[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 11:36:31 -0500
JA,
Thank you for your follow up. You asked me a question, so I'll respond
to that. What would it mean if you or anyone showed me scriptures that
plainly disagreed with any catholic position. I'll assume you are
referring to a valid Bible and to an official Catholic Church position.
My response would be that none of the Scriptures are wrong and that none
of the Scriptures disagree with any official Catholic Church position
and that the person making the claim has misread the passage. I can
state this with certainty, because this is what the Bible (as well as
all of Sacred Tradition) shows us that Jesus assures us.
Your other comments miss the point and mistate what I said. Re-read if
you like, but I see no point in repeating what you already ignore.
Good luck in battling your way out of your obvious state of confusion.
I'm praying for you.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 9:15 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
My responces are in red
Philip has stated the point well regarding Bible interpretation, so I
don't see a reason to add to that . His position is the same as any
atheist or liberal christian. That the bible is too contradictory. The
atheist uses that to say it isn't true. The Liberal uses it to excuse
whatever he already wants to believe. (pardon me for using the "liberal"
word but I needed some descriptor for what I was saying.) Yes, it is
true that someting difficult may need research like reading other verses
or looking up definitions for words in original languages or perhaps
some othe rmethod. But Phillips point of trying to determine who "they"
were is moot. It is an arguement that does not contradict the point he
is trying to contradict. If the verse does not say who they are than it
doesn't say. If some other scripture elsewhere in the bible describes
the same event and says who they are, than it do es. What is so
difficult about that? How does that violate reading the scriptures as
plainly as possibly?
Where do you think I stated I "reject what scripture says". I didn't.
Please read what I have said, not what you want to suppose. Re-read
Allens' quoted scripture - it gives the basis for reading the bible and
what it is usefull for. Your position clearly rejects the meaning of
those verses. If you reject those verses - what other verses do you
reject. And having rejected verses of the bible, how do you then claim
scriptural support for the catholic church when anyone is now free to
reject those scriptures (if they actually exist) following the same
logic. In case you don't know what Logic I refer to I'll spell it out -
If you can reject a part of scripture how do you defend rejecting some
other part of it.
Where will I go "to look to gain understanding". You said the Bible
"seems like a likely answer". That's fine. Go to the Bible. The Bible
sends us to the Church Jesus established. So, just do what you preach,
follow the "plain meaning" and you'll end up where I am. This is plain
false. If you followed the plain meaning you would either leave the
catholic church or you would begin working from within to change it.
There is little support for catholicism and much that disproves it - all
in the bible and all from easy interpritation. No hoops required.
So, you can go directly to the Church or you can go to the Bible which
directs you to the Church. This is a "simple instruction" "from the
Bible" which you apparently are "too correct and knowlegable to take". I
am in the church - it is not a building or an institution among men as
you seem to think. Christ is the head and the body of the "church" are
all those who follow him.
My response is not "holier than thou". It is "truer than thou". Not
because of me, but because I actually practice what you only pretend to
practice. Again, holier than thou. Jesus said he is the way the truth
and the light. Your position seems to be that Jesus is the way the truth
and the light only if you are a member of the catholic church in good
standing as defined by the popes. Quite an addition to scripture.
Of course you don't get this JA. One reason may be that "sin clouds the
intellect". That's for you to examine. Wow, Holier than thou again. We
all sin and we all fall short. Hence, the need for Jesus. I have not
declared your beliefs as condeming you to hell as you have mine. But you
clearly do not understand the points being made - that you have some
serious errors surrounding your beliefs. Plain scriptures means nothing
to you. All you seem to care about are the catholic positions as defined
by other men to support their catholic positions. Don't you care about
the scriptural support for those positions?
Let me ask you just one simple question of logic. If I or anyone could
show you scriptures that plainly disagreed with any catholic position.
What would it mean to you? Would it mean that you need to re-examine
your faith in the catholic church's positions? Or would it mean that
those scriptures are wrong? Or would it mean that you need a special
revelation to understand those verses? Or would it mean that the bible
is just to darn complicated for the simpleton masses? Or is the bible
just to convoluted and full of translation errors and other men's monkey
business?
I look forward to your responce to this one question.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
JA,
Philip has stated the point well regarding Bible interpretation,
so I don't see a reason to add to that .
Where do you think I stated I "reject what scripture says". I
didn't. Please read what I have said, not what you want to suppose.
Where will I go "to look to gain understanding". You said the
Bible "seems like a likely answer". That's fine. Go to the Bible. The
Bible sends us to the Church Jesus established. So, just do what you
preach, follow the "plain meaning" and you'll end up where I am.
So, you can go directly to the Church or you can go to the Bible
which directs you to the Church. This is a "simple instruction" "from
the Bible" which you apparently are "too correct and knowlegable to
take".
My response is not "holier than thou". It is "truer than thou".
Not because of me, but because I actually practice what you only pretend
to practice.
Of course you don't get this JA. One reason may be that "sin
clouds the intellect". That's for you to examine.
Thank you,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, July 21, 2005 4:33 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
I've never read a more foolish responce. It simply drips with
that "holier than thou" attitude I've already acused you of and is your
particular downfall as I see it. You are too correct and knowlegable to
take simple instruction, even from the bible.
The point is quite simple - is scripture to be read very plainly
or do you need special revelation to understand scripture? If you had
bothered to read the verses quoted and actually thought about them for
yourself, you would see that they are the cornerstones of what Allen is
saying to you. His basis for how to read the bible comes from the bible
itself in the quoted scriptures mentioned.
Under what authority do you question the plain meaning of those
verses? If you reject what scripture says, how do you keep biblical
authority for anything you believe? Weather someone else has written on
the subject is meaningless. What do you say? Is the bible from God or
not? if it plainly says something, should you "go by that" or is there
more to know? If something written is dificult to understand or seems to
contradict something else, where are you going to look to gain
understanding? The bible seems a likely answer. Or are you going to
depend on some special revelation outside of scripture?
By the way, I guess I've decided to quit worrying about staying
on the geocentric topic since that never seems to be discussed anymore.
Perhaps we should rename this "I know the true way - no, I do - your
wrong - no you are" @ freelists.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Thank you for the followup, but you've missed the point.
I had asked the following:
"You mention that Scripture defines itself, correlates
its meaning, can be easily understood without reading into the text and
requires nothing more than acceptance of plain text...etc. My question
is, where in Scripture does Scripture give you these absolutes on how it
is to be read. Or have you developed something else outside of
Scripture to be able to make such statements (and if so, on what
authority)."
Of course "ALL Scripture is...profitable", etc. But
where does it say all the stuff you said on how it is to be read. It
doesn't. The point is you are drawing up your own guidelines (and in
the process violating the very 1 Corr provision you irrelevantly cited
as your support). You are the one without "authority" to do so.
Please read carefully before you go about preaching your
"opinions" as Truth.
If you actually want an answer to the Catholic Church's
authority, then go read it in such Catholic texts as Denzinger, which I
cited earlier, rather than asking me to reproduce via emails the
equivalent of several hundred pages of well established text. Instead,
(to again use your cite) you guys like to go around "puffed up" with
what you've "written".
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves [mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 11:23 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
This will have little meaning to others. However, as you
accept Paul I would point out the following to you and argue your
objection based on the following scripture. The short answer to any
objection about absolutes in scripture is.........well scripture!
2 timothy 2:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of
God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness...........
1Chorinthians 1:6. Now these things, brethren, I have
figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you
may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you
may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7. For who makes
you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive?
Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you glory as if you had not
received it?
If you do not apply these principles and methodolgy even
to your own question about absolutes and my point,you will see
that..........
1.If there is no absolute then you have no case for
ANYTHING! We could not argue for or aginst any doctrine, POPE,
INFALIBILITY or even salvation or anything else. There would be no point
to any debate or desscussion on or with scripture about anything. Thus,
your or any objecjection to my position would be meaningless and moot,
because we would just be trading one interpritaion for the other.
2.If there is context or reference in scripture to other
scripture how could it be irrelivant or contrary to this example and
positon. You would then find yourself arguing scripture not me and if it
cannot be understood then how can you object and or hold any position
for or agginst, to include the authority of a Pope or anyone else...
3.everyone has a God given Choice on in WHOM to put
their faith in....Jesus stated the words I speak unto you they are
life..........I base my authority on this postion on scripture. What
will you base yours on. If not on scripture then the whole disscussion
and any objection you could make is meaningless! You put your trust in
man who tells you somthing... I put mine in the scriptures that will
tell me somthing too...only if I listen and belive in ALL of them, not
selectivly ignore Plain staments Plain corelations plain
terminology...the Jews did not like jesus not becuse he taught contrary
to the law...He just taught contrary to their interpritaions of the
L&P.. and He stated as much. Which is the same reason that what I am
speaking is not belived either.
4. In this particular case one must accept assumtions
and assertions external of scripture to demonstrate any other postion..
and WHERE in scripture could you or anyone even if you had that
authority get that authority?
5. Finaly what then would be the basis for your
objection to Neville or Carl's position..they are just interpreting it
the way they see it..."Sounds groovy to me".....who am I or you to say
anything against their postions. If the Church at Rome has THE authority
where did they get it scripture.....History??? My Church history book,
the Bible dosn't mention that and if there is no absolutes from
scripture.......how could you begin to argue otherwise.
I will accept these questions as retorical so that we do
not engage in a endless debate as you put it. However, I am making this
point, it applies to everyone else on the other side of all those other
issues as much if not more so. Even without the Pual Quotes!.......so
everyone can feel free to ignore this or take a shot!
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Please continue the debate with Dan. My only
suggestion was to read the reference I mentioned. I don't want to get
into an endless slinging of Bible verses, especially when it's been so
well covered elsewhere. I've read the non-Catholic position posited by
non-Catholics. Have you read the Catholic position posited by
Catholics. If not, I suggest you balance your reading before reaching a
conclusion, if you truly are interested in the Truth.
I will comment though on your assumption about
Scripture. You mention that Scripture defines itself, correlates its
meaning, can be easily understood without reading into the text and
requires nothing more than acceptance of plain text...etc.
My question is, where in Scripture does
Scripture give you these absolutes on how it is to be read. Or have you
developed something else outside of Scripture to be able to make such
statements (and if so, on what authority).
Also, the fact that you need to go to such great
lengths to prove your rock point seems to be self-contradictory as to
the validity of your methodology.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves
[mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 5:39 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick
& Dan
Nick, I accept your response to mine and Dan's
invitation for this discussion. However, I would like to use this
opportunity to address the REAL issue "How and how not to address/use
scripture".......I am not trying to draw you out here but Dan already
accepts the Premises that Peter was not the rock then this example will
be the most strait forward for me to make to him.
Dan, Please hear me out.....Your premise that
Peter was not the rock is correct! ..However, the method of argument in
your posting for reaching that conclusion is based on similar
methodology that is used to maintain that Peter was the rock.....Namely
it is a philosophical argument or methodology(Interpretative of the
scriptures that you use to make the argument)....This is the same
methodology used in all the previous debates......Scripture defines
itself! It will correlates its meaning with itself! It can be easily
understood without reading into the text or its meaning, it requires
nothing more than acceptance of plain text external of anyone's
interpretation or Ideas or Reasoning! ..Let me demonstrate this with the
"Peter and the Rock" issue. First note the context of OT & NT
STATMENTS...in all cases it is SALVATION,ROCK, STONE, AND THE WORK OF
GOD.
Deuteronomy32: 3. For I proclaim the name of the
Lord: ascribe greatness to our God. 4. He is the Rock, His work is
perfect; for all His ways are justice, a God of truth and without
injustice; righteous and upright is He............ 15. "But Jeshurun
grew fat and kicked; you grew fat, you grew thick, you are covered with
fat; then he forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed the Rock
of his salvation.......... 18. Of the Rock who begot you, you are
unmindful, and have forgotten the God who fathered you.........
2Samuel 22: 47. "The Lord lives! Blessed be my
Rock! Let God be exalted, the Rock of my salvation!
2 Samuel 23:3. The God of Israel said, the Rock
of Israel spoke to me: `He who rules over men must be just,
Psalms 62:7. In God is my salvation and my
glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God.
Psalms 89:26. He shall cry to Me, `You are my
Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.'
Psalms 94:22. But the Lord has been my defense,
And my God the rock of my refuge.
Psalms 95: 1. Oh come, let us sing to the Lord!
Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.
Acts 12:12. "Nor is there salvation in any
other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which
we must be saved.''
Isaiah 17:10. Because you have forgotten the God
of your salvation, and have not been mindful of the Rock of your
stronghold, therefore you will plant pleasant plants and set out foreign
seedlings;
Isaiah 8:14. He will be as a sanctuary, but a
stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel,
as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. 15. And many
among them shall stumble; they shall fall and be broken, be snared and
taken.''
Palms 118:21. I will praise You, For You have
answered me, And have become my salvation. 22. The stone which the
builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone. 23.This was the
Lord's doing; It is marvelous in our eyes.
Mathew 21:42. Jesus said to them, "Did you never
read in the Scriptures: `The stone which the builders rejected has
become the chief cornerstone. This was the Lord's doing, and it is
marvelous in our eyes'? 43. "Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God
will be taken from you and given to a nation bearing the fruits of it.
Matthew 7:21. ..........24. "Therefore whoever
hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise
man who built his house on the rock: .... 28. And so it was, when Jesus
had ended these sayings, that the people were astonished at His
teaching,
1Peter 2:4. Coming to Him as to a living stone,
rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, 5. you also, as
living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood,
to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
6. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in
Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him
will by no means be put to shame.'' 7. Therefore, to you who believe, He
is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the
builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone,'' 8. and "A stone of
stumbling and a rock of offense.'' They stumble, being disobedient to
the w ord, to which they also were appointed. 9. But you are a chosen
generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people,
that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness
into His marvelous light;
Acts 4:8. Then Peter, filled with the Holy
Spirit, said to them, "Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9. "If
we this day are judged for a good deed done to the helpless man, by what
means he has been made well, 10. "let it be known to you all, and to all
the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom
you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands
here before you whole. 11. "THIS IS THE STONE which was rejected by you
builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12. "Nor is there
salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given
among men by which we must be saved.''
1 Corinthians 10:4. and all drank the same
spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed
them, and that Rock was Christ.
The correlation's between all these verse is
SALVATION and ROCK & STONE.
......... People who think Jesus is calling
Peter the rock miss the whole context of all of scripture........The
name Peter means piece of stone but the whole context of scripture is
the Rock that God is supplying Jesus remarks are THOU (Peter)and THIS
Stone or Rock(JESUS).. this is why Jesus makes these remarks with Peter.
Mathew 16:18. "And I also say to you that YOU
are Peter, and on THIS rock I will build My church, and the gates of
Hades shall not prevail against it. 19. "And I will give you the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in
heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.''
This argument is not philosophical or
interpritive. I show from the OT and NT Who is THE rock and Stone are.
The context of all of these discussions is Salvation which comes from
the Rock or stone ...spoken of by the L&P as God/Jesus. Peter is given
the keys to the Kingdom that is built on THE ROCK that is GOD and JESUS
(in whom is the ONLY salvation). Again scripture provides context and
correlation's with itself that need no interpretation just acceptance of
those correlation's, plain text and context. In fact in order to assert
that Peter is the rock one must ignore all the correlation's, context
and plain blunt scripture... This is why we are told not to think beyond
what is written!
Dan <danchap9@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Was Peter the Rock???
THE TRUE CHURCH.
Mathew chapter 16 verses 13 to 18:
"When Jesus came into the coasts of
Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that
I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the
Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He
saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and
said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus
answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh
and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in
heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it."
Notice first of all Jesus asks his
disciples whom do men say that I the Son of man am? Because of various
prophecies in the Old Testament they came to the conclusion that Jesus
was the fulfilment of one of these. In verse 15 he makes it personal to
his disciples and you can make it personal to yourselves right now. But
whom say ye that I am? He has already told them who he is by saying I Am
which is the name that God gave to Moses in reply to who shall I say
sent me when Moses returned from Mount Sinai.
Exodus 3:13 to15:
"And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I
come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of
your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What is
his name? What shall I say unto them And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT
I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM
hath sent me unto you And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou
say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God
of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto
you: this is my name forever, and this is my memorial unto all
generations."
So this was God in the flesh standing
before them. Simon Peter in verse 16 Simon in Hebrew means he who
harkens or listens. And Peter means rock as in a solid stone. But later
on in the verse Jesus addresses Simon Peter as Simon Barjona. Very
interesting as we know names all have hidden meanings in Hebrew. Here
Simon means he who harkens or listens and Barjona means son of Jona.
Jona means dove. The dove is symbolic of the Holy Spirit. So Jesus is
saying here blessed are you who listen to the Holy Spirit, for flesh and
blood has not revealed it to you but my father in heaven. Now flesh and
blood or man has not revealed it to you means indoctrination of men you
s ee man can teach this day and night in the flesh and get nowhere but
when God himself through the Holy Spirit speaks directly into the
innermost being of a person that's Revelation.
John 16verse 13:
" Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth,
is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of
himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will
shew you things to come."
That's what we all need because without
that the bible is absolutely meaningless to the carnal mind. Verse 18 is
the key to the true foundation that the Holy Spirit would like to lay in
your inner most being right now if you have the ears to hear. The rock
is the revelation that not man but my father in heaven has shown you.
Peter means a stone or solid rock. But this is not speaking of a solid
foundation. Anything built in this physical realm is only temporal. This
is speaking of a spiritual foundation. The Lord Jesus Christ.
I Corinthians chapter 3 verses 10 to
13:
"According to the grace of God which is
given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and
another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth
thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which
is Jesus Christ."
You cannot build a foundation on faith
or prosperity or revival or healing etc. Who heals who prospers who
revives who gives faith?
Hebrews chapter 12 verse 2:
"Looking unto Jesus the author and
finisher of our faith; who for the joy that was set before him endured
the cross, despising the shame, and is set down at the right hand of the
throne of God."
And on that revelation I will build my
church. The word church means to "call out or to call forth." It is not
a building made with hands. It's a people called out and set apart by
God. Now the doctrines of men will take this solid rock and put a solid
building made with the hands of man on it. The building is not the
church but the building is where the church meets. Jesus didn't talk
about it as a place to go to, but a way of living in relationship to him
and to other followers of his. Asking us where we go to church is like
asking us where we go to be us. How do we answer that? We are us and
where we go there we are. 'Church' is that kind of word. It doesn't
identify a location or an institution or a denomination. It describes a
people and how they relate to each other.
Luke chapter 17 verse 20 and 21:
"And when he was demanded of the
Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and
said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they
say, Lo here! Or, lo there! For, behold, the kingdom of God is within
you."
If we lose sight of that, our
understanding of the true church a called out people will be distorted.
So with this simple understanding lets take a closer look at verse 18.
Blessed are you who listens to the spirit of God for flesh and blood has
not revealed this to you but my father in heaven and on that revelation
I will call out my people. And the gates of hell will not come against
it (them).
1 Corinthians chapter 3 verse 10 to 11:
"According to the grace of God which is
given unto me, as a Wise master builder, I have laid the foundation,
and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he
buildeth thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is
laid, which is Jesus Christ."
Jesus Christ is the spiritual
foundation. Before we build a house in the natural we have to make sure
that the foundation is deep and strong enough to support it. So it is in
the spiritual.
Galatians chapter 3 verse 28:
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are
all one in Christ Jesus."
Now this is a very interesting verse. If
you are a Jew reading this you have to leave your Jewish religion and
move into Christ. If you are a gentile reading this you have to leave
your Gentile religion and move into Christ. Think about how many Gentile
religions there are and how many false Christ's there are. Not easy if
you are deceived by one of them. If you think that was a bit harsh
what about "neither male nor female." Surely that counts us all out?
Consider this, the bible talks about us being Sons of God and new
creatures.& amp; amp; amp; lt; /P>
2 Corinthians chapter 5 verse 17:
"Therefore if any man be in Christ, he
is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are
become new."
So the new creature in Christ is not a
Jew or a gentile. They are neither male nor female but we are all one in
Christ.
The bible also says that we
are God's body on the earth.
There is a counterfeit church out there
and in the book of Revelation she is called a prostitute or Harlot.
Revelation chapter 17 verses 3 to 6:
"So he carried me away in the spirit
into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured
beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with
gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: And upon her
forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF
HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH. And I saw the woman drunken with
the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and
when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration."
The Beast is the coming One World
Government and the Woman is the counterfeit church. Think about it a
prostitute sleeps around committing adultery and takes all your money
then leaves you for dead. A true bride keeps herself pure and clean for
her husband.
2 Corinthians chapter 6 verses 17 to 17:
"Wherefore come out from among them, and
be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I
will receive you, And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons
and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty."
Dan.
"Niemann, Nicholas K."
<NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
I've seen what good (or lack thereof)
the Bible verse slinging does on this forum. If you want a Biblical
basis for Peter as the rock, read Denzinger. I'm not going to write a
book for you when it's already been done. Denzinger is a compilation
that has already been done. Read it, rather than just responding that
"there is none".
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: Allen Daves
[mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:22 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of
Tarsus.. Nick
I have the history and Scripture.....My
point was is that there is none........ The whole basses for such is on
the premise on peter being the rock that the church was built on.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it
your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
This message and any attachments are
confidential, may contain privileged information, and are intended
solely for the recipient named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named recipient,
you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying
is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your
computer system.
This message and any attachments are confidential, may
contain privileged information, and are intended solely for the
recipient named above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a
person responsible for delivery to the named recipient, you are notified
that any review, distribution, dissemination or copying is prohibited.
If you have received this message in error, you should notify the sender
by return email and delete the message from your computer system.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain
privileged information, and are intended solely for the recipient named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible
for delivery to the named recipient, you are notified that any review,
distribution, dissemination or copying is prohibited. If you have
received this message in error, you should notify the sender by return
email and delete the message from your computer system.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
This message and any attachments are confidential, may contain privileged
information, and are intended solely for the recipient named above. If you are
not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivery to the named
recipient, you are notified that any review, distribution, dissemination or
copying is prohibited. If you have received this message in error, you should
notify the sender by return email and delete the message from your computer
system.
Other related posts:
