[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 13:26:04 -0500
JA,
You bet it is. And the way through Jesus is through the Church He
established.
But maybe, just maybe, if you deny this enough, Jesus will change His
whole system just because you didn't like it. But then again, I doubt
it.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 1:00 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
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. <mailto:NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
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 developing 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 with 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 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.
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
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:
