[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:00:30 -0700 (PDT)
Salvation is through Jesus.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:Philip,
Thank you for filling in more detail. I shorthanded it.
Catholic infallible doctrine is that outside the Catholic Church there is no
salvation. Christ has defined the one path to Salvation through Himself is
through His Church. The NT is the fulfillment of the OT.
Folks like Allen likely can't even plead "invincible ignorance", since he's
been clued in on this reality. He simply rejects it. In any event, truly
"invincible ignorance" doesn't save. It simply doesn't condemn. You are
right, it is sin which condemns. And the now wilful rejection of the Truth is
such a sin.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Philip [mailto:joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:19 AM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Since you missed it, you might honestly consider if you are capable of
accurately grasping the even more difficult points made in the Bible and
whether you really want to trust your eternal Salvation to just your own
(fallible) opinions.
Regards,
Nick.
But Nick, Allen did not say that. He said in effect, that if he places his
trust entirely in God , Jesus, ENTIRELY WITH COMPLETE FAITH, Jesu will not
abandon him, even if his frail intelligence has mislead him in some
interpretation.
No doubt from Scripture we are all promised that.
The problem is for me and all of us, is SIN.
According to conscience, the Catholic who knows and acknowledges Catholic
doctrine on confession and carelessly ignores it , he will die the eternal
death in Hell if he is a non repentant sinner. (meaning perfect contrition,
sorrow because of a perfect love of God) Jesus cannot save him.
According to conscience Allen ( a pseudonym) who is not Catholic, and cannot
through no fault of his own comprehend what we tell him, even though it be
truth, cannot be condemned for that.
What he will be condemned for, is the same as what condemns the Catholic.
Namely, wilful sin that he does not repent for in perfect contrition . Perfect
contrition again, sorrow for offending God ... because He is perfection.
Perfect love....
Now merely being sorry for sins because of a fear of Hell, will not save the
Catholic above, or Allen. Nothing imperfect enters Heaven. Fear of Hell is an
admission of faith, but not perfect Love.
Faith alone cannot save. Before Christ, the human race was banned from Heaven.
The saints were in limbo and the hoons were in Hell. For Nevilles interjection
here, figuretively if they were asleep. but my point stands.
The sacrifice of Jesus Christ opened the opportunity for people to be saved,
but hey have to earn it. They have to be saints or hoons.. No middle class. (
I vomit them out of my mouth)
Now PERFECT sorrow does not come easily, and in most cases may be feigned and
covering the true reason of fear of Hell.
This is where the salve of Jesus comes through His Church "with God all things
are possible"
Humility in confession, even through fear, called attrition , imperfect
contrition , can save the sinner. God forgives. he who suffers this
humiliation , King or slave, if sincere, a resolve to sin no more, and a desire
of restitution.(which must be made) if n not here then in the next world.
Thus it is that Nick is really saying, The Allens of the world are in grave
danger , not so much because they reject the Catholic faith, Oh No, but because
they have not any gaurrantee of their own internal state of mind , that they
are in A PERFECT STATE OF GRACE, something given to us at baptism, but soiled
by our own sins in later life.
Jesus understands our nature, and His Church provides for it.
Those outside of the Church have such a more difficult path to follow to
salvation. ....
I see it symbolised in the Ancient Religion of the OT. The "gentiles" were and
are the outsiders. Nothing has really changed. Just a few new rules and
regulations.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Niemann, Nicholas K.
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 2:57 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Allen,
You are quoting God, then as a man you are coming to some conclusion as to what
the words mean. In your case, you conclude (apparently) they don't support
Catholic teaching. In my case, I conclude otherwise (while at the same time
accepting all of the Scriptures).
My point was pretty simple. Since you missed it, you might honestly consider
if you are capable of accurately grasping the even more difficult points made
in the Bible and whether you really want to trust your eternal Salvation to
just your own (fallible) opinions.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Allen Daves [mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 7:22 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
No Nick YOU miss the whole point! ...I am not thinking...I am quoting GOD!
1 Peter 4:If any man speaks let him speak as the oracles of God. Mark 7:16.
If any man have ears to hear, let him hear.
John 9:31...but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he
heareth.
1Chorinthians 8:2. And if any man think that he knoweth anything, he knoweth
nothing yet as he ought to know.
John 6:63 ....... the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they
are life. The issue is your refusal to hear scripture not my quoting it! You
simply don't accept them...again it is you who is using the thoughts and
reasoning of man not me!.. As Jesus said the word that I have spoken, the same
shall judge him in the last day............It is you who miss YOUR own Point! I
am not doing the thinking............ I am quoting God?. Do you believe this..
if so then you have no argument, if you do not believe these things then it is
you who is trusting in man not me, no matter what logic acrobatics you attempt!
These are not my thoughts or ideas or my word!..Who are you quoting?
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
Once again, you have missed the point. The point is you are "man" and man is
doing the thinking. For example, you say as to yourself: "If scripture states
or correlates to itself I accept it." This requires a thought process by
"man", i.e. you. Same approach as everyone else---except you confine yourself,
pridefully, to only what your thought process produces.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Allen Daves [mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 5:55 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
No Nick, my approach is not the same as yours.. not even close.....If scripture
states or correlates to itself I accept it......The correlation is independent
of anyone's Ideas or opinions or interpretations .... Your position is that
when scripture states something, what is says either cannot be understood or it
means something other than what you read unless it tells you what someone?s has
told you that it means... There is no comparison here!.. If I was accusing you
of the same thing I am doing then you could show from scripture that was the
case. However, you base you faith in the church to interpret for you,
supposedly based on scripture without arguing from scripture! ?I argue
scripture from scripture! Our two approaches are entirely different and have
absolutely no similarity whatsoever! Your logic is cir cular and baseless. Mine
rest in scripture?s ability itself to tell me what it is saying not someone
else doing it for me. I accept that scripture is Jesus speaking
to me..
and requires no intermediary to interpret, only my faith in him and His words.
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Allen,
It's always interesting to see how non-Catholics accuse Catholics of doing what
they themselves do. You mention we "must decide on what you place your faith
in: man who tells you what the scriptures say or scriptures that will define
correlate and explain themselves if you let them" (the latter being what you
apparently profess to do) Yet, you are a man. I'm a man. The Popes
throughout history are men. The only way we can determine what scriptures say
is for a man to tell us--whether that man is myself, you or someone else. You
have faith in "mans [yours] interpretation of scripture", which is the very
thing you apparently abhor.
History demonstrates that men come up with all sorts of different, conflicting
ideas of what scripture means. They all cite scripture in support of their
theories. You are one of these men.
I simply choose to recognize I could be wrong, so I look to what other men have
said, particularly men who have been placed in a position of authority by God
to do so. You choose to ignore this possibility of being wrong as to yourself.
The Catholic Church encourages me to think and study. Fortunately, God gave
us the Church to settle the issue when men differ. Scripture tells us this and
demonstrates it happening. Plus, it demonstrates that Christ truly didn't
leave us as orphans.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Allen Daves [mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 4:45 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
I have demonstrated your arguments are self-defeating , inconstant and based on
someone?s arbitrary treatment of scriptures & interpretations. I know very well
what the problem is but it is not with scripture. And if you are suggesting
that for the last 2000 years whole of Christendom has held to your doctrine you
really don?t know the history of text or the teachings of the Roman Church
through the centuries. At the end of the day you must decide on what you place
your faith in man who tells you what the scriptures say or scriptures that will
define correlate and explain themselves if you let them. It is still a question
of Faith in scripture verse faith in mans interpretation of scripture? Assuming
of course that God gave scripture in the first place. If he did then the
meaning is intrinsic to scripture, which is what the scriptures state. If he
did not give scripture then this is all academic nonsense. In any case you have
no argument and no point, only excuses for someone
?s
arbitrary treatment of scripture and claim to fame. If you cant argue
scripture from scripture then why are you arguing scripture at all?.. I did not
come to set the world strait what I have told you is what has been taught since
Paul gave scripture.. I have not argued circularly. I used the Paul quotes for
those who accept Paul as he makes very blunt statements.. but for those who do
not accept Paul I went to the L& P and Jesus statements which make blunt
identical statements and or plain correlation?s with each other in both cases
no one wants to accept what is written.. All you are interested in is offering
excuse for why you do not have to study, not to think beyond what is written
and accept and believe in what the scriptures plainly state. You are far more
interested in what they do not state or reading into when it suits you,..... in
what some man somewhere tells you they really mean. There is no logic in any of
this only confusion and you really think y ou are develo
ping
clarity outside scripture based on scripture?! .. I have not developed a
different understanding from scripture suddenly 2000 years latter. It has been
there all the time but men like you will not hear it just like the Jews of
Jesus day would not hear it. You want to know what has suddenly sprung up 2000
years later?...Suddenly everyone is now claiming the Bill Clinton argument
???????what is "is"????. and you think you are going to attain enlightenment
from this reasoning ?... You are consumed in darkness. My faith is in God to
have given me what I have and need already for salvation I was not there 2000
years ago, but I am here today? I don?t know exactly who did and did not do
what 2000 years ago.. but I can see what YOU are doing today!?. Jesus said
unless you become as a little child ?.not as a Harvard Theological seminary
Scholar of textual authoritative advancement and certification! But then again
?.Who knows what He really meant anyway??Salvation has always been wit
h faith
in God, not in man or ones own abilities!
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Yes, Allen, you have done all of this quoting and explaining, and you have
reached a different set of conclusions about the meaning of the same texts from
the well stated and well reasoned and consistent conclusions of Christian
scholars and thinkers from throughout 2000 years of Christian history. Aren't
we lucky that you were finally born to enlighten all of us and set the
Christian world straight.
Thank you for your personal "opinions", wrong as they are. There is an "other
authority established", you just don't see it from the plain text, apparently
because you want to deny its existence and credibility.
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: Allen Daves [mailto:allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, July 22, 2005 10:21 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
I will point out in this little love feast of ambiguity and willful
uncertainty, that the things I have been discussing do not differentiate from
text to text to any meaningful degree, if the context and use of all scriptures
are applied?..Yes, why do that???.? I have quoted Plain statements that have
the same force in any text used thus far, correlated with other plain
statements from the L&P and Jesus. I have shown how Jesus uses the same
statements and or Ideas.. This does not change from any of the text used here
from text to text??.Where there has been question in all cases I refereed to
scripture and context or scripture to id, define or clarify and if any "better"
translations, if there is such? which can all be done from the text themselves.
In all case the same meaning can be attained from all of these different
versions by simple application of the context of all the scriptures in these
versions. This attempt at textual ambiguity will not withstand textu al scrutiny
, as no
other meaning than what was pointed out can be attained from these versions
without an inconstant use and out right ignoring your own text! In any case you
are straining a gnat while trying to justify swallowing the Camel by ignoring
the obvious. Further, no mater what version you use, if you ignore plain
statements and correlation?s from the text to itself what difference does it
make anyway and since there is no other authority established, just what is
your point anyway???
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 beca
use 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 some
thing 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 NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail
__________________________________________________
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.
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. I f 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.
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
Other related posts:
