[geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
- From: "Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2005 17:29:37 -0500
JA,
I want to also address your other comment.
Infallibility is not MY "position". It is GOD's position, as
communicated to us through His infallible Church.
Deal with it.
Regards,
Nick.
_____
From: j a [mailto:ja_777_aj@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2005 4:10 PM
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Saul of Tarsus.. Nick & Dan
Nick,
You can stop spouting your infallibility claims, we all get your
position. So are you saying that the books chosen and not chosen by the
catholic church were a complete surprise to everyone? Because nobody
knew till then right? for 300 years everybody was utterly lost and
wondering what belonged and what didn't because it hadn't been decreed
yet by you know who.
JA
"Niemann, Nicholas K." <NNiemann@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
__________________________________________________
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:
