ULCneo

I think you confuse the term "minister" with the term "pastor" (or its rough equivalent in whatever religion you happen to deal with.) All are called to full-time ministry. The term "minister" means "to serve" when you study the word's historical roots. However, a "Pastor" is more of a leadership role, which not all can do, and certainly not all can do full time.

That depends on whether or not, I can loudly proclaim "I pooped today!" right in the middle of dinner. If I'm allowed to do this, it will be a full house, and I'll need to get me one of those "take-a-number" machines....

Had a few friends that are attorneys that taught me the down and dirties of practicing law that they DON'T teach in law schools. When I found out how dirty the profession really was, I passed on studying it as a full-time profession. But, like i said, its a "look it up" kind of thing on that- Most of what law schools teach these days is total Bull.

I have an android phone which I did a custom install of linux on.

Well, apparently, he doesn't know the law, evidently. This is really actually rather BASIC theory, if one cares to actually look it up.

To be straight to the point: Apple Sucks, Microsoft Sucks, Android Sucks (as does everything Google owned) - Linux is OK, depending upon version. I particularly like cali.

It may be that your OS version doesn't support the current app permissions. Try finding an older version of the app.

Then apparently he forgot that the separation clause of the U.S. constitution states that congress, under no circumstances, can EVER mess with the conduct of the goings on of the Church, absent applying the heightened scrutiny standard (which copyright law nearly always fails heightened scrutiny.) the only real question is whether the use is "Religious" in nature. if it is, then copyright will NEVER apply.

As I've said, before, there are certain expressions in Hebrew and Greek that don't translate well into English, because English is rather restricted in terms of expression.

Besides the fact that the ancient Romans were very anti-semetic at the time, and hence, anti-Christian as well. (given Christianity's early juxtaposition to the Jews, whom Rome saw as problem children to their government.) Hence, we'd expect the Roman history to be very much contradictory to the history of the Christian church. Yet, we don't see anywhere near as much contradiction between the two mutually independent accounts as we'd expect, since Rome had motive to be antagonistic and therefore lie their ** off. That would have to be more than coincidence.

I find that amusing. Someone has obviously been legally misinformed. Its amazing how many people don't know that Churches are NOT subject to the provisions of copyright law due to the separation clause.

Translated, yes. Altered, No. Two different things. With translation, your always going to slightly gain or loose, by the nature of what translation is, where the languages don't exactly line up.

(Luke 22:36) He that hath a purse, let him take it.—The word translated to the English “purse” is the same as in Luke 10:4. If the words had stopped short of the “sword,” we could have received their literal meaning without difficulty. They would have seemed to counsel the prudence which provides for want, instead of a simple trust, as before, in the providence of God, and so would have sanctioned all equitable forms of Church organization and endowment. The mention of the “sword,” however, introduces a new element of thought. Our Lord’s words to Peter (Matthew 26:52) show that the disciples were not meant to use it in His defense. It is not likely that He would teach them to use it in their own, as they preached the gospel of the Kingdom. True teachers felt afterwards that the weapons of their warfare were not carnal (2Corinthians 10:4). What follows supplies a probable explanation: The Master knew that two of the disciples (Peter and another) had brought swords with them, and with that acceptance of the thoughts of others which we have so often traced, He sadly, and yet, as it were, with the gentle sympathy with which a man speaks to those who are children in age or character, conveyed His warnings in the form which met their fears and hopes. If they meant to trust in swords, a time was coming when they would sorely need them. However, the expression was not meant to be taken with unintelligent literalness. It was in accordance with that kind metaphorical method of expression which our blessed Lord adopted that His words might never be forgotten. It was to warn them of days of hatred and opposition in which self-defense might become a daily necessity, though, in no uncertain terms, not aggression. To infer that the latter is implied has been one of the fatal errors which arise from attributing infallibility to wrong inferences from a superstitious letter-worship.

The NIV text isn't even regarded by Christians to be authoritative text in the first place, ( the majority of Christians don't regard any text compiled after the KJV to be authoritative because of the fact that they are lacking in more ways than the KJV to the original Greek and Hebrew.) making your point as to the NIV rather moot. There's no legitimate and meritious claim concrete evidence that the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts were ever altered. As for your verse in I Corinthians 13:13 both texts (the KJV and the NIV) are equivalent in meaning to the Greek, once you conduct a proper "word study" as to investigate what the intended meaning of the author actually was. This is why we have lexicons such as Strong's concordance. Otherwise, you'd have to find a definition for "charity" as used in the archaic sense, that means something different, and still actually makes sense in the sentence and within the context of the passage, in order to evidence a "change". Unless of course, your saying that people just "Changed" the text by throwing some random words in there in a nonsensical manner. Your apparent position there is so frivolous, that its really not even worthy of discussing.

and your point is what, exactly? Because you apparently don't have a point with that total mess.

I suggest you very carefully re-read my post. it said "contemporary to the events"....

The Supreme Court will most likely deny cert to such a case; history establishes that the court has a dislike for hearing "religion" cases in which the government is appellant. Therefore, they will most likely only grant cert to hear such a case only where the circuit courts of appeal are in disagreement on an issue of law. The court tends to abstain from hearing issues of state law, to be sure, unless there is a significant constitutional question that hasn't been decided and the circuit court decisions are ambiguous as to the established law on the given subject matter.

It facilitates understanding of the topic by way of not giving examples which are incorrect in terms of the parts of history that agreed to by both the early Christian Church and the Secular historians whom were contemporary to the events. Otherwise, we insert incorrect information into our arguments, and such arguments will fail as a consequence that flows from incorrect information. This is what Google is for.

This is true, but we must also factor in one's motive to lie about what was told. If I write you a letter, its difficult for you to lie about what was said, because one can keep a copy of the letter they sent. The early writers would have most CERTAINLY caused a big stink if they were misinterpreted or misquoted. (in fact Paul did this a few times in his letters to the Roman and Corinthian Churches.) However, if I communicate with you verbally, its quite easy for you to potentially distort or outright lie about the substance of the communication for whatever personal reason you might have, and I have no real way to prove what was said, considering that in the ancient world, we didn't have microphones and audio recording.

I guess you forget the FACT that the majority of the NT wasn't written at the time of the events- in most cases the time of the writing was about 30 - 64 A.D., and the later parts of it were written as late as 400 A.D.- hence the fact that the writers, writing their own eye-witness accounts of events they were exposed to, but where the multiple witnesses weren't present at the same location, is fruit for insight. For example, we know that the book of Acts has two authors- we have distinctly Pauline Script and distinctly Petorian Script. However, during some of these events, we KNOW that Peter was NO WHERE NEAR Paul, geographically speaking, based upon the secular Roman historians of the time. Their writings were combined some time later into a single volume. Hence, the fact that they agree without knowledge of one another's writings at the time they wrote, it becomes that this fact speaks for their credibility. This is but an example of what I'm talking about, but it serves the point. You should probably study your basic history concerning the writing in question before commenting, as I find your ignorance of the subject matter bemusing.

Hate to break it to you, but in this case Google is WRONG.

Yes, it is. Florida Regulates Officiants and clergy at the level of state law. The several counties then implement the requirements of state law. Therefore, you'll need to look up the relevant Florida Statutes.