No, it reflects the fact that sometimes I am tired in the evening and should wait until the
next day to respond -
 
On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 06:17:59 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I suspect not but, more importantly, is it reflective of your 'inspired' interpretations?
 
Humble apologies profered for messing up the scenario in Acts 9:3,4 - he fell to the ground but it may
not have been off a donkey - do you know for a fact that he was walking "G"  Did he have a horse?
Is this an important part of your orthodoxy G?
 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:04:48 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..& that she simultaneously re-writes Acts 9, expansively,e.g., there is no donkey in Acts--she took the liberty to add that notion
 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 18:00:32 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..evidence suggests that jt re-writes Luke reductionistically, in green, below
 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:53:45 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
..yo, Christine, keep in mind that greater revelation can be reductionistic as well as expansive
 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 17:29:06 -0700 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
myth (mother Mary matters, M'am)
 
On Sun, 8 Jan 2006 16:09:41 -0500 Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I believe He is King of Kings and Lord of Lords
Head of the Church which is His body
Our Prophet, Priest, and King who sits at the RH of the Father in Heaven.
||
..God the Holy Spirit in Jesus the son of man, making him Christ the Son of God.
 
 
 
 
 

Reply via email to