[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: j a <ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 12:20:23 -0700 (PDT)
Responces in red
I don't see what's baffling at all. I simply focused on what you said. That
the job was pretty much sorted out before the Catholic Church became involved.
It's a clear attempt to minimize the importance of what the Church actually
did. You don't need to take it personally. Are you saying that the books of the
bible hadn't been pretty well agreed upon before the official act of the
catholic church or did the catholic church do something controversial (at the
time) when they made the descision?
Do you agree the Catholic Church acted infallibly in sorting out what belonged
in and what belonged out of the Bible? No, I do not. God's will decided what
it contains. Or if Nevilles' point of view is true then God allowed what it
contains. If so, how do you know this? (acting infallibly means acting without
the possibility of error. I want to avoid a misunderstanding of what I mean).
If I said to you: "1 + 1 = 2" would you say I acted infalliby? Or would you say
God had given me infallibility just for that statement? Your obsession with
the concept is something else.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:JA,
I don't see what's baffling at all. I simply focused on what you said. That
the job was pretty much sorted out before the Catholic Church became involved.
It's a clear attempt to minimize the importance of what the Church actually did.
Do you agree the Catholic Church acted infallibly in sorting out what belonged
in and what belonged out of the Bible? If so, how do you know this? (acting
infallibly means acting without the possibility of error. I want to avoid a
misunderstanding of what I mean).
Regards,
Nick.
---------------------------------
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 12:07 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick, I am completely baffled by your responce. What is it you are criticizing
here? if God wanted the correct books of the bible put together and used the
catholic church to do so - as I thought I made ample reference to - what's the
problem with that? Isn't that your position too? I was only saying that there
had already been a sorting action taking place among the christians of that
time and previous to the Catholic church putting the final list together.
If you are criticizing my humble usage of words reguarding myself - you can
keep your opinion of me to yourself.
"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.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 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.
---------------------------------
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
Other related posts:
