All, Thank you Philip for a great discussion, which goes to the heart of much of what is wrong today. I wanted to add one tidbit. You mentioned there is no "Biblical evidence" that Peter went to Rome. Perhaps there is no absolute Biblical "proof" (though there is historical proof), but I understand there is actually some Biblical "evidence".It is apparently understood by scholars that Peter's greetings from "Babylon" referred to the common, derisive name given to Rome by first-century Jews and Christians. Stephen Ray recounts this in the book I mentioned the other day. The Haydock commentary in the Douay-Rheims Bible also discusses this (in the footnote for I Peter 5:13). This passage in Peter refers to the "church, which is in Babylon". The ancients understood this to mean in Rome, so called not only on account of the extent of its empire, but also for its idolatry and vices. Haydock goes on to say "In this text, where all the lights of antiquity understand Rome by Babylon, they [referring to certain seceders] deny it; and in the book of Revelations, where all evil is spoken of Babylon, there they will have it signify nothing else but Rome: yes, and the Church of Rome, not (as the holy Fathers interpret it) the temporal state of the heathen empire." Regards, Nick. _____ From: Dr. Neville Jones [mailto:ntj005@xxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 9:15 AM To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan I was not going to continue contributing to this thread, but this (below) is an excellent posting from Philip (I also like ja's response to the issues I raised with him). Allen cannot yet see the problem and I would therefore urge him to read Philip's posting, which covers it better than I. Allen stated, in his latest posting, that I "have yet to show how [he has] mishandled scripture." In this posting, though, he quotes TEN "scriptures" that were written by Saul of Tarsus. This is simply the same circular reasoning that evolutionists employ all the time, though he does not accept his error. Philip can see it. He can even see it with the Catholic Church, under the proviso that he makes clear. My understanding is that he is a Catholic because he really does believe in the Roman Catholic Church and believes in the events at Fatima, for example, not because he cannot see the problem which is inherent in that church if Saul of Tarsus really is the anti-Messiah. This is exactly the same problem that exists for all "Christian" churches if Saul of Tarsus really is the anti-Messiah. And ja, regarding your interpretation of the conflicting accounts of the robbers - yes, I agree with you. Yours is a possibility. But please consider that there is another possibilty, which is what this whole thread was started off by me to debate: that Saul of Tarsus, influenced by the devil himself, has sowed tares amongst Our Father's words - in the scriptures themselves. Yes, I know that this makes it difficult to tell what is added (as Philip also alluded to early on), but it should not be impossible, if we forget Allen's stance (which is not self-supporting), and go back to rock-solid facts that we know must be correct. This means restoring the Law, not saying that it has been "done away with." Neville. Philip <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: 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. _____ How much free photo storage do you get? Store your holiday snaps for FREE with Yahoo! Photos. Get Yahoo! Photos <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail/uk/taglines/default/photos/*http://uk.photo s.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.