I refuted it long before you posted it. See my post with RWP comments. You do not post an understanding based on anything other than what you want rather than an educated understanding of how it was used. Then you run out and post the first thing you find that agrees with you with no knowledge of who the person is or their world view. That is certainly your prerogative but it brings question to your understanding of what you are even posting.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Annointing with oil for the sick...
- Thread starter annsni
- Start date
I refuted it long before you posted it. See my post with RWP comments. You do not post an understanding based on anything other than what you want rather than an educated understanding of how it was used. Then you run out and post the first thing you find that agrees with you with no knowledge of who the person is or their world view. That is certainly your prerogative but it brings question to your understanding of what you are even posting.
I see...the RWP comments are inspired now.
False accusation.
Like I said prior, I have an understanding of what it means to be annointed. I gave the historic background on what it means, and then cite another author who also agrees with my understanding. You do nothing but call out my qualifications in understanding this text...and then supply your own author, that for whatever reason, must trump my understanding. If anything I think it is apparent who is looking for something to grasp at. You then fail to supply your qualifications that negate my understanding as being uninformed on this topic. I would like you to deal with ANNOINTING WITH OIL, from how it was defined in the OT to how is is further refined in the NT.
If you cannot have a meaningful discussion about the topic, no sense in going further.
Exactly, no sense in going further.
No problem, but would like to know on what authority you stood on in making the comment "With all due respect you are speaking on something you have no real understanding of."
I gave it in my post with RWP. And I can supply at least 3 or 4 more if you would like. Your comment said that it could only have been ingested rather than rubbed.
Not sure how that would help as I could do the same.
Also, I never said anything to that fact. Please read what I wrote instead of what you would like to hear.
Fact is you never engaged me on the purpose of anointing and the context involved, but rather cited one source that appears to be the end-all, be-all in defining the purpose. If you want to believe that, that's fine...but do understand it is not the ONLY (or most accurate, IMO) rendering. No need in calling out the qualifications of those who you disagree with simply because they disagree.
Sure you did post number 46
I am not going to restate things already said in this thread. You need to go back and read the rest of it.
You just proved my point. I said "The medicinal qualities would have most likely came from ingestion, not topical usage." We are discussing severe illnesses most likely life threatening, not as my daughter would say "boo boos".
Just did prior to your post. My point remains you have no leg to stand on in making the statement ""With all due respect you are speaking on something you have no real understanding of."
Your bold changes nothing
Sure I do. You reduced the use of oil to simply ingestion. That could not be farther from the truth.
Ok well God Bless
freeatlast
New Member
LOL! Yup, that it would do ! (but hey, who knows, a good laxative could be just what the doctor ordered
)
Everything but headaches would be topical.
That's why we give oil to horses! To help keep things lubricated and to give them extra fat. Trust me, you give them enough, you know it from the barn chores. :laugh:
Well, you absolutely have a point!!