[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 15:22:36 -0500
JA,
Yes, the books of the Bible had not been agreed upon until the official
act of the Catholic Church (in the late 300's), at which time it acted
infallibly in deciding what belonged in and what didn't. In acting
infallibly, it had God's overriding assistance, something which God had
promised to it. You can deride the concept as an obsession, but
apparently God felt it important enough to assure its presence in His
Church, to help settle disputes, so we'd be able to come to know the
actual Truth.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 2:20 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
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 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.
_____
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs> 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
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=34442/*http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs>
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:
