A monthly newsletter for people who have left the state, but still want to keep up to date with what's going on back home.

Minnesota agriculture and farm news, markets, weather, auctions and real estate.

Creates a forum where the public and the news media can engage each other in examining issues of fairness in journalism. Site is frames-dependent.

News collected from diverse sources on the web.

wrf3@stablecross.com wrote:

>>
>> "....the Son of the Living God." Yes, it's the same.
>>
>
> "Israel is my firstborn son..." [Ex 4:22]
>
> Are they the same?
>


Yes, in the sense that Israel is a type of Christ.

Bart

((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

<<
gpatton@bayou.com

I think it was probably around the same time the ass (of Numbers
chapter 22) lost his speaking ability. What do you think?
>>

God's good angel was behind Balam's ass, and God's bad angle the Satan
appared as a serpent in Gen 3.

laszlo


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article ,
lsenders@hotmail.com says...

>Matthew Johnson wrote:


>> >http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_reformed.aspx

>> And I have referred him to a few articles on this site
>> before. The Florovsky article is the best. But Loren has
>> since never showed any understanding of the ideas
>> expressed there, so I reached the conclusion that either
>> he never read them, or he read them with a completely
>> closed mind.

>
>The point was, where are the "traditions" listed.

And my point was, you are asking the wrong question. You
still are.

If you cannot
>provide for me a printed detailing of what the "traditions" are that
>supercede scripture, then it is pie in the sky.

No, that does not follow. This is just another or yoru more
childish red herrings.

> But you can't just a the RCC can't. This is why your
>version, the RC version is no different than the version
>which Christ condemned in the gospels.

Nonsense. This is pure slander.

> It is the traditions of men which stand over the
>interpretation of scripture.

That does not follow. This is just another of your empty slogans.

>There is NO equality because that is an imposiblity.
>Either they stand under the authority of scripture, as
>does, say the Westminster Confession of Faith and ALL
>Protestant confessions,

But these 'confessions' only _say_ they "stand under the
authority of Scripture". But they then immediately
_contradict_ Scripture -- just as you do.

> or they make themselves adjudicators of scripture. And
>the later is exactly where "catholic" traditions place
>themselves.

No, rather, it is you who do thi