[geocentrism] Re: Psalm 19/ Christ 2nd Return
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 23 Aug 2008 17:27:09 +1000
well gee phil...for you to say it is just my opinion, ..well... is realy just
your opinon right?!.......
Exactly Allen.. That is my whole point. If just one or some "can wrest to
their own destruction" (thats Hellfire) , then only God can make the call as
what he means and what is doctrine. The people of apostolic times needed the
Apostles, the chosen of Christ to explain it to them. What different today..
Now God does not come down to many, if any individuals, else there would be no
disputes.
He gave us the Apostles to make all the calls, and they meet in councils. Even
in scripture this is shown. To them was given the Holy ghost.. And even here
not always individuals. Judas is a case in point, and the other fallen clerics
over time. That they passed on this power by the laying of hands also
scriptual.. It is they in council together who have the gaurantee of the Holy
Spirit, given very strict conditions to explain Scriptual doctrine.. Not me,
not you, not any self proclaimed self appointed preacher of the word.. This
same type of council long after Jesus ascended, collected, and cannonised, the
Books of the Bible which you accept was gauranteed by the Holy spirit because
in council they had the Spirit . Nothings changed, except the rebellion has
made all the people self apointed agents of the Holy Ghost.
Now before you get all het up, having said that, Scripture is by no means a
forbidden read or discussion point for the ordinary man, so long as he keeps in
mind the words of the Ethiopian. This calls for Humility. I am not game to say
I am smarter than that Ethiopian. Which in these modern times most people do.
But as regards so many things, Geocentrism for example, or even evolution, its
relativly an open discussion. I'm cautious here, because for a Catholic this
has controversial reasons for being disputed. Dogma, like the Ten commandments,
for example cannot be changed..
I believe likewise for the reasons I have enumerated many times, that
geocentrism and evolution is dogma for ever. I do not have to find the science
to back that up.. They have to find the science to prove the opposite, and
there is one certain scientific fact, they cannot do that up till now. They
are still wallowing in the dreamtime of quantum fiction.
Now I thought I had covered it, but you keep bringing it back. The return of
Jesus Christ. There is so many scriptual references that can mean spiritual
figures of Christ.. perhaps meaning His mystical body the Church.. Just as
likewise we can point to many antichrists... But there is only one antichrist
the man of sin who will come before the end of the world.. And there is only
one real important return of Christ/
The most obvious real return of Jesus in person refers to the final judgement,
when he destroys the world, and Judges the living and the dead... NOW , You
might take this literally living people, and the dead raised.... But another,
takes the spiritual meaning that He will judge all the dead ressurrected, both
"Living" saved, and "dead" eternally damned in the fires of hell.
Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 10:35 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Psalm 19/ Christ 2nd Return
Phill, me in blue...... "Its not a buffet where you pick and chose"
Agreed! we need to take all of it.....I'm waiting for the whatever it is that
you think i am missing.....
"Protestantants of the Sola Scriptura variety tend to go blind when
confronted with certain passages of scripture" That is a true
statment!.....Ah...but, it is a equaly true statment for anyone and everyone in
the world who claims Christainity that includes RC, Orthodox, and anibatist
too!!!..........This proves what?!..... Nothing, except sombody's gota be
wrong!?.....Thats why i go to such legnths to demonstrate and not just assert a
postion.......if you got a passage of scripture that we need to incorparate
into our examination here, that may change the dynamics of the discussion, then
by all means put that forward....I'm not commited to "my doctrine" I am
commited to the endevor to put forward proper doctrine......there is a
difference...in acny case what is it that we need to look at that would demand
and demonstrate that Christ did not come exactly when He said he would or that
He did not mean literly what he said?! If you do not have that then what in the
world are you objecting too?
"It quite clearly say it is not.... understandable.. I repeat it
againin which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and
unstable wrest..." , UHHH...Phil........that verse does not say that it is not
understandable...It explicitly states that some things are hard to understand
...I AGREE!..but that is not the same as "cannot be understood"!?.........Most
people do not understand it that is true if they did i would be wasting my time
would i not either way right or wrong. It also states that "the unlearned and
unstable wrest"..I agree with that as well. In fact, my whole thesis has been
that the futurist argument and folks who make it are unlearned certainly not
grounded with "stability" in the faith of Christ own words?!........... .all
this puts us back to the original point I put forward..how do you know who is
and is not?........well...some of us demonstrate and others just make
assertions!.....I have thus far demonstrated, waiting for further demonstration
that shows my error!? ....your objections thus far is basical..."you could be
wrong" & or that is your view/ opion"......I say fine..demonstrate the
error....if scritpure can be understood then it should be able to validate
..but as of yet your objections do not consist of any scriptural
demonstrations...your objections are "it's my opinion"...well gee phil...for
you to say it is just my opinion, ..well... is realy just your opinon
right?!.......How do you know it is just one or my opinion and not the truth?!
Your objections answer nothing.They only suppose that there is no real way to
know, although we shoud accept someones "authority" and know that they have
that authorituy by vertue of what?!..lots of folks calim various authority of
"interpritations" over the word of God!?
--- On Fri, 8/22/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Psalm 19/ Christ 2nd Return
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 4:35 PM
are the scriptures understandable and or coherent or not?! Allen...
No they are not understandable and coherent.. Scripture is a complete lesson
and must be taken in its entirety. Its not a buffet where you pick and chose. .
If you cannot accept or comprehend a part, then you must fail to comprehend
the whole.
Now Allen unless you did not read it, Protestantants of the Sola
Scriptura variety tend to go blind when confronted with certain passages of
scripture, It quite clearly say it is not.... understandable.. I repeat it
again,
in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the
unlearned and unstable wrest...
and another confirmation that people need an Apostle ordained by
Christ , also where people tend to go blind,
30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias.
And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who
said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he
would come up and sit with him.
Now this was no common phillip like me, This man had the complete and
whole revelation direct from Christ Himself . And None of His writings are in
Scripture.. Which detracts nothing at all. He was the founding father of most
of the churches of the East... See ya.. Allen.
Little phil.
----- Original Message -----
From: allendaves@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, August 23, 2008 8:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Psalm 19/ Christ 2nd Return
I don’t have a problem with “MAYBE IM WRONG “ ..but maybe I’m
wrong is not a logical or scriptural reason for objecting to anything
(particularly sound doctrine..lol).
Again, Phil, I can agree...people twist and don’t use
scripture properly all the time and there is a difference between opinion and
dogma ..but as i keep pointing out ...why can't you demonstrate that to be the
case ?...are the scriptures understandable and or coherent or not?! If they
are, then there is no reason why one cannot demonstrate their doctrine....it
is either found in scripture or not? This brings us back to the same place we
were before....is the problem with making sense of scripture because scripture
can only be properly interpreted in millions of different ways all of which ar
eequaly valid?!...or is scripture logical and coherent but many if not most of
its "interpreters" are not logical or coherent. If scripture is coherent and
logical ( one would think sound reasoning is a property of the author cough)
(consistency is a mark of sound reasoning regardless of ones "philosophy") if
it is, then when someone misapplies scripture or makes a mistake in using
scripture much like one may make a mistake with a 80000 piece jigsaw puzzle or
puts fourth ideas/ doctrines that are inconsistent with it, then it follows
that the error should be possible to demonstrate in fact not opinion! ...Again,
if scripture is coherent and can be logically (consistently) applied.
Otherwise, you are left with a “authority of doctrine (even in the RC camp)
that is by definition incoherent, inconsistent and makes no sense without first
knowing what the truth is so as to "interpret it properly". If that is the case
then:
1.Scripture is not a guide to the truth but rather something
that needs the truth in order to understand and interpret it.
2. There is no way to claim scripture as giving authority to
anyone for the purpose of interpreting it without first knowing what the truth
is so as to make sure your interpretation of who ‘s job it is, is the correct
interpretation.
If it is coherent and authoritative for doctrine, then
someone anyone should be able to demonstrate the doctrine…………if you cannot
demonstrate your doctrine then maybe….. just maybe, your doctrine is the
problem……… I duknow…what you think?
--- On Fri, 8/22/08, philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Psalm 19/ Christ 2nd Return
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, August 22, 2008, 2:32 PM
I understand Phil,
What your saying is fine except if it is true then
you should have no problem demonstrating from scripture the error ..but my
point is you cannot. Therefore, either the scripture is logically incoherent
and un-discernable or it is logical and discernable but your position is not
Consistent with the text. You see the choice is not between me and
interpretation & or “my view” it is really about the scripture and your/ the
futurist view! Mine is demonstrated at least thus far consistent with the text
and the futurist...is........I'm waiting for it....? Allen
According to your opinion Allen..But there is an old
saying that the insane person thinks he is sane and all the rest are mad.
Hence Scripture has warned us all here about wasting
our time the way we are, and maybe of even leading someone astray? . Philip.
13 But we look for new heavens and a new earth
according to his promises, in which justice dwelleth.
14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these
things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in
peace. 15 And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation: as also our
most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you:
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of
these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the
unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their
own destruction.
17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things
before, take heed, lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall
from your own steadfastness.
Peter
Other related posts:
