* Scriptures + Tradition? A Response to the Catholics! *
Pastor Dave
<liamt...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
I state this belief and this definition for myself, to state
what it is I believe and how it is I define Sola Scriptura.
I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture. But
nowhere does it say that it would continue on through
to today. The "traditions" are what we find in the
Scriptures, as the Bible shows and as I will prove. And
be very careful here, since what we find in the Bible,
in the New Testament is not some new thing, but rather,
is the expounding of the Old Testament Scriptures unto
the church. In other words, if it can't bet found in the
Old Testament, then it doesn't exist in the New Testament.
As for the definition of Sola Scriptura, I believe in the
Holy, Living God, who created all that there is. And
I believe that He gave us His inerrant, Holy written
word, as our final authority on matters of faith and
morals. Lots of people claim, "The Holy Spirit told me"
and yet, contradict each other. And that includes Popes.
So no, the claim that "The Holy Spirit told me" does not
fly with me! Furthermore, there is simply no way that
God would contradict Himself and since we know that
the Bible is His written word to mankind, it is a foolish
man who claims that the Scriptures are not the ruler
with which we measure all claims within the faith!
Jesus *personally* ordained each and every one of
the Apostles! And yes, that includes Paul, since Christ
appeared to him on the road to Damascus and so,
we have no excuse for claiming that anyone who came
after them, would have equal authority with them in
the churches and Paul made it very clear that it was
"First Apostles, then (insert offices)...". God inspired
them to write the New Testament and it is by no
authority whatsoever that Catholics make the claim
that writings after that, are "Scripture"! Those men
contradicted each other in their writings and it is also
wrong to even call them, "church fathers"! If anyone
should be called the "church fathers", it should be
the Apostles, amen?!
Furthermore, "Scripture" is not "whatever we Catholics
decide to call Scripture"! Scripture is the Bible! Calling
later writings "Scripture", simply because you want them
to be that, does not make it so! But Catholics seem to
think that whatever they claim always existed, always did
and that they don't ever have to prove their claims and
that is simply ridiculous! And it is hypocritical, when
you spend your time demanding that Protestants prove
theirs! And so, I will use the term "Scripture" in this
message, as to what I am calling Scripture in its proper
meaning, which is, "the Bible".
So my definition of Sola Scriptura, is that it is the ruler
by which we measure any and all claims within the faith
and even outside of it, since *we know* that the Bible
is indeed the word of God, without question! And so,
if it doesn't line up with the word of God, then it is not
valid, period, end of argument! And one who does not
adhere to that, is saying to God that His word is not
the final authority in a matter of faith! Now I don't
know about you, but I do not wish to be the one trying
to explain that to God, when I am judged by Him. :)
And so, I do not place men who contradicted each other
on equal footing with the word of God and the Catholic
Church has no proof whatsoever of their "traditions"
coming from the Apostles and in fact, these "traditions"
can be dated to much, much later than the time of
the Apostles!
Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
But my point is, that an honest Catholic is not afraid to
examine his/her faith and will deal with the issues that
will be raised here in my post. And so, anyway, I guess
it's time to get on with the post. :)
>On Jun 9, 1:18 am, "Mistylein" wrote:
>
>> Yes there is some Tradition in the Faith
>> but the Faith is not built upon Tradition
>> as most secular congregations are built on.
>
>Because some Faith of some secular congregations
>do not adhere to the tradition that have been taught
>by the early Church Fathers.
Secular congregations? You're claiming in order for
a church to be of God, that church must adhere to
"the traditions taught by the early church fathers".
That's a straw man that you set up to try to claim
an instant victory, since you know that other churches
do not hold their writings as authoritative.
And so, you are claiming that the men that you call,
"the early church fathers" are authoritative in their
writings, with no basis for claiming such a thing and
you are ignoring the fact that they have directly
contradicted each other on matters of doctrine.
So your claim is, that men who contradict each other
are those whom we should listen to, to be able to
set up a church that is of God. That is indeed your
claim, since you did indeed state that in order for
a church to be of God, they must adhere to the
traditions set down by these so called "church fathers"
and indeed, these so called "church fathers" did in
fact contradict each other in their writings, even on
matters of the faith!
Your church's traditions can be traced to times much
later than their writings!
Not only that, but you are also claiming that a church
that is of God must place these contradictory writings
on equal footing with the inerrant Scriptures of the Holy,
Living God, even though they contradict both the Bible
and each other!
Huh?!? What?!?
Like I said... S-T-R-A-W M-A-N !!!
And furthermore, you believe that a guy in a funny hat
that you call "Pope" is also on equal footing, even though
Popes have contradicted each other, even when they
were supposedly, "ex cathedra" (in the chair of Peter).
But hey, no problem, you just call those guys "Anti-Popes"
later on, right? Of course, you run away, when someone
points out that this means that there are gaps in your
supposedly "unbroken line of Popes". And we won't even
bother getting into the fact that at times, there was more
than one guy claiming to be Pope, while they warred with
each other and yes, I do mean warred with each other!
Yea, that's really Christ like! What a great approach! :)
>Tradition and the Bible go hand and hand to live a
>Christian life. The Bible does not teach everything,
>that's where tradition comes in.
Jesus seemed to think that it was enough...
"But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not
live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth
out of the mouth of God." - Matthew 4:4
And He did not say a word about "the church fathers".
He was quoted an Old Testament passage.
And Paul said that it was what made one "wide unto
salvation". And salvation seems to be the goal to me! :)
"And that from a child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures,
which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through
faith which is in Christ Jesus." - 2 Timothy 3:15
>Sola Scriptura is not enough.
Why not? The Scriptures are what Jesus taught from and
the Scriptures are what makes one "wise unto salvation".
And in fact, after Jesus rose, He didn't go on to teach them
to follow traditions (more on that later). Rather He taught
them from the Scriptures.
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning Himself." - Luke 24:27
>You need traditions and the Bible.
Need? Really? It seems to me that you're saying that
God's word is not enough and that you need to add to it.
>2 Thessalonians 2: 14-15, It was for this He called
>you through our gospel, that you may gain the
>glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. So then, brethren,
>stand firm and hold to the traditions which you
>were taught, whether by word of mouth or by
>letter from us.
I have dealt with you on this before and proved to you
that it is the Bible alone that we trust, not men today,
when it comes to what God said and did so using the
verses that you quoted. But of course, as was expected,
you pretend that never happened and you will do the
same thing again after this time, even though you have
no refutation for what I posted then, nor what I post
now and will run away, which proves your dishonesty,
since you knew you were beat last time you ran away,
which is obviously why you ran away. (:
You just quoted the Bible to try to support the idea
of not following only the Bible. And you can't see
the problem here? :)
The "traditions" that Paul is referencing here, include
written letters, which are in the Bible. Tradition is not
separate from the Bible, but rather, the traditions are
in the Bible. You are trying to support the idea that
there are traditions that are not listed in the Bible and
that even when they go against what the Bible teaches,
it's okay, because some guy in a funny hat said so.
So what did Paul actually say in the verses you quoted?
2 Thessalonians 2:14-15
14) Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to
the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.
15) Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the
traditions which ye have been taught, whether
by word, or our epistle.
It doesn't actually say, "by word of mouth" as the
version you're quoting claims. That implies they
could have heard it from anybody and that is not
what Paul is saying there! He is referring to them,
the Apostles, having taught the church by word,
or letter. Not just anybody!
But anyway, even using the one you quoted, you
try to support the idea you hold, by the words,
"by word of mouth", but you ignore where that
"word of mouth" came from!
And the problem here, is that you take this passage
as being one which speaks of today, but Paul said it
in the past tense... "were taught" in the version you
quoted and "have been taught" in the KJV. Either
way, it is P-A-S-T T-E-N-S-E !!!
And no, I will not accept speculation like, "Well don't
you think that they..." as an argument! We are bound
to state what the Bible says, not what we wish it said!
And the key words are "OUR gospel" and "from US".
Paul clearly here limits the "traditions" to what they
"were", past tense, taught and those taught by them,
the Apostles! He did not say, "And whatever people
teach you after us, you go ahead and claim is equal
to what we taught you".
The fact is, that Paul warned that after he was gone,
people would be trying to teach them false doctrines.
And the Bible teaches that there would be doctrines
that seemed righteous, but were not! In fact, Paul
talked about how even Satan transforms himself
into an angel of light!
Paul's message here was NOT to believe later teachers,
but to hold fast to what they were *already* taught
*by him* (and the other Apostles)!
The fact is, that all of the verses that you think that
you can quote to support your claim about "traditions",
clearly limit said traditions to the time limit of what
*the Apostles* taught them and do NOT support
the idea of later people coming in and teaching them
whatever they wanted to!
And Jesus loved the idea of false Apostles being rejected
and make no mistake, Apostles were the *only* teachers
that could bring forth doctrines into the churches!
"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience
and how thou canst not bear them which are evil:
and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles
and are not, and hast found them liars" - Revelation 2:2
And Paul clearly made it clear that it was the Apostles
who were the ones that God commissioned to fill the
bill, when it came to laying out doctrine for the church:
Galatians 1:6-9
6) I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:
7) Which is not another; but there be some that trouble
you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.
8) But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached
unto you, let him be accursed.
9) As we said before, so say I now again, If any man
preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have
received, let him be accursed.
Note: Than that you HAVE RECEIVED! PAST TENSE!
And note that in the following, Paul begins by telling them
that he has already declared to them the whole counsel
of God. There is nothing for anyone else to add later!
Acts 20:27-31
27) For I have not shunned to declare to you the
whole counsel of God.
28) Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all
the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made
you overseers, to shepherd the church of God
which He purchased with His own blood.
29) For I know this, that after my departure savage
wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.
30) Also from among yourselves men will rise up,
speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples
after themselves.
31) Therefore watch, and remember that for three
years I did not cease to warn everyone night and
day with tears.
Jesus gave commandments to the Apostles whom He
Himself had chosen and nowhere, did Jesus say that
other men later could make the same claims!
Tradition is limited to what the churches were taught
back then and there is not one single passage that
you can quote that shows otherwise!
In fact, every passage shows the opposite and proves
exactly what I said, which is that they limited "tradition"
to what they had already taught the churches and told
the churches to ignore later teachings, as shown above!
That is what the passages that you would quote show,
when they are not twisted by your preassumed RCC
doctrine and are read as they are actually written!
And why is it that we see zero examples of these traditions
that you are claiming being performed by the Apostles?
After all, this is why they are called "traditions" by you.
Because you know they're not found in the Bible!
We have writings spanning almost 40 years and no examples
of them doing any of these things, nor any writings in the
Bible, of any instruction to even one church to do them?!
Read what the Bible says, not what you wish it said!
"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in
all things and keep the traditions JUST AS I DELIVERED
(*past tense*) THEM TO YOU." - 1 Corinthians 11:2
Note: Delivered. Past tense. It says the traditions that
were already delivered to them, past tense!
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother
who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition
which HE RECEIVED FROM US." - 2 Thessalonians 3:6
Note above that Paul tells them to hold fast to the
traditions that they received (*past tense*) from THEM!
The traditions mentioned in the New Testament are:
1) Those that were already delivered to the churches.
2) Were delivered to the churches by the Apostles.
There is no such thing as a passage that says anything
else about this subject!
There is no such thing in the Scriptures as, "Go ahead
and claim traditions later and hold them equal to the
Scriptures and call them Scriptures". And frankly, your
church simply claiming that they are passed down from
the Apostles, is not good enough! Especially since you
don't have anything in writing from them saying so and
if you did, it would be part of the Bible anyway! So why
should we take some denomination's word for it, when
this is the case and it has been repeatedly proved that:
1) Their traditions in many cases actually violate
the word of God.
2) When #1 is proved to a Catholic and there is
no way to get out of admitting it, they are
forced to admit that they choose their tradition
over God's word.
3) The claim that the traditions are in addition to
the Bible is the same as saying that God's word
is not complete and the fact is, that these so
called "traditions" came much later and weren't
added until much later and this is simply that
church's way of trying to leave open a path
for them to add whatever rules they want,
by setting up some false rule ahead of time
that says they can and claiming they are the
original church, when all they have for proof
for either claim, is "We say so!". Sorry, but that
is not good enough and that is what you accuse
Protestants of doing and is what you ridicule
them for, even though it is a false accusation
on the part of the Catholic Church! In other
words, it is the Catholic Church that is doing
the very thing it accuses Protestants of doing!
And don't bother with your Protestant bashing, trying
to distract from the fact that your claim has been
disproved. I am not Catholic, nor am I Protestant.
I am simply a Christian pastor, no more, no less.
You are not trying to hold traditions equal to Scripture,
because when it comes down to a conflict (and that
happens all the time, whether you admit it to yourself
or not), you go with tradition over the Bible and you
know very well that you do! And you pace a guy in
a funny hat over all!
Jesus never said, "Let me now teach you the traditions.".
In fact, after He rose, we see the following...
"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets,
He expounded unto them in all the Scriptures
the things concerning Himself." - Luke 24:27
Nope! No mention of "tradition"! Just the Scriptures!
And in fact, Jesus dealt with this issue in Matthew 15
and showed how man made traditions violate the word
of God and mislead people!
Remember that I defined "Sola Scriptura" above as that
which means the written word of God being what we trust,
as far as what God said. In other words, I do not worship
the Bible. I worship God and His Christ! I simply believe
that the Bible is the written word to mankind, by the Holy,
Living, Omnipotent God and treat it as such and believe
that being such, it is without error and as Paul said,
is "profitable for reproof, correction and instruction
in righteousness". And make sure to understand that
in order TO correct, it must BE correct! And therefore,
it trumps anything that you, or your church has to say
about anything, period, end of story!
So in this example, using Matthew 15:
Roman Catholic = "traditions of the elders".
Sola Scriptura = "word of God".
One can substitute Catholic of whatever variety, as they
all add their own "traditions" and claim that they were
passed down from the Apostles.
And let's face it, Catholic priests are more concerned
with whether or not people violate the Catholic traditions,
than they are with whether or not they violate something
that the Apostles said and that is truly sad. (:
For Catholics, it isn't so much about being a good
Christian, as it is about being a good Catholic! Sad!
The Pharisees were worried about the disciples violating
the traditions that they created and Jesus told them
that their traditions violated the word of God and so here,
Jesus is indeed telling them that the word of God trumps
their traditions!
Matthew 15:1-14
1) Then the scribes and Pharisees who were from
Jerusalem came to Jesus, saying,
2) Why do Your disciples transgress the tradition
of the elders? For they do not wash their hands
when they eat bread.
3) He answered and said to them; Why do you also
transgress the commandment of God because of
your tradition?
4) For God commanded, saying, ‘Honor your father
and your mother’; and, ‘He who curses father or
mother, let him be put to death’.
5) But you say whoever says to his father or mother,
'Whatever profit you might have received from me
is a gift to God',
6) then he need not honor his father or mother.
Thus you have made the commandment of God
of no effect by your tradition.
7) Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you,
saying:
8) ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth,
and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is
far from Me.
9) And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines
the commandments of men.'
10) When He had called the multitude to Himself,
He said to them; Hear and understand:
11) Not what goes into the mouth defiles a man;
but what comes out of the mouth, this defiles a man.
12) Then His disciples came and said to Him, Do You
know that the Pharisees were offended when they
heard this saying?
13) But He answered and said, Every plant which
My Heavenly Father has not planted will be uprooted.
14) Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind.
And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into
a ditch.
Your "traditions" make of no effect the word of God,
since they try to trump the Apostles, whom Jesus
appointed and especially since in many cases, they
contradict the Bible! The Catholic Church teaches
doctrines of men to be the Commandments of God!
And so, the following is fitting...
"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
For ye shut up the Kingdom of Heaven against men:
For ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them
that are entering to go in." - Matthew 23:13
And this is true, since the Catholic Church believes that
it is only through the Catholic Church that one can find
salvation! You may claim that they later revised this
stand and that they put it in writing, but a careful
reading of their word manipulation reveals that it is
still the same old view!
And note that Paul (Gal 1:14) shed the "traditions of
his fathers" (those Pharisees before him, as Paul was
a Pharisee) to preach the Gospel of Christ, when he
was called by Christ!
Side note: You see folks, this is why I tell you Futurists
that you read Scripture with a preassumed
doctrine and with no regard for a time line!
Had I not come to know the truth about
the concept that Futurism is false and the
time line aspect that must be adhered to,
I would not have seen the time line in these
passages and it is your Futurism that causes
you to try to argue a passage that he quotes
with other passages, as if to say that one
can't be true, because hey, look at this one
instead of dealing with the one he quoted
as I have done here (glory to God, not me)!
The reality is, that what was said is in the
passages that he quoted, was said in the
past tense and so, applies to then and not
to now, with people adding things and
claiming equal authority, which was never
given to them and the Bible says that it is
about what the churches were already
taught by the Apostles, not someone today!
Anyway, no, the passage you quoted does not prove
your case! Rather, you quoted a passage that supports
my refutation of your claim, as would any and all passages
you could quote in relation to tradition! So thanks for
making my point for me! :)
--
Life has many choices. Eternity has two. What's yours?
LiamToo
San Diego, California
Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it
contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this
material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic
tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one
understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is
found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is
simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong—and may well hinder
one in coming to God.
Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the Bible does not
endorse this view and that, in fact, it is repudiated in Scripture.
The true "rule of faith"—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture
plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching
authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral
teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to
interpret Scripture correctly.
In the Second Vatican Council’s document on divine revelation, Dei
Verbum (Latin: "The Word of God"), the relationship between Tradition
and Scripture is explained: "Hence there exists a close connection and
communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both
of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way
merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture
is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the
inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles,
sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was
entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
"Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in
their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and
make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred
Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything
which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred
Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and
reverence."
But Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants, who place their
confidence in Martin Luther’s theory of sola scriptura (Latin:
"Scripture alone"), will usually argue for their position by citing a
couple of key verses. The first is this: "These are written that you
may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that
believing you may have life in his name" (John 20:31). The other is
this: "All Scripture is
inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for
correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God
may be equipped, prepared for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16–17).
According to these Protestants, these verses demonstrate the reality
of sola scriptura (the "Bible only" theory).
Not so, reply Catholics. First, the verse from John refers to the
things written in that book (read it with John 20:30, the verse
immediately before it to see the context of the statement in
question). If this verse proved anything, it would not prove the
theory of sola scriptura but that the Gospel of John is sufficient.
Second, the verse from John’s Gospel tells us only that the Bible was
composed so we can be helped to believe Jesus is the Messiah. It does
not say the Bible is all we need for salvation, much less that the
Bible is all we need for theology; nor does it say the Bible is even
necessary to believe in Christ. After all, the earliest Christians had
no New Testament to which they could appeal; they learned from oral,
rather than written, instruction. Until relatively recent times, the
Bible was inaccessible to most people, either because they could not
read or because the printing press had not been invented. All these
people learned from oral instruction, passed down, generation to
generation, by the Church.
Much the same can be said about 2 Timothy 3:16-17. To say that all
inspired writing "has its uses" is one thing; to say that only
inspired writing need be followed is something else. Besides, there is
a telling argument against claims of Evangelical and Fundamentalist
Protestants. John Henry Newman explained it in an 1884 essay entitled
"Inspiration in its Relation to Revelation."
WHAT IS TRADITION?
In this discussion it is important to keep in mind what the Catholic
Church means by tradition. The term does not refer to legends or
mythological accounts, nor does it encompass transitory customs or
practices which may change, as circumstances warrant, such as styles
of priestly dress, particular forms of devotion to saints, or even
liturgical rubrics. Sacred or apostolic tradition consists of the
teachings that the apostles passed on orally through their preaching.
These teachings largely (perhaps entirely) overlap with those
contained in Scripture, but the mode of their transmission is
different.
They have been handed down and entrusted to the Churchs. It is
necessary that Christians believe in and follow this tradition as well
as the Bible (Luke 10:16). The truth of the faith has been given
primarily to the leaders of the Church (Eph. 3:5), who, with Christ,
form the foundation of the Church (Eph. 2:20). The Church has been
guided by the Holy Spirit, who protects this teaching from corruption
(John 14:25-26, 16:13).
HANDING ON THE FAITH
Paul illustrated what tradition is: "For I delivered to you as of
first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins
in accordance with the scriptures. . . . Whether then it was I or
they, so we preach and so you believed" (1 Cor. 15:3,11). The apostle
praised those who followed Tradition: "I commend you because you
remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have
delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
The first Christians "devoted themselves to the apostles’
teaching" (Acts 2:42) long before there was a New Testament. From the
very beginning, the fullness of Christian teaching was found in the
Church as the living embodiment of Christ, not in a book. The teaching
Church, with its oral, apostolic tradition, was authoritative. Paul
himself gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to
him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35).
This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed
on to Paul. Indeed, even the Gospels themselves are oral tradition
which has been written down (Luke 1:1–4). What’s more, Paul does not
quote Jesus only. He also quotes from early Christian hymns, as in
Ephesians 5:14. These and other things have been given to Christians
"through the Lord Jesus" (1 Thess. 4:2).
Fundamentalists say Jesus condemned tradition. They note that Jesus
said, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake
of your tradition?" (Matt. 15:3). Paul warned, "See to it that no one
makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human
tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not
according to Christ" (Col. 2:8). But these verses merely condemn
erroneous human traditions, not truths which were handed down orally
and entrusted to the Church by the apostles. These latter truths are
part of what is known as apostolic tradition, which is to be
distinguished from human traditions or customs.
Al Smith
> the Apostles! And yes, that includes Paul, since Christ
> appeared to him on the road to Damascus and so,
> we have no excuse for claiming that anyone who came
> after them, would have equal authority with them in
> the churches and Paul made it very clear that it was
> "First Apostles, then (insert offices)...". God inspired
> them to write the New Testament and it is by no
> authority whatsoever that Catholics make the claim
> that writings after that, are "Scripture"! Those men
> contradicted each other in their writings and it is also
> wrong to even call them, "church fathers"! If anyone
> should be called the "church fathers", it should be
> the Apostles, amen?!
Let me look at your reasoning, here. You're saying that because
Jesus appeared to Paul on the road, that Paul is an apostle. But how
do we know that Jesus appeared to Paul? Paul might have been lying.
Or, Paul might have experienced an hallucination. Both of these
explanations seem far more probable than Jesus appearing to him
after Jesus was dead.
-Al-
Pastor Dave
<liamt...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>Catholic Answers, "SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION"
>San Diego, California
I am not interested in you pasting in what someone else
has said. I typed my own message. You on the other
hand, have proved that you're a robot!
>Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith
Thank you for proving that you did not even read
my message! I clearly stated that I am not a
Protestant! I am a Christian Minister, nothing more
and I am of no denomination!
Thank you for proving that you are incapable of
defending your claims and that you have no defense
for the very specific points I made about the passage
that you quoted and that you do not wish to discuss
the issues point by point, but can, as I implied, only
spit out what you are told by your denomination!
Thank you for proving that you have zero integrity,
since a man of integrity would have dealt with what
I have ACTUALLY SAID!
Now since this has been your M.O. each and every time,
tell us, why should we put any stock in any of your posts,
when it is clear that when your claims are disproved,
all you know how to do, is snip the responses and paste
in Catholic propaganda?
Tell us Catholics, did this make you feel good? Of course
it did, because you are just as dishonest as he is and you
know just as little about your own denomination as he does!
Nor do you care that you are not dealing with the issues!
To you, the guy in the funny hat rules Heaven and Earth!
Gee and I always thought that was Christ! Oh well,
I guess Jesus will just have to line up with you Catholics,
or your Pope will send Him to Hell, huh?!
You did not deal with one single thing I said, which
went as follows, which I will quote here...
##################################################
Huh?!? What?!?
2 Thessalonians 2:14-15
Galatians 1:6-9
Acts 20:27-31
Matthew 15:1-14
#####################################################
--
Don't forget, Judas also left early.
Pastor Dave
<inv...@address.com> spake thusly:
Let me look at your reasoning here...
1) You ignore my refutations of your various claims
in every thread.
2) You interrupt a thread about the Catholic claims,
to talk about whether or not Paul lied.
3) You conveniently forget that the rest of the Apostles
accepted him and what he stated about that event.
This means that you place your unbelieving self
above all of the Apostles and call them stupid idiots,
who could easily be fooled, even with the Holy Spirit
being within them in such a great degree.
Translation: You're a self-aggrandizing idiot, son.
--
"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die
so that you may live as you wish." - Mother Teresa
Pastor Dave
<liamt...@yahoo.com> spake thusly:
>Catholic Answers, "SCRIPTURE AND TRADITION"
>San Diego, California
As I said, once again, you cut and paste that which
doesn't even address what I said, when I proved
to you that the verse you quoted says the opposite
of what you claimed it says and that you would run
from it, as you're doing now, not addressing it at all.
By the way, do you think when Peter said...
"But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be
ready always to give an answer to every man that
asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with
meekness and fear." - 1 Peter 3:15
...that he meant to copy and paste from a web site,
considering that they didn't have web sites?
Or do you think he meant that YOU should know
THE SCRIPTURES well enough to give an answer
YOURSELF?!
Ad by Scriptures, do you think he meant; "Whatever
some guy in a funny hat says later.", or do you think
he meant what we consider the BIBLE?!
I guess you aren't "ready"!
And by "meekness and fear", do you think he meant...
"Be dishonest and ignore everything they raise as
an issue."
Or do you think that by the word ANSWER, he meant
to actually answer the ISSUES THEY RAISED???
You have proved once again, that Catholics do not
know what God has to say, but only what they are
taught by their denomination! Thanks for that!
We have all learned how NOT to operate and what
denomination NOT to believe!
--
Who's more foolish? The fool, or the fool who follows him?
- Obi Wan Kenobe
athair ambrois
> You have proved once again, that Catholics do not
> know what God has to say, but only what they are
> taught by their denomination! Thanks for that!
> We have all learned how NOT to operate and what
> denomination NOT to believe!
All the same it has to be said that they have a very large following,
and many of their people are very intelligent and learned and do not
speak with the shrillness of tone which comes across in your lengthy
messages.
It is interesting that you say "Catholics do not know what God has to
say". This seems to be an attack on the ability of the Christian
community to teach the Gospel of Christ and hand it on to others.
But wasn't this the way of the Apostles and those who came after
them? Their teaching was personal and done in community. It was
done within the community of believers (what you call "demonination.)
So why would you denigrate that today? Has God changed? Has His way
of imparting the faith and the Gospel changed? When and where did
God instruct the community to cease passing on its knowledge of the
Gospel?
Mistylein
"athair ambrois" <em...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
news:2fb321e8-803f-44d2...@q27g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 11, 7:02 am, Pastor Dave <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
> You have proved once again, that Catholics do not
> know what God has to say, but only what they are
> taught by their denomination! Thanks for that!
> We have all learned how NOT to operate and what
> denomination NOT to believe!
All the same it has to be said that they have a very large following,
and many of their people are very intelligent and learned and do not
speak with the shrillness of tone which comes across in your lengthy
messages.
It is interesting that you say "Catholics do not know what God has to
say". This seems to be an attack on the ability of the Christian
community to teach the Gospel of Christ and hand it on to others.
* * * *
So why are you mixing Christians and Cathoilics in one lump sum
organization when they are as far appart as day and night??
He is not talking about Christian so how come you add that in
to a discussion about Catholics??
* * *
M,
athair ambrois
> * * * *
> So why are you mixing Christians and Cathoilics in one lump sum
> organization when they are as far appart as day and night??
This statemernt is too off the wall for me to deal with. The denial
that Catholics follow Christ and worship Him caomes out of the trashy
anti-Catholic rhetoric of the lowest level of "Protestantism." The
majority of Protestants would deny it.
> He is not talking about Christian so how come you add that in
> to a discussion about Catholics??
Again, it is not worth a reply. Only fervent prayer will remove the
blinkers you have put on. My Church has some doctrinal issues with
the Roman Catholics but we would never deny they are Christians.
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:bkK3k.184$oX7...@newsfe07.lga...
[snip]
> So why are you mixing Christians and Cathoilics in one lump sum
> organization when they are as far appart as day and night??
And still the ignorant one prattles on according to her SATANIC theology.
Seven letters.
Seven archetypes.
All spanning the history of the churches, for better and for worse.
And the CATHOLICS are BETTER than your CULT, any day of the week, and twice
on Sunder (er, Saturday).
That's NOT to say they don't have serious problems.
It's to say that YOURS ARE WORSE, cultist.
Ike
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
Just out of curiosity, what church would that be?
Ike
athair ambrois
<xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity, what church would that be?
I am Orthodox. Spent most of life in the Serbian Orthodox Church,
transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church 12 years ago. It made
sense since I had been on permanent secondment from the Serbian bishop
to work as parish priest for two Russian parishes.
More or less confined to home these days -heart problem- which is why
I have the free time to spend writing here. I didn't plan to be on a
Roman Catholic list but someone started crossposting Roman Catholic
mesages to alt.religion.east-orthodox and we have become a bit
intertwined....
baba
"H.E. Eickleberry, Jr." <xeickleb...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LpL3k.10453$kW2.2903@trnddc01...
> "Mistylein" <yardh...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:bkK3k.184$oX7...@newsfe07.lga...
>
> [snip]
>
>> So why are you mixing Christians and Cathoilics in one lump sum
>> organization when they are as far appart as day and night??
>
> And still the ignorant one prattles on according to her SATANIC
> theology.
>
>>>---------------->
Hi Ike,
Just jumping in to point out that whatever his theology, "Misty" is a
guy.
*¿* baba
Rockinghorse Winner
Pastor Dave, don't take this wrong. I find your posts learned and polite.
But they are so interminably long. Just a helpful hint: this is usenet.
People don't have the time to read entire treatises on a subject. THere are
many other groups and articles in our subscribed list.
Think: concise, to the point. IOW, say what you have to say and no more --
don't pad it out. You will have a better chance to be read if you space out
your arguments over several posts than cramming it all into one.
*R* *H*
--
"For me, prayer is a surge of the heart; it is a simple look turned toward
heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and
joy." - Saint Therese of Lisieux
Rockinghorse Winner
Athair, I enjoy reading your posts. You are a fine defender of Orthodox
Christianity! We need more like you.
Dr. House
[...]
> It is interesting that you say "Catholics do not know what God has to
> say". This seems to be an attack on the ability of the Christian
> community to teach the Gospel of Christ and hand it on to others.
>
> * * * *
> So why are you mixing Christians and Cathoilics in one lump sum
> organization when they are as far appart as day and night??
>
> He is not talking about Christian so how come you add that in
> to a discussion about Catholics??
> * * *
> M,
I guess you have not heard. Catholics are a type of Christian just
like Protestants are a type of Christian.
I hope that helps.
Dr. House
Because some of the . . . er . . . more delicate individuals were
frightened by the Jayne Cobb reference. And no, I'm not a real Doctor
but Hugh Laurie plays one on TV. ;-)
duke
>I believe that He gave us His inerrant, Holy written
>word, as our final authority on matters of faith and
>morals.
What do you have to say about John 21:25. Jesus said and did much more than
found in Holy Script.
> Lots of people claim, "The Holy Spirit told me"
>and yet, contradict each other. And that includes Popes.
The Holy Spirit came as Counselor and Teacher. If he does neither, why did he
come?
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
H.E. Eickleberry, Jr.
news:slrng5357e.d6...@deadtime.com...
> In alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic, athair ambrois had the audacity
> to say that:
>
>> On Jun 11, 7:47 pm, "H.E. Eickleberry, Jr."
>><xeickleberrybo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Just out of curiosity, what church would that be?
>>
>> I am Orthodox. Spent most of life in the Serbian Orthodox Church,
>> transferred to the Russian Orthodox Church 12 years ago. It made
>> sense since I had been on permanent secondment from the Serbian bishop
>> to work as parish priest for two Russian parishes.
>>
>> More or less confined to home these days -heart problem- which is why
>> I have the free time to spend writing here. I didn't plan to be on a
>> Roman Catholic list but someone started crossposting Roman Catholic
>> mesages to alt.religion.east-orthodox and we have become a bit
>> intertwined....
>>
>
> Athair, I enjoy reading your posts. You are a fine defender of Orthodox
> Christianity! We need more like you.
Problem is, the more like you two there are, the nearer the Great Apostasy
draws, every day, closer and closer.
There are worse--but not by much.
Ike
duke
>> Jesus *personally* ordained each and every one of
>> the Apostles! And yes, that includes Paul, since Christ
>> appeared to him on the road to Damascus and so,
>> we have no excuse for claiming that anyone who came
>> after them, would have equal authority with them in
>> the churches and Paul made it very clear that it was
>> "First Apostles, then (insert offices)...". God inspired
>> them to write the New Testament and it is by no
>> authority whatsoever that Catholics make the claim
>> that writings after that, are "Scripture"! Those men
>> contradicted each other in their writings and it is also
>> wrong to even call them, "church fathers"! If anyone
>> should be called the "church fathers", it should be
>> the Apostles, amen?!
>
>
>Let me look at your reasoning, here. You're saying that because
>Jesus appeared to Paul on the road, that Paul is an apostle. But how
>do we know that Jesus appeared to Paul?
It's canon scripture.
duke
wrote:
Actually, that was orhtonews crossposting to the ARCR-C group.
athair ambrois
> duke, American-American
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Alas the Mass!
~~~~
"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but
devastation."
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~
athair ambrois
> *****
> "The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
> Pope Paul VI
> *****
Alas the Mass!
~~~~~
“I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~
Libertarius
called "Bible", *IS* mostly tradition embellished by creative writers
claiming they were inspired by or writing in the name od their "God".
Protestants who bitch about "tradition" choose to ignore that reality.
It is the ideas, opinions, speculations and fantasies OF MEN, selected,
edited and compied BY MEN, and referred to as "God's Word" by LYING MEN!
-- L.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
duke
<Liber...@nothingbutthe.truth> wrote:
>"Scripture", i.e. the books compiled by the Church into its book
>called "Bible", *IS* mostly tradition embellished by creative writers
>claiming they were inspired by or writing in the name od their "God".
Actually, the bible is only that portion of Holy Tradition put into writing.
Pastor Dave
This was a response to a couple of people. I have removed
their names, as they are not important. The message is. :)
I state this belief and this definition for myself, to state
what it is I believe and how it is I define Sola Scriptura.
I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture. But
nowhere does it say that it would continue on through
to today. The "traditions" are what we find in the
Scriptures, as the Bible shows and as I will prove. And
be very careful here, since what we find in the Bible,
in the New Testament is not some new thing, but rather,
is the expounding of the Old Testament Scriptures unto
the church. In other words, if it can't bet found in the
Old Testament, then it doesn't exist in the New Testament.
As for the definition of Sola Scriptura, I believe in the
Holy, Living God, who created all that there is. And
I believe that He gave us His inerrant, Holy written
word, as our final authority on matters of faith and
morals. Lots of people claim, "The Holy Spirit told me"
and yet, contradict each other. And that includes Popes.
So no, the claim that "The Holy Spirit told me" does not
fly with me! Furthermore, there is simply no way that
God would contradict Himself and since we know that
the Bible is His written word to mankind, it is a foolish
man who claims that the Scriptures are not the ruler
with which we measure all claims within the faith!
Jesus *personally* ordained each and every one of
the Apostles! And yes, that includes Paul, since Christ
appeared to him on the road to Damascus and so,
we have no excuse for claiming that anyone who came
after them, would have equal authority with them in
the churches and Paul made it very clear that it was
"First Apostles, then (insert offices)...". God inspired
them to write the New Testament and it is by no
authority whatsoever that Catholics make the claim
that writings after that, are "Scripture"! Those men
contradicted each other in their writings and it is also
wrong to even call them, "church fathers"! If anyone
should be called the "church fathers", it should be
the Apostles, amen?!
Furthermore, "Scripture" is not "whatever we Catholics
Huh?!? What?!?
2 Thessalonians 2:14-15
Galatians 1:6-9
Acts 20:27-31
Matthew 15:1-14
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"When are things going to stop sucking around here?"
- Leland McKenzie (LA Law)
randy
"Pastor Dave"
> I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
> to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
> clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture. But
> nowhere does it say that it would continue on through
> to today. The "traditions" are what we find in the
> Scriptures, as the Bible shows and as I will prove. And
> be very careful here, since what we find in the Bible,
> in the New Testament is not some new thing, but rather,
> is the expounding of the Old Testament Scriptures unto
> the church. In other words, if it can't bet found in the
> Old Testament, then it doesn't exist in the New Testament.
Well that depends. The reason the New Testament is called the *New*
Testament is because Christ was an entirely new revelation, even though he
was predicted in the Old Testament. He was *new* in the sense that he came
to bring something essentially different from the Law, even though he came
in fulfillment of the Law. The morality was the same, the spirituality was
the same, and yet it was a different system. The Old Testament prophets
predicted this, and the death of Christ proved he was the end of the old
system.
> So my definition of Sola Scriptura, is that it is the ruler
> by which we measure any and all claims within the faith
> and even outside of it, since *we know* that the Bible
> is indeed the word of God, without question! And so,
> if it doesn't line up with the word of God, then it is not
> valid, period, end of argument! And one who does not
> adhere to that, is saying to God that His word is not
> the final authority in a matter of faith! Now I don't
> know about you, but I do not wish to be the one trying
> to explain that to God, when I am judged by Him. :)
It isn't really that cut and dried, but I basically agree with you. I just
approach it from a different angle. I believe that any of the apostles had
the authority to transmit truth that could've been translated into writings,
and become Scripture. But some writings simply were better sources for
future generations, and so were preserved as a good representation of what
Christianity should be.
What the apostles taught was reliably from the Lord, both verbally and
spiritually. Paul was a little exceptional, inasmuch as he had a deep
spiritual experience, without much verbal communication. But he did
experience visions in the "third heaven," and also heard God call him into
ministry, as well as hear Him on other occasions.
Everything the apostles taught, particularly as they are preserved in
Scriptures, serve as an important outline of what Christians should be
experiencing today. And their teaching should match our teaching, yes.
> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
Well, that answers my question a little. Thanks for that little testimony...
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
> "Pastor Dave"
>
>> I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
>> to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
>> clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture. But
>> nowhere does it say that it would continue on through
>> to today. The "traditions" are what we find in the
>> Scriptures, as the Bible shows and as I will prove. And
>> be very careful here, since what we find in the Bible,
>> in the New Testament is not some new thing, but rather,
>> is the expounding of the Old Testament Scriptures unto
>> the church. In other words, if it can't bet found in the
>> Old Testament, then it doesn't exist in the New Testament.
>
> Well that depends. The reason the New Testament is
> called the *New* Testament is because Christ was an
> entirely new revelation
That is false. It is called that because it is a new covenant,
not because it is a new revelation. It is the revealing of
the mysteries of the Old Testament and it even says so.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Purchase not friends by gifts; when thou ceasest to give,
such will cease to love." - -Thomas Fuller
duke
>This was a response to a couple of people. I have removed
>their names, as they are not important. The message is. :)
>I state this belief and this definition for myself, to state
>what it is I believe and how it is I define Sola Scriptura.
Sola scriptura is rejected by the bible itself. John 21:25.
And furthermore, the gospels were not even publicized for some 30-60 years after
Christ. And canon scripture was not even selected until the 4th century.
Matthew, Mark and Luke never knew Jesus, so their writings are what the new
Christians believed some 30-60 years later.
So until the 4th century, Holy Tradition was all the new Christians had.
>I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
>to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
>clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture. But
>nowhere does it say that it would continue on through
>to today.
Oh, strange comment. What is it that Jesus didn't teach verbally is still
around today?
The Dukester, American-American
bam
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:tjc1k51mlldjl4qqd...@4ax.com...
> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
And which of the Church's commands were you obstinate in not obeying that
led you to rationalize your apostasy?
BAM
IT Helpdesk
> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave. By leaving the
Church, you've minimalized its importance, relative to your personal
interpretation of the Bible.
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
>> Well that depends. The reason the New Testament is
>> called the *New* Testament is because Christ was an
>> entirely new revelation
> That is false. It is called that because it is a new covenant,
> not because it is a new revelation. It is the revealing of
> the mysteries of the Old Testament and it even says so.
Maybe we're battling semantics here. We're agreed that Christ is the same
today, yesterday, and forever. God Himself has not changed, from Old
Testament to New Testament. But Christ is new in the sense he is the New
Covenant. That New Covenant was predicted in the Old Testament, but was not
revealed until Christ actually appeared in flesh and blood.
So what I'm saying is that Jesus was a new revelation in the sense that his
full revelation was made known only when he actually came to earth as a
human being. Yes, his coming had been predicted by the Old Testament
prophets, and that had indeed spoken by revelation, by a precognition of who
he would be. But I'm referring to his actual appearance, and to the new
system he set up. The new system is based on his exclusive spirituality, and
is not based on a contractual relationship between God and Israel under the
Law. Our eternal salvation is based solely on our receiving Christ's
spirituality--not on anything that had existed previously under the Law.
randy
Bob Young
On 1/3/10 1:51 AM, in article 7q1vj5dp83duffmr1...@4ax.com,
"Pastor Dave" <ananias917_@_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> This was a response to a couple of people. I have removed
> their names, as they are not important. The message is. :)
>
>
> I state this belief and this definition for myself, to state
> what it is I believe and how it is I define Sola Scriptura.
>
> I believe that God did speak to the Apostles and revealed
> to them "the mysteries of the Kingdom of God". This is
> clearly stated in more than one place in Scripture.
Based on an old book written by early frightened insecure humans,
the origins of which cannot be dated and you 'Believe it' !
Do you imagine for one moment a god that was real would settle for such an
unreliable tome so full of contradictions?
Well 'yes' I suppose you would !
The Bible is a chaotically cobbled together anthology of disjointed
documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by
hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and
mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some
of the sheer strangeness of the Bible. Unfortunately it is the same weird
volume that religious zealots hold up as the inerrant source of our morals
and rules for living.
[Richard Dawkins �The God Delusion]
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
spake thusly:
>"Pastor Dave"
>randy
>>> Well that depends. The reason the New Testament is
>>> called the *New* Testament is because Christ was an
>>> entirely new revelation
>
>> That is false. It is called that because it is a new covenant,
>> not because it is a new revelation. It is the revealing of
>> the mysteries of the Old Testament and it even says so.
>
>Maybe we're battling semantics here.
No, we're battling your lie. You want it to be all new,
so that you can remove your doctrine from any tie
to the OT that shows that Jesus' language was symbolic,
just as they used the same wording in the OT, which is
why, when I showed it to you, you ran away. You and
the rest of the Futurists. Cowards one and all.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
By allowing science to say that it has completely
drawn a line around what thngs are and to say we
know what things are, it's in this box, that's it,
we've limited ourselves. That's losing, not gaining
and to say that the scientific method is the only
method of perception is in and of itself unscientific.
Science must acknowledge that there are many different
ways of perceiving things. Scientists in some branches
are bringing things back and saying "Okay, we didn't
have the whole picture.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Whatever you do, do it to the purpose; do it thoroughly,
not superficially. Go to the bottom of things. Anything
half done, or half known, is in my mind, neither done
nor known at all. Nay, worse, for it often misleads."
-Lord Chesterfield
duke
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 08:25:28 -0800, "randy" <rkl...@wavecable.com>
>spake thusly:
>
>
>>"Pastor Dave"
>>randy
>>>> Well that depends. The reason the New Testament is
>>>> called the *New* Testament is because Christ was an
>>>> entirely new revelation
>>
>>> That is false. It is called that because it is a new covenant,
>>> not because it is a new revelation. It is the revealing of
>>> the mysteries of the Old Testament and it even says so.
>>
>>Maybe we're battling semantics here.
>No, we're battling your lie. You want it to be all new,
>so that you can remove your doctrine from any tie
>to the OT that shows that Jesus' language was symbolic,
What you're saying is that you don't have a clue on how the OT prefigured the
NT, and the NT is the fulfillment of the OT.
duke
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:35:09 -0500, "IT Helpdesk"
><ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>
>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>
>Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
>is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
The word of Jesus in the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the teaching authority of
the Papacy.
IT Helpdesk
news:j6gak59027teb9hov...@4ax.com...
Pastor Dave, Jesus Christ established the Church.
The term "Catholic" came into use during the Protestant Reformation, in
order to distinguish the "universal" ("catholic") Church from the church of
Luther.
:)
randy
"Pastor Dave"
randy
> No, we're battling your lie. You want it to be all new,
> so that you can remove your doctrine from any tie
> to the OT that shows that Jesus' language was symbolic,
> just as they used the same wording in the OT, which is
> why, when I showed it to you, you ran away. You and
> the rest of the Futurists. Cowards one and all.
Huh?
randy
::: Jesus is LORD :::
Z9WdnYU_NcArzNTW...@wavecable.com
He wanted to say he lost track of how to deal with his posts after he
was refuted.
It seems he is stuck in phase 5 and mingled it with phase 6, and all in
just one small paragraph! Extra-ordinary, really. ;-)
duke
tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:35:09 -0500, "IT Helpdesk"
><ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>
>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>
>Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
>is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
That's easy to do.
Jesus, AS EVIDENCED BY SCRIPTURE, gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7
sacraments and the teaching authority in the Papacy.
That's how the Roman Catholic Chruch is the Church founded by Christ.
randy
" ::: Jesus is LORD :::"
>>> No, we're battling your lie. You want it to be all new,
>>> so that you can remove your doctrine from any tie
>>> to the OT that shows that Jesus' language was symbolic,
>>> just as they used the same wording in the OT, which is
>>> why, when I showed it to you, you ran away. You and
>>> the rest of the Futurists. Cowards one and all.
>> Huh?
> He wanted to say he lost track of how to deal with his posts after he was
> refuted. It seems he is stuck in phase 5 and mingled it with phase 6, and
> all in just one small paragraph! Extra-ordinary, really. ;-)
Yes, the problem is that we have a complete breakdown in organized
communication, a complete capitulation to raw emotion. For Dave to
communicate we are required (by him) to completely repost in detail
everything he has said, and accept as incontestable every logical argument
he puts forward. Of course if we don't blindly follow his "pastoral
guidance" and swallow his arguments, hook, line, and sinker, we will be
accused of deleting his arguments and deliberately lying about what he said.
randy
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>>
>>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>>
>> Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
>> is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
>
>Pastor Dave, Jesus Christ established the Church.
>
>The term "Catholic" came into use during the Protestant Reformation, in
>order to distinguish the "universal" ("catholic") Church from the church of
>Luther.
No, that's what your church tells you. The truth is,
that it is a lot older than that and the word comes
from the Greek "katholikos" from the very early time
of the church and that word means, "universal".
Your RCC tried to steal the word and pretend that
if they named THEIR DENOMINATION that, that
they could fool people (like you) into believing
that it would automatically mean that theirs is
"the universal church that Jesus established".
But nowhere did Jesus establish the RCC, nor
would He approve of most of what that denomination
does in His name.
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"If one does not know to which port one is sailing,
no wind is favorable." - Seneca
IT Helpdesk
Pastor Dave! Methinks you've been brainwashed!
Bob Young
On 1/7/10 10:03 AM, in article j6gak59027teb9hov...@4ax.com,
"Pastor Dave" <newsgroup-mail @ tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:35:09 -0500, "IT Helpdesk"
> <ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>
>
>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>
>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>
> Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
> is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
I wouldn't worry too much about who's church is 'The' church, since
religions are all born from the minds of early mythology, entirely the work
of simple primitive man.
We need to worry more about why contemporary homo sapiens still cannot exist
without pandering to primitive superstitions and imaginary gods
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man desires things to be.
Leaving the doors wide open for opportunists to cash in.
Bob Young
On 1/7/10 9:42 PM, in article i5pbk5ll0n3vhmnv9...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
And who designed the Holy Mass and who had the idea of creating a Pope ?
Why Man of course, no gods involved in any shape or form.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man desires things to be.
Leaving the doors wide open for opportunists to cash in.
>
Bob Young
On 1/8/10 4:39 AM, in article hi5h1n$3kp$1...@tornado.tornevall.net, "IT
Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
Further illustrating that religions are the brain wave's of man, were that
not the case the Christian belief system would consist of only one cult,
rather than thousands. No respectable god would put up with it any other
way. Now think about it.
Ooooops Sorry, forgot, religionists don't think'; it's those damned blinders
getting in the way again.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man desires things to be.
Leaving doors wide open, of course, for the opportunists to cash in.
Bob Young
On 1/10/10 10:22 PM, in article riojk59siaaka06c2...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:03:50 -0500, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @
> tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:35:09 -0500, "IT Helpdesk"
>> <ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>>
>>
>>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>>
>>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>>
>> Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
>> is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
>
> That's easy to do.
>
> Jesus, AS EVIDENCED BY SCRIPTURE,
Groan . . . . what gibberish.
Biblical writings by early simple men, the time of which will never be known
or established are nt proof of A N Y T H I N G
I know evidence scares you to death Dook, never mind a bit more of it might
make you wake up - there's a real world going on outside there, if you only
knew it . . . . .
God CAN be seen:
"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
(EXO 33:11)
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
God CANNOT be seen:
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18)
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and
live." (EXO 33:20)
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1TIM 6:16)
And before you rush back to do some tap dancing
there's thousands more where that came from.
Bob
Humanist, atheist, realist, sentimentalist Brit.
Man creates his gods in his own image,
then spends the rest of his life
manipulating them to his heart's content
R E L I G I O N � it is all in the mind,
an escape from life�s realities and hardships,
sixty percent ritual, forty percent fantasy
Oh how I wish there were a loving god. A god that would take care of man�s
ills and fulfill his desires and dreams. But I have the common sense and
intelligence to know that this is simply the way man desires things to be.
Leaving the doors wide open for opportunists to cash in.
gave his Church on earth the Holy Mass, 7
Bob Young
On 1/19/10 3:34 PM, in article aunal599gmp0f8reu...@4ax.com,
History reveals the Church and the State as a pair of
indispensable Molochs. They protect their worshiping
subjects, only to enslave and destroy them.
[Aldous Huxley (1894-1963)
Themes and Variations_ [1950], "Variations On A Philosopher"]
Church notice [Believe it or not it is true]
GOODWOOD UNITED CHURCH
FREE COFFEE
EVERLASTING LIFE
YES MEMBERSHIP HAS
IT�S PRIVILEGES
Service 9.30 Rev. Elaine Lush
Bob Young
On 1/22/10 12:24 AM, in article hj9vhi$tq6$1...@tornado.tornevall.net, "IT
Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote:
Ha Ha - you jest
Every religious person has been brainwashed.
They do say, 92% of them from the cradle. Now what does that tell us ?
>
>
>
duke
Poor pastor dave.
He doesn't hang around to and bother to respond to others that responded to him.
Well, I guess he feels his case is so weak that he is unsure of such a
continuing discussion.
>Furthermore, "Scripture" is not "whatever we Catholics
>decide to call Scripture"! Scripture is the Bible! Calling
>later writings "Scripture"
A strange comment. Scripture means script, or writing. Not everything Jesus
said and did is written down. There are NO additions after 100AD, nominally.
However, Script is that tradition put pencil to paper, and the Catholic Chruch
decided what truth was.
>So my definition of Sola Scriptura, is that it is the ruler
>by which we measure any and all claims within the faith
>and even outside of it, since *we know* that the Bible
>is indeed the word of God, without question!
And who is questioning that? Everything that the RCC represents is found in the
Script.
>Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
Then that means you reject and deny much of that which Jesus taught us.
>But my point is, that an honest Catholic is not afraid to
>examine his/her faith and will deal with the issues that
>will be raised here in my post. And so, anyway, I guess
>it's time to get on with the post. :)
Too long. Any further response will be on other dates.
The Dukester, American-American
duke
>> The word of Jesus in the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the teaching authority of
>> the Papacy.
>And who designed the Holy Mass and who had the idea of creating a Pope ?
Jesus Christ.
>Why Man of course, no gods involved in any shape or form.
Yep, the Son of Man spelled it out.
duke
>
>
>
>On 1/10/10 10:22 PM, in article riojk59siaaka06c2...@4ax.com,
>"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 21:03:50 -0500, Pastor Dave <newsgroup-mail @
>> tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 4 Jan 2010 11:35:09 -0500, "IT Helpdesk"
>>> <ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> Now I was raised a Roman Catholic. In fact, to the RCC,
>>>>> I'm still a Catholic who's just lost his way for a while. :)
>>>>> So you don't even get to rail against me, claiming that
>>>>> I have no right to speak. Nor should you call me a
>>>>> Protestant, because I am not a Protestant either. I am
>>>>> simply a Christian Pastor, period. I am of no denomination.
>>>>
>>>> Jesus provided the Church to guide His flock, Pastor Dave.
>>>> By leaving the Church, you've minimalized its importance,
>>>> relative to your personal interpretation of the Bible.
>>>
>>> Look folks, how he automatically assumes that his RCC church
>>> is "THE CHURCH". Proof? Oh, there is none, of course! :)
>>
>> That's easy to do.
>>
>> Jesus, AS EVIDENCED BY SCRIPTURE,
>Groan . . . . what gibberish.
>Biblical writings by early simple men, the time of which will never be known
>or established are nt proof of A N Y T H I N G
So when does writings cease to be factual - a week later, a year later, a decade
later, a century later, a thousand years later, 2 thousand years later?
>I know evidence scares you to death Dook, never mind a bit more of it might
>make you wake up - there's a real world going on outside there, if you only
>knew it . . . . .
Actually, evidence is my strongest supporter.
>God CAN be seen:
>
>"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
>"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
>(EXO 33:11)
>"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
"No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18) Your words.
duke
>And so, you are claiming that the men that you call,
>"the early church fathers" are authoritative in their
>writings,
Of course they are.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers.html
>And furthermore, you believe that a guy in a funny hat
>that you call "Pope" is also on equal footing, even though
>Popes have contradicted each other, even when they
>were supposedly, "ex cathedra" (in the chair of Peter).
Popes have never contradicted each other ex cathedra. There have only been 2
such statements, both involving the BVM, and both made in the last few hundred
years.
>>Tradition and the Bible go hand and hand to live a
>>Christian life. The Bible does not teach everything,
>>that's where tradition comes in.
>Jesus seemed to think that it was enough...
Script is only that part of everything that Jesus said and did (Holy Tradition)
that was put pencil to paper.
>And He did not say a word about "the church fathers".
>He was quoted an Old Testament passage.
The Christian Church fathers came after Jesus.
>>Sola Scriptura is not enough.
>
>Why not? The Scriptures are what Jesus taught from and
>the Scriptures are what makes one "wise unto salvation".
FROM??? Shirley you jest. Moving from the old covenant and on to the new
covenant was what Jesus did.
>>You need traditions and the Bible.
>Need? Really? It seems to me that you're saying that
>God's word is not enough and that you need to add to it.
God's word is that revealed, first fully in Holy Traditon, and then later when
part of it was put in writing. The Catholic Church selected the writings for
canon.
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
> Pastor Dave! Methinks you've been brainwashed!
When all you have is "The RCC says so!" and an insult
hurled at me when faced with facts that you cannot
deny, what does that say about your "church"?
And when this is coupled with the fact that you would
actually take this route, what does that say about you?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"Fortune favors the bold." - Virgil - The Aeneid
IT Helpdesk
I'm uncertain as to the insult to which you refer. Perhaps I forgot to add a
little smiley face after my last post. :)
The Church is here to guide us. You, as well as others, have decided that
you are better interpreters of Scripture and arbiters of Morality than the
Church. Why is that?
Surely you can see that is why we get a new Protestant denomination
sprouting up every time someone gets mad at their pastor, dislikes the new
liturgical music, or resents that their actions are deemed immoral by their
fellow congregants.
I'm certain that I need not relate the origins of various Protestant
denominations, e.g., Anglican, Lutheran, or even Pilgrim Holiness. Yet,
those histories are very telling: Trust your own conscience above all
doctrine, and if you don't like the doctrine, form your own church, and
place yourself as the head.
The fact is, if "the Catholic Church says so", you should be listening.
:)
Ike E 1/24/2010
"IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote in message
news:hjj9s2$jlo$1...@tornado.tornevall.net...
[snip]
> The Church is here to guide us.
No, the Churches are here to BE GUIDED, and then be a guide to others, but,
as the Great Apostasy grows, Christianity will continue to fade from the
churches (and, I fear, already has) until there are churches everywhere, and
no "Christ" left in them...
> You, as well as others, have decided that you are better interpreters of
> Scripture and arbiters of Morality than the Church. Why is that?
Because there IS NO "the Church," and never was--there were/are/will be
SEVEN archetypal churches spanning the Church age, just as Jesus said, each
with their varying degrees of success and failure.
But such is the arrogance of Rome, which thinks it is the one, the first, or
the only, and was never any of these things.
> Surely you can see that is why we get a new Protestant denomination
> sprouting up every time someone gets mad at their pastor, dislikes the new
> liturgical music, or resents that their actions are deemed immoral by
> their fellow congregants.
Yes, anyone who has read Jesus' letters should be aware of the increasing
problems within the CHURCHES [plural] of Jesus Christ, just as He said would
happen. That still doesn't change the fact that YOURS is becoming the most
APOSTATE of all.
> I'm certain that I need not relate the origins of various Protestant
> denominations, e.g., Anglican, Lutheran, or even Pilgrim Holiness.
Yes, it was a great day when these others saved Christianity from
Catholicism--too bad Satan was right there to create even worse problems
than previously existed.
> Yet, those histories are very telling:
Yes, it is.
First Catholic arrogance led to the rift between the eastern and western
churches.
Then Catholic arrogance got so bad that honest Christians couldn't stand to
be around it anymore.
Hence, the CAUSE of these rifts was YOUR fault.
> Trust your own conscience above all doctrine, and if you don't like the
> doctrine, form your own church, and place yourself as the head.
>
> The fact is, if "the Catholic Church says so", you should be listening.
LOL
Not.
The RCC is the LEADER of the Great Apostasy, and always has been. In due
course of time, there won't be any Christianity in it at all (nor anywhere
else for that matter).
But such is your arrogance: You're too busy accusing others errantly and not
taking a look at all of the abominable teachings in your midst, and all for
the sake of your false religiosity, with its whoredoms and all.
Ike
IT Helpdesk
news:hjjssg$4m2$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "IT Helpdesk" <ITHel...@deleted.com> wrote in message
> news:hjj9s2$jlo$1...@tornado.tornevall.net.
>
Go ahead, Ike. Tell me about the abominable teachings.
Is it Salvation Theory?
Is it statues in Catholic churches?
Is it working with the poor?
Is it opposition to procured abortion?
Is it opposition to artificial birth control?
Is it the celibate priesthood?
Is it the prohibition of female priests?
Is it a disagreement with one or more of the Ecumenical Councils (Nicaea,
Constantinople, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Vatican, etc.)?
I think you'll find that we are decent human beings just like yourself, and
are more than willing to rationally discuss issues without attempting to
entrap or insult. Perhaps we have some common ground we can agree on.
:)
@tampabay.rr.com Pastor Dave
<ITHel...@deleted.com> spake thusly:
And you call me brainwashed?
--
Pastor Dave
The following is part of my auto-rotating
sig file and not part of the message body.
"The face is the mirror of the mind and eyes without speaking
confess the secrets of the heart." -Saint Jerome
IT Helpdesk
Maybe you just didn't listen well when you were young?
:) <----smiley face!
Ike E 1/24/2010
Don't need to--there are entire books on the subject. Go read one.
> I think you'll find that we are decent human beings just like yourself,
> and are more than willing to rationally discuss issues without attempting
> to entrap or insult. Perhaps we have some common ground we can agree on.
That you think that we have any "common ground we can agree on" is the basis
for the rising of "Babylon," as the Christians who are not Christians, i.e.
anti-christians, agree together to observe the same LIES instead of the Word
of Truth.
It's rather like the Pharisees, Sadducees, and Herodians agreeing together
to oppose Jesus.
Ike
Ike E 1/24/2010
> Maybe you just didn't listen well when you were young?
> :) <----smiley face!
Where Pester Dave is concerned, that's true; but, then again, you were given
little worth listening TO AT ALL.
Ike
IT Helpdesk
As you wish, Ike.
:(
Ike E 1/24/2010
No, as it is.
Ike
Bob Young
On 1/22/10 9:43 PM, in article clajl5hcbn8hjjj0p...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
The longer the period the more difficult proving the origins of prose. But
you already knew that
>
>> I know evidence scares you to death Dook, never mind a bit more of it might
>> make you wake up - there's a real world going on outside there, if you only
>> knew it . . . . .
>
> Actually, evidence is my strongest supporter.
Well it is strange that you never seem to put your strongest supporter to
good use !
You would if you could, of course !
duke
>> So when does writings cease to be factual - a week later, a year later, a
>> decade
>> later, a century later, a thousand years later, 2 thousand years later?
>The longer the period the more difficult proving the origins of prose. But
>you already knew that
The people that personally knew and learned from Jesus didn't have that problem.
And the people they passed it on to didn't have that problem.
>>> I know evidence scares you to death Dook, never mind a bit more of it might
>>> make you wake up - there's a real world going on outside there, if you only
>>> knew it . . . . .
>> Actually, evidence is my strongest supporter.
>Well it is strange that you never seem to put your strongest supporter to
>good use !
Done.
>>> God CAN be seen:
>>>
>>> "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (EXO 33:23)
>>> "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
>>> (EXO 33:11)
>>> "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (GEN 32:30)
>>
>> "No man hath seen God at any time." (JOH 1:18) Your words.
Amen.
Bob Young
On 1/29/10 1:40 AM, in article lti3m5dft1k5auft6...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
Amen to 'cut and lie'
What are religionists coming to ?
Bob Young
On 1/22/10 9:39 PM, in article gjajl5l53qcjl1mta...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
> On 22 Jan 2010 03:06:02 -0600, Bob Young <alasp...@netvigator.com> wrote:
>
>>> The word of Jesus in the Holy Mass, 7 sacraments and the teaching authority
>>> of
>>> the Papacy.
>
>> And who designed the Holy Mass and who had the idea of creating a Pope ?
>
> Jesus Christ.
You never give up demonstrating what a fool you are Dook ?
Did Jesus design that big tall hat The Pope wears, as well Dook ?
And that ornate stick with a cross on it ?
Bob Young
On 1/22/10 9:43 PM, in article clajl5hcbn8hjjj0p...@4ax.com,
"duke" <duckg...@cox.net> wrote:
When they become too old to be verified.
>
>> I know evidence scares you to death Dook, never mind a bit more of it might
>> make you wake up - there's a real world going on outside there, if you only
>> knew it . . . . .
>
> Actually, evidence is my strongest supporter.
Tongue in cheek again DOOK ?