[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Jul 2005 18:40:02 +1000
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? ............Neville.
I usually snip off the post to save data space, but this post by Neville
requires to be retained. For a few reasons applied to my response. .
Reason No 1.
Neville beat me to the punch in that I was about to say the following to Allen
and Ja. (by the way ja what about a Christian name ?)
In light of what Neville says about Saul, and if the Catholic Church is not the
Church of Jesus Christ, then Nevilles arguments upon analysis stand. Why do I
say that? Because you all in opposing him, use the Bible or one based upon,
adulterated or otherwise since, this Catholic Bible. Therefore logic demands
that to find Truth we must go back before the cannons of the NT as promulgated
by the RC church. There is no Biblical evidence that Peter went to Rome. Only
Paul went. This I say only if the Church is not the Church of Christ.
Reason 2.
I hear much about translations of the original Hebrew and greek. Give us a
break.
Apart from a few fragments pf hand writtten copies there is no such thing.
Add to that the only truly inspired writ is the original, common sense demands
this, as the Holy Spirit , if He is to protect Truth, must ensure that only one
version is ever available to souls, and this is not the case, then it becomes
logically obvious that God provides some human agency with God given authority
to declare which is and which isn't TRUTH.
To those of you who believe in THE BIBLE ALONE for individual personal use, is
all you need, I ask you to consider. Was that the way the Jews of the OT did
it? Is that the way they still do it?
Allen Ja Neville, all of you, my heart feels for us all when I see these
divisions. I am sure I just reflect the heart of Jesus Himself. Each one of us
is sincere. That is why I feel so despondent as I witness the disputes. There
is no real physical material answer to our problems. It is really a spiritual
problem . And the answer is deeply spiritual. It requires the complete
abandonment of prideful knowledge, a willingness to be open to new ideas, yes
even myself, and with a complete submission to the will of God. This can be
obtained if one asks God in humble prayer for guidance. Much prayer indeed.
There can be no response from God if one has any preconceived ideas based upon
pride of knowing already. Save of course knowing the difference between good
and evil. God gave us His commandments to help us there.
There are a some things in Catholic Dogma that disturb me. There are a lot of
things about the God of the OT that disturb me. I am sure there were a lot of
things about Gods rule in Heaven that disturbed the highest intelligent
creature among the angels Lucifer. It pays to be quiet, and not follow
Lucifer's lead to PROTEST. ant.
Philip.
.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dr. Neville Jones
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:36 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
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 NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail
Other related posts:
