually denies God’s sovereign grace in the salvation of men without works.
“I did no such thing. In fact I’ve said many times on this thread that I am not the judge of someones Christianity”
And then you said, over and over again, that “Protestants” are in rebellion against Christ, that we have conspired to mistranslate the Bible, that the Bible itself is subject to error, and that you are the only person here that is a member of the actual Church of God. But then you say things like this. It’s an equivocation I won’t fall for, especially when it turns out your religion doesn’t believe any of us even have the Holy Spirit since we have not been laid hands on by your ministers.
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.