Posted on 12/06/2005 3:32:33 PM PST by franky
I also built the one in the pic. I doubt the ridiculars knew that the word browning included the blue color. As I said, the blue color was hard to get. Many ended up brown, because of technique. How many of the detractors browned there barrels with lye and saltpeter as I did, or used a browning box? I'll bet Birchwood-Casey, or some other commercial solution. Did they use Maple for the gunstocks?
I don't know of many guns from the 19th, or the early 20th century that have their original color. They came out of the factory a perfect blue and are now brown. That's, because the black oxide converts to the red in air over time.
Talking antique guns? My hubby has a nice little collection of originals, a few repros, he has a parker hale repro enfield, and we both have repro flinters.
We do have some 19 c indian war era bayonets that have some of their bluing. I can't remember without going into the gun safe if any of the earlier rifles looked blue. His oldest pieces seem to be from the late 1830s/early forties. All percussion.
Hubby and I re-enact Federalist period in part cause I told him to buy a repro gun that was not Victorian ( He has a late Lancaster style flinter). I didn't want to reenact plains or nez perce indian women, and there weren't a lot of white women around the camp at the Fur era Rendezvous. And I was tired of the politics of CW events...
In case you might be interested, I have pics of his flinter and one of his most interesting, and oldest guns here:
http://www.picturetrail.com/gallery/view?p=999&gid=1687016&uid=408952&members=1
LOL! Ya'll were afraid of being traded for a handful of beads and a jug wern't cha?
Just kidding. Nice pics of the Lancaster.
I have a T/C Hawken .50 cal rifle kit
and a matching plains .50 cal pistol.
These and outfits to reenact
the 1830's fur trade in the Rockies.
My understanding is that Bluing for gun metal
was not invented until the 1880's. Hence all gun barrels were Browned.
I've been to a couple of NMLRA Western events.
OBTW I train NMLRA Certified Instructors for the Boy Scouts.
b'shem Y'shua
Cool. I go to Fort Bridger every year. My hubby's a full member of the ALRA (American Longrifle Association) which does French and Indian war through war of 1812. I have a particular interest in the early side of the Fur Trade, with Manuel Lisa and the Chouteaus, say up through about the beginning of the Rendezvous period.
Naw, Indian woman's too valuable. Who you think prepped all them furs? Kept the menfolk in moccassins?
Did you get to the bottom pictures? That's an unusual rifle. We think it was from ca. 1835 -1840. Underhammer. It's signed, and we've id'd the gunsmith, but I forgot the name.
I have in hardback a two volume edition of
_A history of the American Fur Trade of the far west_
by Hiram Martin Chittenden
published originally in 1902
an excellent resource for that time period.
b'shem Y'shua
Transubstantiation is a possibility and I suppose so is the idea that Jesus was made of bread. The problem is that all evidence points to the fact that no "transubstantiation" takes place and that from a physical standpoint the bread starts out as bread and ends up as bread and nothing physical occurs to change it.
Your idea that things may not seem as they appear brings up an interesting premise. The earth appears to be 6 Billion years old, but the bible states that it was created about 6000 years ago in six days. Yet most Catholics scoff at the idea that God literally created the universe in 6 days, yet they buy into the idea that the bread is really flesh despite the fact that by all appearances it is nothing more than bread.
Why can't you guys buy into a 6 day creation if you so readily accept that something that is by all "appearances" bread is really human flesh?
This is in the vein of the Joel Osteen/John Hagee cult of the individual. Worship God only when convenient and then only out of the idea of getting ahead in THIS world.
You are not asserting merely that God is in the bread.
You are asserting that the bread is God.
Isn't that true?
Our Christmas Masses are always crowded no matter what day of the week it falls on. No reason why it would be less crowded on Sunday.
Both of those rifles look like they were originally blued. I couldn't read the signature on the underhammer. If you look to the right in the signature pic, you'll see blue patches. They wouldn't be there, unless the gun was originally blue. The rest of the color is gone to wear and to red oxide conversion. If you look at the outer edge of the blue patches, you'll note the red/brown. That edge will move in over time, until the blue is gone.
It looks like they commonly blued the guns with heat. This fine gunsmith's site has quite a few that are blued using a charcoal fire. The guns I noted are reproductions, but authentic appearance was his prime concern. Mine is functionality and accuracy. I never polish the brass.
This is exactly what He has done. He is the manna come down from heaven. The miracle from heaven demanded of by the Pharisees which they would never partake in.
You are reacting to this teaching just as the disciples who walked away from Jesus. "This is a hard thing, and who can consider it?"
As I pointed out in my previous post, Jesus made it clear when He was speaking in parables and when He spoke plainly. As much as you don't believe there is evidence Jesus was being literal, there's not one iota of evidence that He was speaking in riddles.
It never ceases to amaze me that Protestants will subject themselves to a bloody fight that the entire Bible is to be taken literally except -- EXCEPT -- John chapter 6. Everything else MUST BE TAKEN LITERALLY -- except John 6.
But this just conforms with Martin Luther's M-O that if you don't agree with it, deny it came from God.
I thought this was a joke.
Why can't you guys buy into a 6 day creation if you so readily accept that something that is by all "appearances" bread is really human flesh?
Because the Church sees the Gospels as eyewitness accounts of Jesus' ministry, while the Pentateuch, the prophets, and apocalyptic literature employed both literal recounts and literary devices unique to the time those texts were written. The Catholic Church, going back even to Saint Augustine, has maintained that the story of creation is not to be taken as a literal unfolding of a week of 24-hour days. It's impossible even from a literal stand point since God did not create time until the fourth "day". How were the first three days "marked", exactly?
Augustine believed that the "six days" were actually one "day" - you know - "this is THE DAY the Lord has made". (Sirach: "God created ALL THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY"); And that this single "day" is re-presented six times to the reader (or listener) of Sacred Scripture as a means of condescending to our finite brainpower and general lack of understanding of how God thinks and behaves. It goes much deeper than that, however. You have to understand the importance of numerology in Old Testament society to know that the number "seven" in Hebrew ('sheva') means "to swear an oath [upon something]". In the story of creation, God builds Himself a house to dwell in (earth and all its inhabitants). On the seventh day, He "sevens" Himself - He swears an oath upon Himself and accepts Adam (man) as a member of His family, as part of this household He's set up. Of course, Adam and Eve promptly throw that gift away. Man becomes alienated from God's family due to Original Sin, which is expiated through Baptism, when Catholics teach that a person (infant, child, adult, whatever) is accepted into God's covenant established in Creation. But the early believers of Yaweh knew exactly what was meant by the use of "seven" days.
The seventh day, the time of "rest", is not just about giving the Sabbath as a day of rest - it also refers to the "day" when we enter God's rest in eternity.
And that's just for starters.
A prominent Catholic theologian (and former Protestant preacher) once said, "the Protestant churches love reading the menu (the Bible). They'll read it over and over and over and over... But they never sit down to the meal (the Eucharist)."
Why is it that Protestants believe that Christ could change water into wine at Cana, but couldn't change bread and wine into His body and blood? It doesn't compute.
That is a bit of a hyperbole. Protestants don't believe that Christ became a "vine" or a "door". Where the context is one of obvious metaphor (like in John 6) it is not to be taken literally.
If you accept the literality of John 6 when it comes to Jesus becoming bread at the Eurcharist, then you must also take the statements in John 6 literally where Jesus states that "I am the bread". He did not claim that he would become bread at some point in the future. If that verse was meant to be taken literally, then Christ was then literally claiming to be made of bread at the time the statement was made. IOW if Christ becomes bread at the eurcharist, then he was Bread when he walked on the earth. That may account for the reason why the Eucharist tastes like... bread.
The Catholics obviously do not take Jesus references to being bread literally in John 6. The only time they take it literally is where Jesus says you have to eat him. Well if that was meant to be taken literally, then at the incarnation Jesus did not take on Human flesh, he only appeared to take on human flesh. In reality then John 1:14 should read: "and the Word was made bread." The "accidents" or appearances of Christ looked like a real human being, but the fact was that Jesus was nothing more than a loaf of Bread in the shape of a Jewish man.
In the miracle of the wine, the wine actually became wine in both appearance and substance. That is how we know it was a miracle. Jesus did not serve up a batch of water and tell everyone it was wine, he took the water and made it into wine and the people saw wine and the tasted wine. In the eucharist you have to take the word of the Priest or the Church that the wine is really blood. It is by all appearances wine. So no "miracle" has occurred. But it isn't wine and God is not lying to your senses. You taste wine because it is wine in both substance and appearance.
If a miracle like Cana occurred then you would taste blood. You don't because it isn't.
He was instituting the priesthood, and this is what priests do.
Jesus had no "need" to partake of His Body and Blood, that's for sure. He also had no "need" of baptism, yet He submitted Himself to that as well. We are to live in imitation of Him, and He wanted to experience humanity in its fullness. That included the sacraments.
SD
Perhaps you need to spend a little more time studying "transubstantiation." You still don't understand it, so you still make nonsensical statements.
SD
I'm sure this makes sense to you. Unfortunately for you, no Catholic is claiming that Jesus's Incarnation is by the mechanism of transubstantiation. Neither is it claimed nor logical that God turning bread into His Body means God's body is made of bread. Try again.
SD
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.