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.