[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 16:27:39 -0500
JA,
Just one comment, rather than taking on everything.
You say you are "no scholar" but your "take" is that what was to be in
the Bible "was pretty well sorted out before the roman catholics put
there stamp on it." Does "pretty well sorted out" mean "completely
sorted out".
No, it doesn't. Aside from why it was even pretty well sorted up to
then, who finished the job---which you clearly acknowledge someone must
have done. Realize that the final determination would be
critical--since letting in even a small error could be disastrous.
Do you see what your caveat reveals about you?
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 4:18 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Sorry, ja, but you are mistaken on many fronts here. It is certainly not
a "moot" point, it is an extremely important point. Who exactly was
Yeshuwa' asking his Father to forgive? You have to have knowledge of the
meaning of the true scriptures, reasoning power and Holy Spirit in order
to answer this essential question. I agree with your last statement. But
if a scripture does not say something than asking why it doesn't does
not prove the point Philip is trying to make. It may mean research &
study, but it does not mean that the truth can't be found or that
special revelation is needed or that it is a matter of interpritation.
You also need to address the issue of why you have the "Bible" on your
bookshelf in the form that it is in. Who decided which books to include
and which to exclude, particularly from the so-called "New Testament"?
You will find that, as Nick and Philip will rightly tell you, it was the
Roman Catholic Church. Their argument would then be, if the Catholic
church was commissioned to decide which books should be there, it seems
reasonable to presume that it would also be given the wisdom to
interpret the scriptures contained therein. This aspect of Nick's
argument is completely bona fide, in my opinion, and you would need to
seriously address it. I am no scholar in this area but my take on this
is that is was pretty well sorted out before the roman catholics put
there stamp on it. God's purpose always takes place even under the noses
of those gathering to oppose him. I mean I'm sure satan was real happy
and working hard to ensure Christ's crucifiction, but look what happened
because of it. Just because the catholic church takes authority it
doesn't have or takes positons which are unbiblical doesn't mean that
any accomplishment of thier's is invalid nor that those involved are
unsaved.
You also need to ask yourself why scripture appears contradictory, which
it most certainly does. Do not call me either an atheist or a "liberal,"
but rather examine the evidence for yourself. As a simple example,
consider the following: There are hundereds, maybe thousands of such
things you could quote which seem contradictory. I could spend alot of
time researching the answers for you as I used to do when I was
evaluating such arguements against the bible. Everyone I ever researched
was answered and still fell within the framework that Allen presented
for you in understanding scripture.
(Mat 27:38 KJV) Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on
the right hand, and another on the left.
(Mat 27:39 KJV) And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their
heads,
(Mat 27:40 KJV) And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and
buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come
down from the cross.
(Mat 27:41 KJV) Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the
scribes and elders, said,
(Mat 27:42 KJV) He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the
King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will
believe him.
(Mat 27:43 KJV) He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will
have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
(Mat 27:44 KJV) The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast
the same in his teeth.
as opposed to:
(Luke 23:39 KJV) And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on
him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
(Luke 23:40 KJV) But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not
thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
(Luke 23:41 KJV) And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of
our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(Luke 23:42 KJV) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou
comest into thy kingdom.
(Luke 23:43 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To
day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
As for your, "It is an arguement that does not contradict the point he
is trying to contradict," what can I (or anyone else) say?! Your
arguement seems to be a better choice in making Philips point, but his
original still does not. However, I will study this particular one and
see if I can give a satisfactiory answer within Allens' framework. I can
give one answer without looking into it; the account of the theives
speaking is not contradictory if one thief spoke one way and then
changed his mind and then spoke the other way. You may think that's too
much private interpritation but that's just off the top of my head. It
is a simple way of reading the verses that satisfy's the verses so they
do not contradict and requires only very simple logic. If two people
wrote an account of some moment of anothers life and one said "he took
the lords name in vain" and the other wrote that he "spok e well of the
lord" could both statements be true? Well yes, I've heard a godly man
say something he shouldn't in a moment of pain or anger right after or
before saying something good.
"Dr. Neville Jones" <ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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?
Sorry, ja, but you are mistaken on many fronts here. It
is certainly not a "moot" point, it is an extremely important point. Who
exactly was Yeshuwa' asking his Father to forgive? You have to have
knowledge of the meaning of the true scriptures, reasoning power and
Holy Spirit in order to answer this essential question.
You also need to address the issue of why you have the
"Bible" on your bookshelf in the form that it is in. Who decided which
books to include and which to exclude, particularly from the so-called
"New Testament"? You will find that, as Nick and Philip will rightly
tell you, it was the Roman Catholic Church. Their argument would then
be, if the Catholic church was commissioned to decide which books should
be there, it seems reasonable to presume that it would also be given the
wisdom to interpret the scriptures contained therein. This aspect of
Nick's argument is completely bona fide, in my opinion, and you would
need to seriously address it.
You also need to ask yourself why scripture appears
contradictory, which it most certainly does. Do not call me either an
atheist or a "liberal," but rather examine the evidence for yourself. As
a simple example, consider the following:
(Mat 27:38 KJV) Then were there two thieves crucified
with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
(Mat 27:39 KJV) And they that passed by reviled him,
wagging their heads,
(Mat 27:40 KJV) And saying, Thou that destroyest the
temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son
of God, come down from the cross.
(Mat 27:41 KJV) Likewise also the chief priests mocking
him, with the scribes and elders, said,
(Mat 27:42 KJV) He saved others; himself he cannot
save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross,
and we will believe him.
(Mat 27:43 KJV) He trusted in God; let him deliver him
now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
(Mat 27:44 KJV) The thieves also, which were crucified
with him, cast the same in his teeth.
as opposed to:
(Luke 23:39 KJV) And one of the malefactors which were
hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
(Luke 23:40 KJV) But the other answering rebuked him,
saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same
condemnation?
(Luke 23:41 KJV) And we indeed justly; for we receive
the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
(Luke 23:42 KJV) And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember
me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
(Luke 23:43 KJV) And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say
unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
As for your, "It is an arguement that does not
contradict the point he is trying to contradict," what can I (or anyone
else) say?!
Neville.
_____
Yahoo! Messenger
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.me
ssenger.yahoo.com> NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/messenger/*http://uk.be
ta.messenger.yahoo.com>
__________________________________________________
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.
Other related posts:
