Leaderboard

The following, I consider to be a seminal thought found near the end of the article:

David Sharfman had been dating Mindy Newman for a few months and things were getting serious so they decided that it was time for David to meet Mindy’s parents. "So tell me David,” Mr. Newman prodded, “Can you support a family?" Surprised, David replied, "Well, no. I was just planning to support your daughter. The rest of you will have to fend for yourselves!"

Mrs. Simon was teaching her fourth grade class at Talmud Torah Academy about the importance of curiosity. "Where would we be today if no one had ever been curious?" Mrs. Simon asked. Little Moishie Epstein called out from the back of the class, “in the Garden of Eden?"

Congregation Beth Israel decided that the stone which formed the step up to the front door of the shul had become too worn by its years of use, and would have to be replaced. Unfortunately, there were hardly any funds available for the replacement. Then someone came up with the bright idea that the replacement could be postponed for many years by simply turning the block of stone over. After accompanying the shul’s handyman to try flipping over the stone, Rabbi Felder reported back to the congregation. “My dear congregants, I have bad news. It was a great idea, but our great-grandparents beat us to it.”

Gustave, I am not as studied as you, in history and religions. Probably not as practiced at apologetics. I would even say you're smarter than I am. I don't even have a degree in Theology. I just study the Bible. I do read commentaries. If they fit what Scripture says, then I can agree with that commentator. Trouble I see with this statement, is that you cannot prove the "valid line of succession". It's all your traditions. Even the supposed appointment of Peter as the first "head of the church" is without Scripture support. It just doesn't fit what Jesus told Peter. The "rock" upon which His church would be built - the "foundation stone" - at first rejected, was Jesus the Christ the Son of the Living God, not Peter. When Christ ascended, there were many, many believers standing there on the Mt of Olives - not just the 11 disciples. Christ told all of them to "go" and "make disciples of all men, baptizing them". Here's Peter himself. 1 Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, who are chosen 2 according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctifying work of the Spirit, that you may obey Jesus Christ and be sprinkled with His blood: May grace and peace be yours in fullest measure. . . . same letter continued: 1 Peter 2:1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all guile and hypocrisy and envy and all slander, 2 like newborn babes, long for the pure milk of the word, that by it you may grow in respect to salvation, 3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord. 4 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, 5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For this is contained in Scripture: "Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone, And he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed." . . . . 9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; 10 for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy." (NAS) Peter is not even writing to Jews. He's writing to Gentile converts. Because he says "you were not a people, but now you are." This "people" are ALL being built up "a spiritual house, a holy priesthood". So not special exclusive priesthood which must prove succession back to the original 12. Peter obviously believes that Christ is the "living stone" - the "choice stone" - the "precious corner stone", upon which the church is built. Certainly he does not believe the church is built upon himself.

"By their fruits you will know them." Fruits: Approval of the use of images in worship (You shall not make unto thee any graven images. You shall not bow down to them.) prayer to the dead (saints), (Communication with the dead was strictly forbidden in the Torah on pain of death.) literal Tran-substitution in the Mass (Jesus said, "It is finished." He cannot be offered again and again. No man can create his Creator) baptism of infants, ("Repent and be baptized". Infants cannot repent, therefore they should not be baptized. One does not inherit the sin. Sin spread to all, because all sinned - not because they inherited Adam's sin.) killing whole populations of people who do not agree with your doctrines (Waldensian) using military force to subdue other peoples - like the Francs, and forcing them to adopt the doctrine of the Trinity Conquering and confiscating lands for "the church" infallibility of an elected Pope, who dictates church doctrine confession to a priest, receiving absolution from a priest, changing the LORD's appointed times to alternate days - Sabbath to Sunday, Easter, Christmas, etc. etc. etc. teaching the sinless conception of Mary herself, her subsequent sinless-ness, her ascension into Heaven, and her intercession for sinners teaching that our God is a Trinity

Lou: Now in light of this book’s theme that there is no need to be afraid of God, I have to ask; how can you preach the three angels’ messages without inspiring fear? Even the first angel’s message sounds a note of judgment (Rev 14:7). That makes one feel a bit uneasy. And after that […] The post Questions and Answers (16:9) appeared first on Jon Paulien's Blog. View the full article

Exactly, you got more into the "fine print" of what they actually believe - what they reject is that God IS ONE SUBSTANCE that is co-equally owned by 3 distinct Persons. Yes, they believe that they will become God's in their own right and Lord over their own (to be determined) planet in the universe. They believe that Father God "came down" as a man and bred Mary (in the traditional physical sense) and THAT was what produced Jesus. So, you would agree that a religion simply saying something that sounds Orthodox doesn't make it Orthodox if after peeling the onion back you realize the group has different definitions for terms long ago established and universalized. Do you agree with this?

Joe, you asked me once who Cain was afraid of - when the LORD banished him. I gave that some thought. Adam and Eve were already outside of the Garden. They had probably already produced several children, by the time Cain murdered Able. The LORD had commanded they fill the earth - with people. Cain could have assumed that many descendants of Able might try to kill him. The LORD did say that death was the penalty for murder. Gen 9:6 "whoever sheds man's blood, by man his blood shall be shed." Later, in the commands to Israel, "the avenger of blood shall put the murderer to death when he meets him." Num 35:19, 21, 27. It appears "the avenger of blood" had become a strongly rooted law. That was the reason for the "cities of refuge". There were no cities of refuge at the time Cain was made a fugitive and vagabond. Hence the reason for "the mark" on him. Maybe Cain actually cried out to the LORD, or perhaps the LORD was trying to prevent a long blood-feud. You asked why Cain built "cities" - for whom? He could have built what later became cities. Same thing is seen in a few other places describing later building sites.

Bible doesn't say "no death inside the Garden". It just says "sin entered the world" and death entered the world - through the sin of the one man. Romans 5:12 Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death (entered the world) through sin" IMO the Bible does not put "death" before sin - anywhere in "the world", whether in the Garden or outside of the Garden.

You mean that's not true??

5 Things You Probably Didn't Know About Star Trek On September 8, 1966, the TV series Star Trek premiered on NBC. What started as a little space adventure show ballooned into a cultural phenomenon and some of the most beloved characters in television and movie history. Here are five things you probably didn't know about Star Trek... Spock Was Not Named After Dr. Spock, at Least Not Intentionally Gene Roddenberry has written that he did not name Mr. Spock after Dr. Benjamin Spock, the noted child-development expert. And he may not have done so intentionally. However, given that Dr. Spock's books had already been in print for a while, the name may have been familiar to him already. Regardless of the origin of Spock's name, the show took the confusion in stride and ran with it; in an episode of Star Trek: Voyager, for example, the Doctor considers choosing a name, and "Spock" is one of his options. A Massive Fan Campaign Kept Star Trek on the Air for One More Season Fan campaigns to save or revive TV shows are common now, but in the 1960s, fans organized one for Star Trek that blew everyone away. The show was supposed to be canceled after two seasons, but fans organized a huge letter-writing campaign that surpassed 110,000 letters and postcards. Students at Cal Tech organized a college protest march that ended at the NBC studios, too. That may not sound like much now, when the internet allows for international organization within a few minutes, but it was unheard of in the 1960s for a television show. Neither William Shatner Nor Zachary Quinto Could Do a Proper Vulcan Salute Without Help How many of you reading this had to teach yourselves to do the Vulcan salute, where your fingers form a V shape with two fingers on each side? Consider yourselves lucky if you trained yourself to make this hand signal easily; neither William Shatner (Kirk) nor Zachary Quinto (Spock in the rebooted timeline) were able to do so. Shatner had to tie fishing line around his fingers to get everyone to stay in place for the salute, and Quinto had to use a form of superglue typically used in hospitals on skin. Spock Was Originally Going to Be a Devil, DeForest Kelley Was Going to Play Spock, and Spock Had the Opportunity to Lose His Ear Points It's no secret that characters undergo massive changes as TV shows get off the ground and go into production. However, those changes can sometimes be surprising. Dr. Spock was originally supposed to be Martian, with red skin, a food-absorbing abdominal plate, and a devil-like tail; however, Gene Roddenberry worried that, should the space program send a human to Mars, whatever was found there could make Martian Spock immediately outdated, so he nixed that idea. There was also the little problem of how the red skin makeup would work on black-and-white TVs, which were still very common then; the makeup looked nearly black and would have given the impression that Spock was in blackface. Plus, all that red makeup would have been a pain to apply. Oddly, the network still considered now-Vulcan Spock to be too Satanic-looking, but they backed off once they found out viewers adored Spock. Additional changes included having DeForest Kelley audition for Spock, and the option for Spock to lose his pointy ears through plastic surgery performed by Bones (Dr. McCoy) if Leonard Nimoy found the prosthetic ears too uncomfortable. The First Person to Create Words in Klingon Was James "Scotty" Doohan Language fans will know of Dr. Marc Okrand, a linguist who created the Klingon language and wrote dictionaries and short textbooks on how to speak Klingon. The work was so thorough that the language app Duolingo even offers a short course in Klingon. However, Okrand didn't create Klingon from scratch. While he did create the majority of the language and its rules, the seeds of Klingon pronunciation and grammar were sown in the first Star Trek movie by James Doohan, who played Scotty. Okrand took the few lines and analyzed their sounds and syntax, and built an entire, logical artificial language that now appears in Bing's translator software.