Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
32 views
Skip to first unread message
Barry OGrady
May 20, 2013, 8:30:09 AM5/20/13
to
What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
The word �saint� comes from the Greek word hagios, which means
�consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in
the plural, �saints.� "?Lord, I havee heard from many about this man,
how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as
Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
?� (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and
that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In
Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural �saints� compared to only
one use of the singular word �saint.� Even in that one instance, a
plurality of saints is in view: �?every saint?� (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word �saints� is a group of people set apart for the
Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly
character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
(Ephesians 5:3).
Therefore, scripturally speaking, the �saints� are the body of Christ,
Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All
Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
First Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly: �To the church of God in
Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy��
The words �sanctified� and �holy� come from the same Greek root as the
word that is commonly translated �saints.� Christians are saints by
virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to
be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
calling of the saints.
How does the Roman Catholic understanding of �saints� compare with the
biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the
saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
�beatified� or �canonized� by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the
Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In
Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
worship, and pray to God alone.
==============
This sig intentionly left blank
The word �saint� comes from the Greek word hagios, which means
�consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in
the plural, �saints.� "?Lord, I havee heard from many about this man,
how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as
Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
?� (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and
that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In
Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural �saints� compared to only
one use of the singular word �saint.� Even in that one instance, a
plurality of saints is in view: �?every saint?� (Philippians 4:21).
The idea of the word �saints� is a group of people set apart for the
Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly
character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
(Ephesians 5:3).
Therefore, scripturally speaking, the �saints� are the body of Christ,
Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All
Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
First Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly: �To the church of God in
Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy��
The words �sanctified� and �holy� come from the same Greek root as the
word that is commonly translated �saints.� Christians are saints by
virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to
be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
calling of the saints.
How does the Roman Catholic understanding of �saints� compare with the
biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the
saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
�beatified� or �canonized� by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the
Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In
Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
worship, and pray to God alone.
==============
This sig intentionly left blank
gladys swager
May 20, 2013, 1:38:43 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>The word 'saint' comes from the Greek word hagios,
>which means 'consecrated to God', 'holy', 'sacred', 'pious'."
> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>The word 'saint' comes from the Greek word hagios,
>It is almost always used in the plural, 'saints'.
>"?Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much harm he did to Your >saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13).
> "Now as Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to >the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32).
>"And this is just what I did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the >saints in prisons. (Acts 26:10).
>There is only one instance of the singular use, and that is "Greet every saint >in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21).
>In Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural 'saints' compared to only one use >of the singular word, 'saint'
>Even in that one instance, a plurality of saints is in view:
>every saint (Philippians 4:21). The idea of the word 'saints'
>is a group of people set apart for the Lord and His kingdom. There are three >references referring to godly character of saints: "that you receive her in >the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2).
>"For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up >of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12).
"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as >is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).
>Therefore, scripturally speaking, the 'saints' are the body of Christ, >Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints.
>All Christian are saints and at the same time are called to be saintts.
>"For the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up >of the body of Christ" (Ephesians 4:12).
"But immorality or any impurity or greed must not even be named among you, as >is proper among saints" (Ephesians 5:3).
>Therefore, scripturally speaking, the 'saints' are the body of Christ, >Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints.
>First Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly: 'To the church of God in Corinth,
>to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy.
> The words 'sanctified' and 'holy' come from the same Greek root
>as the word that is commonly translated 'saints'.
>Christians are saints by virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. >Christians are called to be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to >more closely match their position in Christ.
>This is the biblical description and calling of the saints.
>How does the Roman Catholic understanding of 'saints' compare with the >Biblical teaching? Not very well.
>This is the biblical description and calling of the saints.
>In Roman Catholic theology, the saints are in heaven.
>In the Bible, the saints are on earth.
>In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she >is 'beatified' or 'canonized' by the Pope or prominent bishop.
>In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint.
>In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to,
>and in some instances, worshipped.
>In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>In the Bible, the saints are on earth.
>In Roman Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she >is 'beatified' or 'canonized' by the Pope or prominent bishop.
>In the Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint.
>In Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to,
>and in some instances, worshipped.
>In the Bible, saints are called to revere, worship, and pray to God alone.
when they go on into Everlasting Life.
Thank you for the above posting, Barry.
Steve Wilson
May 20, 2013, 2:11:08 PM5/20/13
to
On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>
> The word �saint� comes from the Greek word hagios, which means
> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>
> �consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in
> the plural, �saints.� "?Lord, I havee heard from many about this man,
> how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as
> Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
> the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
> did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
> ?� (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and
> Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
> the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
> did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
> that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In
> Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural �saints� compared to only
> one use of the singular word �saint.� Even in that one instance, a
> plurality of saints is in view: �?every saint?� (Philippians 4:21).
>
> The idea of the word �saints� is a group of people set apart for the
> Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly
> character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
> worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
> saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
> Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
> must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
> (Ephesians 5:3).
>
> Therefore, scripturally speaking, the �saints� are the body of Christ,
> character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
> worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
> saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
> Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
> must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
> (Ephesians 5:3).
>
> Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All
> Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
> First Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly: �To the church of God in
> Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
> Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy��
> The words �sanctified� and �holy� come from the same Greek root as the
> word that is commonly translated �saints.� Christians are saints by
> virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to
> be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
> match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
> calling of the saints.
>
> How does the Roman Catholic understanding of �saints� compare with the
> be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
> match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
> calling of the saints.
>
> biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the
> saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
> Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
> �beatified� or �canonized� by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the
> saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
> Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
> Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In
> Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
> some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
> worship, and pray to God alone.
>
> ==============
> This sig intentionly left blank
>
This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected to
> Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
> some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
> worship, and pray to God alone.
>
> ==============
> This sig intentionly left blank
>
cite the source?
Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist. An
atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational issue of
denying God.
Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
May 20, 2013, 6:22:03 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>
>> The word “saint” comes from the Greek word hagios, which means
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>
>> “consecrated to God, holy, sacred, pious." It is almost always used in
>> the plural, “saints.” "?Lord, I havee heard from many about this man,
>> how much harm he did to Your saints at Jerusalem" (Acts 9:13). "Now as
>> Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
>> the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
>> did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
>> ?“ (Acts 26:10). There is only one instance of the singular use, and
>> Peter was traveling through all those regions, he came down also to
>> the saints who lived at Lydda" (Acts 9:32). "And this is just what I
>> did in Jerusalem; not only did I lock up many of the saints in prisons
>> that is "Greet every saint in Christ Jesus?" (Philippians 4:21). In
>> Scripture there are 67 uses of the plural “saints” compared to only
>> one use of the singular word “saint.” Even in that one instance, a
>> plurality of saints is in view: “?every saint?” (Philippians 4:21).
>>
>> The idea of the word “saints” is a group of people set apart for the
>> Lord and His kingdom. There are three references referring to godly
>> character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
>> worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
>> saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
>> Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
>> must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
>> (Ephesians 5:3).
>>
>> Therefore, scripturally speaking, the “saints” are the body of Christ,
>> character of saints: "that you receive her in the Lord in a manner
>> worthy of the saints ?" (Romans 16:2). "For the equipping of the
>> saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of
>> Christ" (Ephesians 4:12). "But immorality or any impurity or greed
>> must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints"
>> (Ephesians 5:3).
>>
>> Christians, the church. All Christians are considered saints. All
>> Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
>> First Corinthians 1:2 states it clearly: “To the church of God in
>> Christian are saints?and at the same time are called to be saintts.
>> Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be holy…”
>> The words “sanctified” and “holy” come from the same Greek root as the
>> word that is commonly translated “saints.” Christians are saints by
>> virtue of their connection with Jesus Christ. Christians are called to
>> be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
>> match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
>> calling of the saints.
>>
>> How does the Roman Catholic understanding of “saints” compare with the
>> be saints, to increasingly allow their daily life to more closely
>> match their position in Christ. This is the biblical description and
>> calling of the saints.
>>
>> biblical teaching? Not very well. In Roman Catholic theology, the
>> saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
>> Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
>> “beatified” or “canonized” by the Pope or prominent bishop. In the
>> saints are in heaven. In the Bible, the saints are on earth. In Roman
>> Catholic teaching, a person does not become a saint unless he/she is
>> Bible, everyone who has received Jesus Christ by faith is a saint. In
>> Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
>> some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
>> worship, and pray to God alone.
>
>> Roman Catholic practice, the saints are revered, prayed to, and in
>> some instances, worshipped. In the Bible, saints are called to revere,
>> worship, and pray to God alone.
>
>This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected to
>cite the source?
Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>cite the source?
>Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>issue of denying God.
Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
you hiding in the corner? :)
>Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
May 20, 2013, 6:23:20 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry.
I posted it unedited and without comment because I knew
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry.
it would interest you.
Steve Wilson
May 21, 2013, 12:29:04 AM5/21/13
to
On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>>
>>
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>>
>>
>> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected to
>> cite the source?
>
> Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>
>> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>
> I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
>
And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
>> cite the source?
>
> Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>
>> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>
> I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
>
Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed
from the scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>> issue of denying God.
>
> You are upset because I beat yo at your own game.
>
how to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
> you hiding in the corner? :)
>
locate any sensible comment in your replies. You are so insincere that
you will come back with any old comment, however rubbish, just to save
your face and keep it going.
Steve Wilson
Barry OGrady
May 21, 2013, 1:20:11 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 05:29:04 +0100, Steve Wilson
>Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed
>from the scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
Or SBS.
>>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>>> issue of denying God.
>>
>> You are upset because I beat yo at your own game.
>>
>I could never beat you at being a brain dead ignoramus who doesn't know
>how to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
You do seem to have problems.
>> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
>> you hiding in the corner? :)
>>
>
>I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to
>locate any sensible comment in your replies.
You really should sort out those problems before you post
more gibberish.
>You are so insincere that you will come back with any old comment,
>however rubbish, just to save your face and keep it going.
Then my point is made. Anyone can make up gibberish and
present it as fact, although you use other people's gibberish
because you seem to be lacking in imagination.
As I said to Gladys, you make assertions that you can't back
up. That's the real reason you don't want to talk to me.
>Steve Wilson
==============
This sig intentionally left blank
<stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>>>
>
>>>
>>> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected to
>>> cite the source?
>>
>> Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>>
>>> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>>> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>>
>> I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
>>
>And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
GotQuestions don't think so.
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 19:11:08 +0100, Steve Wilson
>> <stevewi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>>>
>
>>>
>>> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected to
>>> cite the source?
>>
>> Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>>
>>> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>>> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>>
>> I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
>>
>And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
>Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed
>from the scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
>>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>>> issue of denying God.
>>
>> You are upset because I beat yo at your own game.
>>
>I could never beat you at being a brain dead ignoramus who doesn't know
>how to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
>> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
>> you hiding in the corner? :)
>>
>
>I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to
>locate any sensible comment in your replies.
more gibberish.
>You are so insincere that you will come back with any old comment,
>however rubbish, just to save your face and keep it going.
present it as fact, although you use other people's gibberish
because you seem to be lacking in imagination.
As I said to Gladys, you make assertions that you can't back
up. That's the real reason you don't want to talk to me.
>Steve Wilson
==============
This sig intentionally left blank
gladys swager
May 21, 2013, 1:58:22 AM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
> On 20/05/2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> I could never beat you at being a brain dead ignoramus who doesn't know how
> to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are you hiding in the
> corner?
(may have been born about 1960).
I had the impresion he had a Computer business; by the way he worded some replies. There are times he can be quite amenable, (doubt if he would like me to stste) but such times are few and far between.
Early in his postings to me he began 'a campaign to indoctrinate me into evolution'. I would like to report that I had success in convincing him against such an attitude...but!!!....and so it continues.
I wonder if he has a form of (mild?) Brain Damage - Neurological Impairment.
He has had 'a big dose of Atheism' which he assesses as completely true.
My opinion is that if an answer is not given to him he would be of the oinion that he had wone the deabte.
But in my opinion he has lost the debate before he even makes one posting.
I hope your mother is keeping as well as can be expected at 74 years of age.
Is she able to go out independently, to vist friend and do some shopping?
Realising that she was so young as the 'Battle for Britain' was raging
after June 1940 (hope my date is right for the fall of France) and the beginning of the the incessant bombing of the coastal area of England,
it must have been a terrifying time.
I was unaware that my great grandmother was English, also my great grandfather
was Irish.....until more recent times. Also, Austrian and Polish maternal great grandparents; and Polish and Dutch grandfathers.
So that is a very complicated family tree in respect of nationalities.
What all that has impressed upon me is a need for prayer for all of Europe
and Britain...an area tha thas contributed much to better knowledge and livign standards, but a culdron of hostilities through the centuries.
Although the spelling of my surname was altered by Deed Poll - we still have the papers - so I did not have any hostilities toward me duing the 1940's high School years, yet at one time I found myself saying, "Every bomb that fell on Germany fell on me!" If I had been aware then of all the other nationalities
in my family tree I could have said the same of them.
==============================================================================
One issue is imperative and that is that humans must learn the art of more no more.
(Isaiah 2 : 4 - they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
***neither shall they learn the art of war no more. A wonderful prediction.
===============================================================================
> On 20/05/2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
> >> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>> >> >> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected
>>> >> >> to cite the source?
> > Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
> >> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
> >> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
> > I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
> And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
> Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed from the > scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>> issue of denying God.
> > You are upset because I beat you at your own game.
> >> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>>> >> >> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected
>>> >> >> to cite the source?
> > Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
> >> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
> >> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
> > I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
> And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
> Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed from the > scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>> issue of denying God.
> I could never beat you at being a brain dead ignoramus who doesn't know how
> to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are you hiding in the
> corner?
> I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to locate
> any sensible comment in your replies. You are so insincere that you will come > back with any old comment, however rubbish, just to save your face and keep
> it going. Steve Wilson
Steve, I have been in this Newsgroup correspondence with Barry since about 2003/4. I have come to be of the opinion that he could have retired recently;
> any sensible comment in your replies. You are so insincere that you will come > back with any old comment, however rubbish, just to save your face and keep
> it going. Steve Wilson
(may have been born about 1960).
I had the impresion he had a Computer business; by the way he worded some replies. There are times he can be quite amenable, (doubt if he would like me to stste) but such times are few and far between.
Early in his postings to me he began 'a campaign to indoctrinate me into evolution'. I would like to report that I had success in convincing him against such an attitude...but!!!....and so it continues.
I wonder if he has a form of (mild?) Brain Damage - Neurological Impairment.
He has had 'a big dose of Atheism' which he assesses as completely true.
My opinion is that if an answer is not given to him he would be of the oinion that he had wone the deabte.
But in my opinion he has lost the debate before he even makes one posting.
I hope your mother is keeping as well as can be expected at 74 years of age.
Is she able to go out independently, to vist friend and do some shopping?
Realising that she was so young as the 'Battle for Britain' was raging
after June 1940 (hope my date is right for the fall of France) and the beginning of the the incessant bombing of the coastal area of England,
it must have been a terrifying time.
I was unaware that my great grandmother was English, also my great grandfather
was Irish.....until more recent times. Also, Austrian and Polish maternal great grandparents; and Polish and Dutch grandfathers.
So that is a very complicated family tree in respect of nationalities.
What all that has impressed upon me is a need for prayer for all of Europe
and Britain...an area tha thas contributed much to better knowledge and livign standards, but a culdron of hostilities through the centuries.
Although the spelling of my surname was altered by Deed Poll - we still have the papers - so I did not have any hostilities toward me duing the 1940's high School years, yet at one time I found myself saying, "Every bomb that fell on Germany fell on me!" If I had been aware then of all the other nationalities
in my family tree I could have said the same of them.
==============================================================================
One issue is imperative and that is that humans must learn the art of more no more.
(Isaiah 2 : 4 - they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks.
Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
***neither shall they learn the art of war no more. A wonderful prediction.
===============================================================================
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
May 21, 2013, 2:42:03 AM5/21/13
to
"Steve Wilson" wrote in message news:knet6h$m57$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things Holy.
Jeff...
Jesus taught his brethren:
"6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls
before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn
and rend you."
Matt 7:5-6 (ASV)
Jeff...
Jesus taught his brethren:
"6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls
before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn
and rend you."
Matt 7:5-6 (ASV)
Barry OGrady
May 21, 2013, 3:21:10 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 07:42:03 +0100, "1st Century Apostolic
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Steve Wilson" wrote in message news:knet6h$m57$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
>>> you hiding in the corner? :)
>
>
>>I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to locate
>>any sensible comment in your replies. You are so insincere that you will
>>come back with any old comment, however rubbish, just to save your face and
>>keep it going.
>>Steve Wilson
>
>I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things Holy.
No right thinking person respects mythology especially when
Traditionalist" <jnhic...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>"Steve Wilson" wrote in message news:knet6h$m57$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are
>>> you hiding in the corner? :)
>
>
>>I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to locate
>>any sensible comment in your replies. You are so insincere that you will
>>come back with any old comment, however rubbish, just to save your face and
>>keep it going.
>>Steve Wilson
>
>I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things Holy.
it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself,
Gladys, and Steve.
>Jeff...
>Jesus taught his brethren:
>"6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls
>before the swine, lest haply they trample them under their feet, and turn
>and rend you."
Barry OGrady
May 21, 2013, 4:45:49 AM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 22:58:22 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>
>>>> >> >> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected
>>>> >> >> to cite the source?
>
>> > Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>
>> >> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>> >> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>
>> > I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
I posted it unedited an without comment.
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> On 20/05/2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013, Steve Wilson wrote:
>> >> On 20/05/2013 13:30, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>>> What are Christian saints according to the Bible?
>
>>>> >> >> This is clearly not written by you Barry, so why have you neglected
>>>> >> >> to cite the source?
>
>> > Fair question. It came from GotQuestions.org.
>
>> >> Though this article is accurate in what it says, I don't see what
>> >> interest an in-house Christian issue would hold for an atheist.
>
>> > I posted it because it is of interest to Gladys.
>> And do you think this subject is one that Christians aren't aware of?
>> Anyone who has read the NT will see that the R.C church has departed from the
>> scriptural view. This is ABC stuff.
>>> An atheist would be much more concerned with the foundational
>>> issue of denying God.
>
>> > You are upset because I beat you at your own game.
>
>>>> I could never beat you at being a brain dead ignoramus who doesn't know how
>>>> to defend his own beliefs, let alone understand Christianity.
>>> Are you going to reply to my last post to you or are you hiding in the
>>> corner?
>
>> I haven't answered because, as in other instances, I find it hard to locate
>> any sensible comment in your replies.
>You are so insincere that you will come back with any old comment,
>however rubbish, just to save your face and keep it going.
Then my point is made. Anyone can make up gibberish and
present it as fact, although you use other people's gibberish
because you seem to be lacking in imagination.
As I said to Gladys, you make assertions that you can't back
up. That's the real reason you don't want to talk to me.
present it as fact, although you use other people's gibberish
because you seem to be lacking in imagination.
As I said to Gladys, you make assertions that you can't back
up. That's the real reason you don't want to talk to me.
>Steve Wilson
>
>Steve, I have been in this Newsgroup correspondence with Barry since
>about 2003/4. I have come to be of the opinion that he could have
>retired recently;
>(may have been born about 1960).
>
>I had the impresion he had a Computer business; by the way he worded
>some replies. There are times he can be quite amenable, (doubt if he
>would like me to stste) but such times are few and far between.
>
>Early in his postings to me he began 'a campaign to indoctrinate me
>into evolution'. I would like to report that I had success in
>convincing him against such an attitude...but!!!....and so it
>continues.
Steve, Gladys has tried every trick in the book to try to deceive
>
>Steve, I have been in this Newsgroup correspondence with Barry since
>about 2003/4. I have come to be of the opinion that he could have
>retired recently;
>(may have been born about 1960).
>
>I had the impresion he had a Computer business; by the way he worded
>some replies. There are times he can be quite amenable, (doubt if he
>would like me to stste) but such times are few and far between.
>
>Early in his postings to me he began 'a campaign to indoctrinate me
>into evolution'. I would like to report that I had success in
>convincing him against such an attitude...but!!!....and so it
>continues.
herself. She asks me questions she hopes I can't answer and
when I do give a considered answer she deletes my answers
and pretends I did not answer. Her latest trick is to mess up
the formatting and attributes so much it is difficult to provide
an answer. Of course Gladys denies doing that deliberately.
She acts innocent and pretends she does not know what
is going on.
I told Gladys about some TV programs she should watch
and she said she has no TV. I suggested she could get
an old TV and set top box for free but that was ignored.
Also ignored was my suggestion that Gladys make up
with her neighbours so she could watch TV with them
while enjoying a meal and/or cup of tea.
I have now provided a link to youtube for Gladys to
watch David Attenborough programs on her computer.
That was ignored.
Gladys 'knows' that everything Sir David Attenborough
says and does is wrong even though she has never
watched any of his programs because her only known
website at Creation Ministries Irrational says so.
>I wonder if he has a form of (mild?) Brain Damage - Neurological Impairment.
she has a mental illness.
>He has had 'a big dose of Atheism' which he assesses as completely true.
anything about evolution.
>My opinion is that if an answer is not given to him he would be of the
>oinion that he had wone the deabte.
>But in my opinion he has lost the debate before he even makes one
>posting.
>What all that has impressed upon me is a need for prayer for all of Europe
>and Britain...an area tha thas contributed much to better knowledge
>and livign standards, but a culdron of hostilities through the
>centuries.
>One issue is imperative and that is that humans must learn the art of more no more.
>(Isaiah 2 : 4 - they shall beat their swords into ploughshares,
> and their spears into pruning hooks.
>
>Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
>***neither shall they learn the art of war no more. A wonderful prediction.
stop following your God of war and confusion.
I think Steve liked my idea of humans from the future going
back in time and creating everything. Steve found that my
story answers all the question his God story can't.
duke
May 21, 2013, 12:42:02 PM5/21/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 10:38:43 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry.
Yet Heb 4:15 says all men are sinners and Heb 10:26-27 says those that die in
sin have only the fires of hell waiting for them.
Haahaahaa.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
wrote:
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry.
sin have only the fires of hell waiting for them.
Haahaahaa.
The dukester, American - American
********************************************
Repeal Obama
You simply can't fix stupid.
********************************************
gladys swager
May 21, 2013, 8:13:26 PM5/21/13
to
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used >> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends
>On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used >> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
I can understand why the Atheists wanted control of the education systems from the immdeiate post-World War-2 years.
They were of the opinion they would bring in a better World Order.
But I can assure you from my experiences before and then after WW 2
that what the Atheists wanted just did not come to pass and tragically many lives were cast adrift on the Atheistic worldview.
And the Christian faith, denominationalised, as the Protestant Reformation progressed (in opposition to the incorrect teachings that had been imposed by the leaders at Rome), was either unaware of what was happening outside the churches or if they were aware, did not have the resources to meet the challenge that Atheism had imposed.
Barry, I began my schooling in Third Term, 1934, in the local Public School,
headmaster was a Christian in a different denomiantion to the one I attended,
that was closer to my home, - a wonderful leader of the children of our district.
Evolution was never a topic in my schooling from 1934 - 1945, nor was it taught in my Teacher training. It was first given in a text-book published in 1963,
according to the knowledge that I have.
The Bible, God's work in Creation (Genesis 1), were never mentioned.
As I understand it now, it could have been intended to be the means to indoctrinate into Atheism.
Barry, it could also be that you are one of the products of that indoctrination. I am not critical of you for that for we all can accept
what we are taught in our schooling because of our lack of other information and resources.
Those who are in political positions - whatever the Political Party is in power,
- can impose by law what is to be taught in the educational system,
and that from their own understandings.
On the question of beginnings, the origin of life on this planet, up to 1963,
most, if not all pupils in the school system,
would have accepted Creation by God, as given in the Bible.
Despite what you think that there was/is proof of Evolution over millions of years, as stated by the Evolutionists, I have heard a lot of talk
and have read some articles, but none of that has been convincing to me.
But I object to an indoctrination by Evolutionists, as they have done from 1963 and still do, whenever they can, that their understandings of origins
(with a complete failure to produce scientific evidence) is true.
And I object to you naming me 'a weak-minded person'
as I would consider that I have been much stonger-minded than you have been - or ever will be....if you continue as you are doing at present.
gladys swager
May 21, 2013, 8:43:42 PM5/21/13
to
On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, duke wrote:
I take it you mean that only those named as 'saints,
by the R.Catholic leaders, and/or those who are members of your church.
I understand your position, Duke, as you have the years to make up when you wandered away from the R.C.Church.
However, the Biblical teaching, and that which was emphasised by many of the Reformers from the 1200's (John Wycliffe in England - named the Morning Star of the Reformation - a theologian of your church; as were Jan Hus, Martin Luther and others, was the teaching of Paul that 'we are saved through faith, by grace, and that not of ourselves, by works...it is the gift of God.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I will be interested to note how Pope Francis will manage his leadership role;
I wonder if his time in Argentina, so far from the centre of power at the Vatican in Rome, will have given him any different perspectives.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry. Yet Heb 4:15 says all men are sinners >and Heb 10:26-27 says those that die in sin have only the fires of hell >waiting for them.
Duke, Your laughter (snipped) is unjustified, and only takes up webspace.
>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>Thank you for the above posting, Barry. Yet Heb 4:15 says all men are sinners >and Heb 10:26-27 says those that die in sin have only the fires of hell >waiting for them.
I take it you mean that only those named as 'saints,
by the R.Catholic leaders, and/or those who are members of your church.
I understand your position, Duke, as you have the years to make up when you wandered away from the R.C.Church.
However, the Biblical teaching, and that which was emphasised by many of the Reformers from the 1200's (John Wycliffe in England - named the Morning Star of the Reformation - a theologian of your church; as were Jan Hus, Martin Luther and others, was the teaching of Paul that 'we are saved through faith, by grace, and that not of ourselves, by works...it is the gift of God.
Ephesians 2:8-9
I will be interested to note how Pope Francis will manage his leadership role;
I wonder if his time in Argentina, so far from the centre of power at the Vatican in Rome, will have given him any different perspectives.
duke
May 22, 2013, 11:45:08 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:43:42 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>
>>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>>Thank you for the above posting, Barry. Yet Heb 4:15 says all men are sinners >and Heb 10:26-27 says those that die in sin have only the fires of hell >waiting for them.
>
>Duke, Your laughter (snipped) is unjustified, and only takes up webspace.
>I take it you mean that only those named as 'saints,
>by the R.Catholic leaders, and/or those who are members of your church.
The RC leaders learn from the Holy Spirit who is counselor and guide.
>I understand your position, Duke, as you have the years to make up when you wandered away from the R.C.Church.
You know nothing.
>I will be interested to note how Pope Francis will manage his leadership role;
>I wonder if his time in Argentina, so far from the centre of power at the
> Vatican in Rome, will have given him any different perspectives.
He was selected for his past and what he is now..
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 22, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>
>>Saints on earth take their sainthood with them
>>when they go on into Everlasting Life.
>>Thank you for the above posting, Barry. Yet Heb 4:15 says all men are sinners >and Heb 10:26-27 says those that die in sin have only the fires of hell >waiting for them.
>
>Duke, Your laughter (snipped) is unjustified, and only takes up webspace.
>I take it you mean that only those named as 'saints,
>by the R.Catholic leaders, and/or those who are members of your church.
>I understand your position, Duke, as you have the years to make up when you wandered away from the R.C.Church.
>I will be interested to note how Pope Francis will manage his leadership role;
>I wonder if his time in Argentina, so far from the centre of power at the
> Vatican in Rome, will have given him any different perspectives.
duke
May 22, 2013, 11:45:46 AM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:13:26 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used >> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>
>And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends
>do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
The poor woman is total lost in reality.
wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used >> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>
>And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends
>do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
gladys swager
May 22, 2013, 3:21:01 PM5/22/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
He has knowledge of debating skills that I have not acquired in my training.
However, if a person has thinking skills not known to you, you tend to denigrate. I suggest you exlore those issues further as with more though on the points in question you may come to realise that some of your ideas may not be grounded in reality.
> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not finf Steve weak minded.
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
He has knowledge of debating skills that I have not acquired in my training.
However, if a person has thinking skills not known to you, you tend to denigrate. I suggest you exlore those issues further as with more though on the points in question you may come to realise that some of your ideas may not be grounded in reality.
>>And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
>The poor woman is total lost in reality.
I may have a greater grip on reality than you have, Duke, but that is a matter of further debate, which I am of the opinion is not applicable to this newsgroup. As also are your references to the US political scene.
>The poor woman is total lost in reality.
Barry OGrady
May 22, 2013, 7:34:28 PM5/22/13
to
to try to confuse me but why do that to Duke?
Barry OGrady
May 22, 2013, 8:05:08 PM5/22/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>
>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke.
See what happens when you mess around? You are
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>
>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke.
accusing Duke of something I wrote.
If you are not doing it deliberately you really have lost grip
on reality.
>I do not finf Steve weak minded.
same nonsense that you were taken in by and he has no
answers when questioned about it.
>He has knowledge of debating skills that I have not acquired in my training.
>However, if a person has thinking skills not known to you, you tend to
>denigrate. I suggest you exlore those issues further as with more
>though on the points in question you may come to realise that some of
>your ideas may not be grounded in reality.
>>>And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends
>>>do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no
>>>Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
have to admit that we don't know. It seems you and Steve can't
be that honest.
>>The poor woman is total lost in reality.
>
>I may have a greater grip on reality than you have, Duke, but that is
>a matter of further debate, which I am of the opinion is not
>applicable to this newsgroup. As also are your references to the US
>political scene.
If you were serious you would use talk.origins where you would
get your arse whipped.
You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.
I recommend Forte Agent. Its a lot easier to use than
Google and you wouldn't have any problems with it.
I am aware that you automatically reject anything I suggest,
such as copy and paste which would allow you to have
error free links.
How are you going with the David Attenborough programs
on youtube via the link I had made for you? You can't help
but be impressed with the standard of the programs. They
are both entertaining and educational.
Also do a search on youtube for Penn and Teller Bullshit
episodes especially the one about creation. They do an
excellent job of showing creation for the Bullshit it is.
You never did thank me for showing you how you can
watch the excellent and true programs by Sir David
Attenborough without needing a TV. The important
thing is you are enjoying them and discovering how
absurd creation is.
That is thanks enough although I would like to hear
your thoughts about the programs.
Barry OGrady
May 22, 2013, 11:33:43 PM5/22/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 17:13:26 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used
>>> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
What do you hope to achieve by continuing to mess with the
<gsw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>
>>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things
>>> Holy. No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used
>>> against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
attributions like that? You are only fooling yourself.
You must learn to take responsibility for your own actions.
If you won't use a proper newsreader at least have a talk
to Google support.
>And Barry, you are of the opinion that you and your Atheistic friends
>do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no
>Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
The fossil record shows millions of years but no Creator.
>do have the truth of millions of years of life on this planet - no
>Creator, evidently everything came into existence by chance eons ago.
>I can understand why the Atheists wanted control of the education
>systems from the immdeiate post-World War-2 years.
>They were of the opinion they would bring in a better World Order.
>But I can assure you from my experiences before and then after WW 2
>that what the Atheists wanted just did not come to pass and tragically
>many lives were cast adrift on the Atheistic worldview.
>And the Christian faith, denominationalised, as the Protestant
>Reformation progressed (in opposition to the incorrect teachings that
>had been imposed by the leaders at Rome), was either unaware of what
>was happening outside the churches or if they were aware, did not have
>the resources to meet the challenge that Atheism had imposed.
>Barry, I began my schooling in Third Term, 1934, in the local Public School,
>headmaster was a Christian in a different denomiantion to the one I attended,
>that was closer to my home, - a wonderful leader of the children of our district.
>Evolution was never a topic in my schooling from 1934 - 1945, nor was
>it taught in my Teacher training. It was first given in a text-book
>published in 1963, according to the knowledge that I have.
been realised.
>The Bible, God's work in Creation (Genesis 1), were never mentioned.
>As I understand it now, it could have been intended to be the means to
>indoctrinate into Atheism.
>Barry, it could also be that you are one of the products of that
>indoctrination. I am not critical of you for that for we all can
>accept what we are taught in our schooling because of our lack of
>other information and resources.
>Those who are in political positions - whatever the Political Party is in power,
>- can impose by law what is to be taught in the educational system,
>and that from their own understandings.
>
>On the question of beginnings, the origin of life on this planet, up to 1963,
>most, if not all pupils in the school system,
>would have accepted Creation by God, as given in the Bible.
>Despite what you think that there was/is proof of Evolution over
>millions of years, as stated by the Evolutionists, I have heard a lot
>of talk and have read some articles, but none of that has been
>convincing to me.
"Why, I have never been so insulted in all my life!",
to which the reply was,
"That's because you don't get around enough!"
And so it is with you. You take great steps to avoid evidence
that shows how foolish your beliefs are.
>But I object to an indoctrination by Evolutionists, as they have done
>from 1963 and still do, whenever they can, that their understandings
>of origins (with a complete failure to produce scientific evidence) is
>true.
evidence for evolution and the complete lack of alternatives.
If you don't like the idea of being a product of evolution say
so, but don't pretend there is no evidence.
>And I object to you naming me 'a weak-minded person'
>as I would consider that I have been much stonger-minded than you have
>been - or ever will be....if you continue as you are doing at present.
I know you had a rough time and were ripe for the picking
and I am sorry that the creationist cult took advantage of your
weakness.
How are you going with the David Attenborough programs
on youtube via the link I had made for you? You can't help
but be impressed with the standard of the programs. They
are both entertaining and educational.
Also do a search on youtube for Penn and Teller Bullshit
episodes especially the one about creation. They do an
excellent job of showing creation for the Bullshit it is.
You never did thank me for showing you how you can
watch the excellent and true programs by Sir David
Attenborough without needing a TV. The important
thing is you are enjoying them and discovering how
absurd creation is.
That is thanks enough although I would like to hear
your thoughts about the programs.
gladys swager
May 23, 2013, 12:20:22 AM5/23/13
to
On Thursday, May 23, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
Barry, you are incorrect as you continue to post your diatribes.
I have answered you, but you seem to be incapable of understanding the truth.
Barry, you are incorrect as you continue to post your diatribes.
I have answered you, but you seem to be incapable of understanding the truth.
Barry OGrady
May 23, 2013, 12:31:30 AM5/23/13
to
duke
May 23, 2013, 3:48:18 PM5/23/13
to
On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not finf Steve weak minded.
If you ever learned to keep track of your posts, you'd see I have nothing to do
with your response.
wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not finf Steve weak minded.
with your response.
gladys swager
May 23, 2013, 5:50:58 PM5/23/13
to
On Friday, May 24, 2013 5:48:18 AM UTC+10, duke wrote:
If you ever learned to keep track of your posts, you'd see I have nothing to do with your response.
At present there is a problem of attrition markings on my computer.
Therefore, an apology for attributing comments to you that you had never written. I am aware that I do need a Computer technician to do some work on my computer.
Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is jesus recorded as stating tha tPeter was to be the leader of His church.
The firs tChrsitian church was in jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development has diversified into many denominations.
However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that
the time will come when
"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour,
saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
and I will remember their sin no more.
Even Popes can si n, and in the past some have imposes iniquitious techings
on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels wer eno high there were few to disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven centuries later.
I would not dare to predict when the time of Jeremiah 31 will come.
A clergyman once said that God sometimes has only one person to do a given task for Him...He added that if that person did not do it, it would not be done.
That puzzled me as I was of the conviction that God would know the right person to ask.....to lead to do that task;.....
and that person did not have to be a trained, professional clergyman.
> On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:21:01 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager wrote:
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded.
>On Thursday, May 23, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >On 20/05/2013 23:22, Barry OGrady wrote:
>> >>>Steve Wilson I plonked him out not long ago, he has disrespect for things >>> Holy.
>>>>No right thinking person respects mythology especially when it is used against children and the weak minded such as yourself, Gladys, and Steve.
If you ever learned to keep track of your posts, you'd see I have nothing to do with your response.
Therefore, an apology for attributing comments to you that you had never written. I am aware that I do need a Computer technician to do some work on my computer.
Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is jesus recorded as stating tha tPeter was to be the leader of His church.
The firs tChrsitian church was in jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development has diversified into many denominations.
However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that
the time will come when
"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour,
saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
and I will remember their sin no more.
Even Popes can si n, and in the past some have imposes iniquitious techings
on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels wer eno high there were few to disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven centuries later.
I would not dare to predict when the time of Jeremiah 31 will come.
A clergyman once said that God sometimes has only one person to do a given task for Him...He added that if that person did not do it, it would not be done.
That puzzled me as I was of the conviction that God would know the right person to ask.....to lead to do that task;.....
and that person did not have to be a trained, professional clergyman.
duke
May 24, 2013, 11:24:44 AM5/24/13
to
On Thu, 23 May 2013 14:50:58 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded.
>If you ever learned to keep track of your posts, you'd see I have nothing to do with your response.
>At present there is a problem of attrition markings on my computer.
>Therefore, an apology for attributing comments to you that you had never written. I am aware that I do need a Computer technician to do some work on my computer.
OH, yeah, always an excuse.
>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament
>is jesus recorded as stating tha tPeter was to be the leader of His church.
>The firs tChrsitian church was in jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
>It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for
the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development
has diversified into many denominations.
Actually it was the weak, weak lut that caused it all, and you followed him.
>However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that
>the time will come when
>"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour,
>saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
>from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
>for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
>and I will remember their sin no more.
That's the OT that says "know the Lord". Now the NT says "follow Jesus".
>Even Popes can si n, and in the past some have imposes iniquitious techings
>on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels wer eno high there were few to disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven centuries later.
>I would not dare to predict when the time of Jeremiah 31 will come.
It's gone. The NT is now with us.
wrote:
>>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded.
>If you ever learned to keep track of your posts, you'd see I have nothing to do with your response.
>At present there is a problem of attrition markings on my computer.
>Therefore, an apology for attributing comments to you that you had never written. I am aware that I do need a Computer technician to do some work on my computer.
>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament
>is jesus recorded as stating tha tPeter was to be the leader of His church.
>The firs tChrsitian church was in jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
>It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for
the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development
has diversified into many denominations.
>However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that
>the time will come when
>"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour,
>saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
>from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
>for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
>and I will remember their sin no more.
>Even Popes can si n, and in the past some have imposes iniquitious techings
>on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels wer eno high there were few to disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven centuries later.
>I would not dare to predict when the time of Jeremiah 31 will come.
gladys swager
May 24, 2013, 6:15:54 PM5/24/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >>the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is Jesus >>recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >>esus from the dead,
it was Paul who preached from his hired house in Rome. (Acts 28 : 31)
>It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development has diversified into many denominations.
>Actually it was the weak, weak lut that caused it all, and you followed him.
And John Wycliffe, in England, now named the Morning Star of the Reformation,
a theologian began the protests. The leaders at Rome had been adding to the scriptures from the early Fourth Century.
>However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that >the time will come when >"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour, >saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
>from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
>for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
>and I will remember their sin no more.
That's the OT that says "Know the Lord". Now the NT says "follow Jesus".
>Even Popes can sin, and in the past some have imposed iniquitious teachings >on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels were not high there were few to >disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the >reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have >learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven >centuries later.
so Jeremiah 31 : 34 is a prophecy that is still to be fulfilled.
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >>the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is Jesus >>recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >>esus from the dead,
>>the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch >(Acts 11 : 26)....
>>and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at >>Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
Matthew 16 : 18 Jesus said, "You are Peter, an upon ...this rock....I will build my church. Matthew 16 : 16 Peter said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." There is no indication in that chapter tha tjesus assigned Peter to lead His church. And as I posted to you previously
>>and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader of the church at >>Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
it was Paul who preached from his hired house in Rome. (Acts 28 : 31)
>It was priests and theologians of your church who were responsible for the Reformation - the development of Protestantism, which in its development has diversified into many denominations.
>Actually it was the weak, weak lut that caused it all, and you followed him.
a theologian began the protests. The leaders at Rome had been adding to the scriptures from the early Fourth Century.
>However, the prophecy from Jerimiah 31 : 34 is that >the time will come when >"they shall teach no more every man his brother and every man his neighbour, >saying. "Know the Lord", for they all will know Me,
>from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord,
>for I will forgive their iniquities (wrong doings)
>and I will remember their sin no more.
>Even Popes can sin, and in the past some have imposed iniquitious teachings >on the Christian faith. But as literacy levels were not high there were few to >disagree - and disagreement could mean death, as was imposed on some of the >reformers, Jan Hus of Bohemia/Chekoslovakia, being one of them, as I have >learnt from one website - Benedict XVI gave an apology to him about seven >centuries later.
>I would not dare to predict when the time of Jeremiah 31 will come.
It's gone.
The NT is now with us.
Micah 4 : 3 'Nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
It's gone.
The NT is now with us.
neither shall they learn the art of war no more.
In my lifetime that prophecy has not yet been fulfilled.
so Jeremiah 31 : 34 is a prophecy that is still to be fulfilled.
gladys swager
May 25, 2013, 12:13:59 PM5/25/13
to
On Saturday, May 25, 2013, duke wrote:
> On Thu, 23 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded. . >Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is jesus recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader >of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
That just dep[ends o n how Matthew 16 : 18 is read. Jesus did not say to
But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
"Peter. Upon you I will build My church". 'this rock' are the words of Peter and match with, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God' Matthew 16 : 16
"The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord."
And Jeremiah 31 : 34 has not yet been fulfilled, despite waht you typed in another posting.
And Australia was settled from 1788 by Protetant leaders of the First Fleet from England. And they did have instructions from the Parliament in England to help the Aborigines as best they could under very difficult circumstances.
World Youth Day '08 and the canonisation of Mary McKillop were publicity stunts.
In 1960 at Goulburn Infants the teaching nuns were amazed at the reading levels of my Second Class. My next two schools to which I wa appointed as teaching Mistress had high level Inspection marks, but in time I learnt there had been a manipulation of the Inspection system.
In fact in the second one I was told that if I ever repeated the information the teacher who had given it to me said that if I ever repeated it he would say that I was lying.
But I am still of the opinion that I told the truth about the information.
Later I was asked to place extra names on the class rolls, with the intention being that a R.Catholic teacher would remain at the school on the basis of
the number of enrolled pupils. I refused.
And as they say, "The rest is History!".
duke
May 26, 2013, 12:05:07 PM5/26/13
to
On Sat, 25 May 2013 09:13:59 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Saturday, May 25, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded. . >Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is jesus recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader >of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
>
>But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
>
>That just dep[ends o n how Matthew 16 : 18 is read. Jesus did not say to
>"Peter. Upon you I will build My church". 'this rock' are the words of Peter and match with, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God' Matthew 16 : 16
Yep, the rock foundation of which Jesus is the main cornerstone.
wrote:
>On Saturday, May 25, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Thu, 23 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>>You are the one who is denigrating, Duke. I do not find Steve weak minded. . >Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is jesus recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader >of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
>
>But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John.
>
>That just dep[ends o n how Matthew 16 : 18 is read. Jesus did not say to
>"Peter. Upon you I will build My church". 'this rock' are the words of Peter and match with, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God' Matthew 16 : 16
gladys swager
May 26, 2013, 2:40:06 PM5/26/13
to
On Monday, May 27, 2013 , duke wrote:
> On Sat, 25 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is Jesus recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
when Paul was on teh road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years.
(Acts 28 : 30) Paul. by his former name Saul had studied under Gamaliel
in the Jews Temple and was more learned than Peter
and wrote most of the New Testament.
Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15)
> On Sat, 25 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>Duke, it would be helpful if the new Pope, Francis, denied any supremacy to >the Church at Rome, the Vatican, as no where in the New Testament is Jesus recorded as stating that Peter was to be the leader of His church.
>>The first Christian church was in Jerusalem on the day of the resurrection of >Jesus from the dead, the disciples were first named as Christians at Antioch
>>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader >of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
>But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John. > >That just dep[ends o n how Matthew 16 : 18 is read. Jesus did not say to >"Peter. Upon you I will build My church". 'this rock' are the words of Peter >and match with, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God' Matthew 16 : 16
Yep, the rock foundation of which Jesus is the main cornerstone.
However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus
>>(Acts 11 : 26)....and as I understand it was only about 300AD that the leader >of the church at Rome took full control over the Mediterranean churches.
>But it would be a lie. The assignment to Peter is clear in Matthew and John. > >That just dep[ends o n how Matthew 16 : 18 is read. Jesus did not say to >"Peter. Upon you I will build My church". 'this rock' are the words of Peter >and match with, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God' Matthew 16 : 16
Yep, the rock foundation of which Jesus is the main cornerstone.
when Paul was on teh road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years.
(Acts 28 : 30) Paul. by his former name Saul had studied under Gamaliel
in the Jews Temple and was more learned than Peter
and wrote most of the New Testament.
Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15)
duke
May 28, 2013, 12:39:10 PM5/28/13
to
On Sun, 26 May 2013 11:40:06 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus
>when Paul was on teh road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years.
>(Acts 28 : 30) Paul. by his former name Saul had studied under Gamaliel
>in the Jews Temple and was more learned than Peter
>and wrote most of the New Testament.
>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>
>Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15)
Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.
Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets.
You'll never get it straight.
wrote:
>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus
>when Paul was on teh road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years.
>(Acts 28 : 30) Paul. by his former name Saul had studied under Gamaliel
>in the Jews Temple and was more learned than Peter
>and wrote most of the New Testament.
>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>
>Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15)
>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.
You'll never get it straight.
gladys swager
May 28, 2013, 8:04:43 PM5/28/13
to
On Wednesday, May 29, 2013, duke wrote:
> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
I can't find the referece that Jesus said
the 'apostles and the prophets were the foundation of His church.
The foundations of the house my Dutch grandfather had built 93 years ago
were stacks of bricks, over which planks of wood were placed for the floor boards of the rooms.
1 Peter 2 ; 5 - 6 gives an answer.... You also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifics, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect and precious, and s/he who believes on Him shall not be confounded.
The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 For other foundation can no (wo)man lay than that is laid
which (who) is Jesus Christ.
The Church's one foundation IS Jesus Christ her Lord.
> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
the 'apostles and the prophets were the foundation of His church.
The foundations of the house my Dutch grandfather had built 93 years ago
were stacks of bricks, over which planks of wood were placed for the floor boards of the rooms.
1 Peter 2 ; 5 - 6 gives an answer.... You also as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifics, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, Wherefore also it is contained in scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect and precious, and s/he who believes on Him shall not be confounded.
The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones
1 Corinthians 3 : 11 For other foundation can no (wo)man lay than that is laid
which (who) is Jesus Christ.
The Church's one foundation IS Jesus Christ her Lord.
duke
May 29, 2013, 5:31:17 PM5/29/13
to
On Tue, 28 May 2013 17:04:43 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
>
>Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
>
>>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>
>> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
>I can't find the referece that Jesus said
>the 'apostles and the prophets were the foundation of His church.
Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow
citizens with God�s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief
cornerstone.
>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones
No doubt. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the whole foundation.
wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013, duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
>
>Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
>
>>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>
>> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter
>>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord. Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
>I can't find the referece that Jesus said
>the 'apostles and the prophets were the foundation of His church.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow
citizens with God�s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the
foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief
cornerstone.
>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones
gladys swager
May 29, 2013, 7:01:50 PM5/29/13
to
On Thursday, May 30, 2013, duke wrote:
orientation in relation to the foundation stone.
It would seem Duke, that you are making a point that the Pope stands in equal relation to Jesus Christ, or at least so close to Him, that he, the Pope
(an incorrect name Biblically), is considered on an equal placement
with jesus Christ. ie If the Pope says, "Yea"..."Yea" it is ...with no reference to the Biblical record.
A similar attitude can exist in Protestant churches.
A newly appointed clergyman told me that if I was not healed miraculously
in the Anglican Cathedral Healing Ministry I should leave the church.
I have it in my mind that he has since died.
What I have come to realise is that he wanted a miracle to attract more persons to his church; with more money in the collection, to enable the building of a new church ....that was really not appropriate to our area.
And, Duke, what you have to realise ....and also Francis as he takes up the Papacy... is that the reason for so many church denominations is due to
the added teachings imposed by the leaders at Rome from about 300AD.
(and not named Popes at that time...that title was used from 610AD)
(Enter Search...Heresies and Human Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.)
I do not know the number, but it is obvious to me that some/all? trained
in Theology of their various Christian denominations can be of the idea that they have a right to control, dictate to the laity (non-trained (theological) members). Theirs is a living, a monetary reward from the untrained
who sit in the pews.
I am 'revelling' in the Internet for I am getting more information
about the Chrsitan faith than ever I did sitting in the pews.
So is the present age the beginning of bringing to pass the prophecy
of Jerimaih 31 : 34 ...They shall teach no more, ...saying,
Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them."
It would be close to seventy years ago that a clergmen in his sermon said
that sometimes God had a task that only one person can do
and if that person does not do it, it won't be done,"
I puzzled about it as it just didn't seem right to me.
God would chose a person to do a task as he would know that person would do it.
It seems to me that another Reformation is needed and that is for all denominations of the Christian faith to sort out the differences
and to work from Christian community centres to meet the needs of the local people, and perhaps for the members of those Community centres
to elect their own leaders - such teachings that are given as completely from the Biblical records.
The Vatican could become a museum of all the artifacts collected through the ages, with some of them contrary to the Christian faith, such as the triple tiara of the Pope - I wonder whether Francis will wear it at his inauguration?
> On Tue, 28 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013,
duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
> >Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
> >>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter >>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.
Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
>I can't find the reference that Jesus said the 'apostles and the prophets were the foundation of His church.
>On Wednesday, May 29, 2013,
duke wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 May 2013, gladys swager wrote:
>>However, it was Saul (named changed to Paul) who was called by Jesus >when Paul was on the road to Damascus who evangelised through the eastern Mediterranean area to Rome where he taught in his own hied house for two years. >(Acts 28 : 30)
> >Paul. by his former name Saul,had studied under Gamaliel in the Jews' Temple and was more learned than Peter and wrote most of the New Testament.
> >>Even in his two epistles Peter does not mention that he was the Christian leader from Rome.
>> >Matthew 16 : 18 - the rock Jesus spoke of was the confession of Peter >>"You are the Christ the son of the living God. (v 15) Christ = anointed one/king/warrior.
>>The church's one foundation is Jesus Christ her Lord.
Yet Jesus said that the foundation is the Apostles and prophets. You'll never get it straight.
Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones No doubt. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the whole foundation.
However, the corner-stone is essental for the whole orientation of the building. All the other stones/foundation-blocks have their position-
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household,
20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones No doubt. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the whole foundation.
orientation in relation to the foundation stone.
It would seem Duke, that you are making a point that the Pope stands in equal relation to Jesus Christ, or at least so close to Him, that he, the Pope
(an incorrect name Biblically), is considered on an equal placement
with jesus Christ. ie If the Pope says, "Yea"..."Yea" it is ...with no reference to the Biblical record.
A similar attitude can exist in Protestant churches.
A newly appointed clergyman told me that if I was not healed miraculously
in the Anglican Cathedral Healing Ministry I should leave the church.
I have it in my mind that he has since died.
What I have come to realise is that he wanted a miracle to attract more persons to his church; with more money in the collection, to enable the building of a new church ....that was really not appropriate to our area.
And, Duke, what you have to realise ....and also Francis as he takes up the Papacy... is that the reason for so many church denominations is due to
the added teachings imposed by the leaders at Rome from about 300AD.
(and not named Popes at that time...that title was used from 610AD)
(Enter Search...Heresies and Human Traditions of the Roman Catholic Church.)
I do not know the number, but it is obvious to me that some/all? trained
in Theology of their various Christian denominations can be of the idea that they have a right to control, dictate to the laity (non-trained (theological) members). Theirs is a living, a monetary reward from the untrained
who sit in the pews.
I am 'revelling' in the Internet for I am getting more information
about the Chrsitan faith than ever I did sitting in the pews.
So is the present age the beginning of bringing to pass the prophecy
of Jerimaih 31 : 34 ...They shall teach no more, ...saying,
Know the Lord; for they shall all know Me,
from the least of them to the greatest of them."
It would be close to seventy years ago that a clergmen in his sermon said
that sometimes God had a task that only one person can do
and if that person does not do it, it won't be done,"
I puzzled about it as it just didn't seem right to me.
God would chose a person to do a task as he would know that person would do it.
It seems to me that another Reformation is needed and that is for all denominations of the Christian faith to sort out the differences
and to work from Christian community centres to meet the needs of the local people, and perhaps for the members of those Community centres
to elect their own leaders - such teachings that are given as completely from the Biblical records.
The Vatican could become a museum of all the artifacts collected through the ages, with some of them contrary to the Christian faith, such as the triple tiara of the Pope - I wonder whether Francis will wear it at his inauguration?
duke
May 30, 2013, 12:04:37 PM5/30/13
to
On Wed, 29 May 2013 16:01:50 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
>19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household,
>20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones No doubt. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the whole foundation.
>However, the corner-stone is essental for the whole orientation of the building. All the other stones/foundation-blocks have their position-
>orientation in relation to the foundation stone.
>It would seem Duke, that you are making a point that the Pope stands in equal relation to Jesus Christ, or at least so close to Him, that he, the Pope
>(an incorrect name Biblically), is considered on an equal placement
>with jesus Christ. ie If the Pope says, "Yea"..."Yea" it is ...with no reference to the Biblical record.
Why do you keep making these silly, nonsense statements. It says what it says.
Jesus started it (cornerstone = first stone of foundation), left and turned it
all over the apostles and prophets ( rest of the foundation = Papacy).
>A similar attitude can exist in Protestant churches.
They are totally disorganized.
>And, Duke, what you have to realise ....and also Francis as he takes up the Papacy... is that the reason for so many church denominations is due to
>the added teachings imposed by the leaders at Rome from about 300AD.
None. The real reason is that other uncontrolled individuals wanted authority.
>It seems to me that another Reformation is needed
Yes, in determining that the Pope was right in the first place.
wrote:
>Ephesians 2:19-20 (New International Version)
>19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God's people and also members of his household,
>20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.
>>The corner-stone is very essential to the placement and orientation of all the other stones No doubt. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the whole foundation.
>However, the corner-stone is essental for the whole orientation of the building. All the other stones/foundation-blocks have their position-
>orientation in relation to the foundation stone.
>It would seem Duke, that you are making a point that the Pope stands in equal relation to Jesus Christ, or at least so close to Him, that he, the Pope
>(an incorrect name Biblically), is considered on an equal placement
>with jesus Christ. ie If the Pope says, "Yea"..."Yea" it is ...with no reference to the Biblical record.
Jesus started it (cornerstone = first stone of foundation), left and turned it
all over the apostles and prophets ( rest of the foundation = Papacy).
>A similar attitude can exist in Protestant churches.
>And, Duke, what you have to realise ....and also Francis as he takes up the Papacy... is that the reason for so many church denominations is due to
>the added teachings imposed by the leaders at Rome from about 300AD.
>It seems to me that another Reformation is needed
gladys swager
May 30, 2013, 11:35:06 PM5/30/13
to
On Friday, May 31, 2013, duke wrote:
The leader of the Church at Rome broke the consenus means of decision making and assumed total control of the churches in the Mediterranean area about 300AD.
from that time additional teachings were given to Christians that would have given them the understanding that the leader, nmed Pope in the early 600's AD
had had communications from God that added to the Christian knowledge.
It was a theologican of your church, Duke, John Wyclif in England
who is named as the Morning Star of the Reformation,
and other clergy from that time pointed out other discrepancies between New Testament teachings and what was determined should be taught
by the leaders at Rome.
I am aware of how clergy can mpose their own decisions in their pulpit sermons.
One clrgyman in a Protestant church preached on mariage. In hindsight it may have been that he was directling his sermon to me....marry, procreate - (tha twill mean extra pay for me), teach Sunday school and train all the voluntary teachers in better teaching skills, even lead the Mother's meeting, and assist them to make better items for the Church stall with a better financial return.... what he did not know was that my mother had had Scarlet Fever
and I had had Rheumatic Fever and it was possible there might have been adverse reactions for me and for a child at that time about fifty years ago if I had taken that way.
Whether a woman decides to procreate or not should not depend on a fuzzy feeling about motherhood, or that someone determines she should be involved,
but that through medcial tests it is determined
that it would be right for both her and a child(ren).
it is possible that the medical profession is at that stage now for quite a large percentage of women.
Sometime, it seems to me, that some with theological training
and have a leadership role come to be of the opinion
that they always speak in the name of God
and know what is right for other persons,
even in situations outside their training.
The leader of the Church at Rome broke the consenus means of decision making and assumed total control of the churches in the Mediterranean area about 300AD.
from that time additional teachings were given to Christians that would have given them the understanding that the leader, nmed Pope in the early 600's AD
had had communications from God that added to the Christian knowledge.
It was a theologican of your church, Duke, John Wyclif in England
who is named as the Morning Star of the Reformation,
and other clergy from that time pointed out other discrepancies between New Testament teachings and what was determined should be taught
by the leaders at Rome.
I am aware of how clergy can mpose their own decisions in their pulpit sermons.
One clrgyman in a Protestant church preached on mariage. In hindsight it may have been that he was directling his sermon to me....marry, procreate - (tha twill mean extra pay for me), teach Sunday school and train all the voluntary teachers in better teaching skills, even lead the Mother's meeting, and assist them to make better items for the Church stall with a better financial return.... what he did not know was that my mother had had Scarlet Fever
and I had had Rheumatic Fever and it was possible there might have been adverse reactions for me and for a child at that time about fifty years ago if I had taken that way.
Whether a woman decides to procreate or not should not depend on a fuzzy feeling about motherhood, or that someone determines she should be involved,
but that through medcial tests it is determined
that it would be right for both her and a child(ren).
it is possible that the medical profession is at that stage now for quite a large percentage of women.
Sometime, it seems to me, that some with theological training
and have a leadership role come to be of the opinion
that they always speak in the name of God
and know what is right for other persons,
even in situations outside their training.
duke
May 31, 2013, 12:33:47 PM5/31/13
to
On Thu, 30 May 2013 20:35:06 -0700 (PDT), gladys swager <gsw...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>On Friday, May 31, 2013, duke wrote:
>The leader of the Church at Rome broke the consenus means of decision making and assumed total control of the churches in the Mediterranean area about 300AD.
Now that's a pretty stupid comment. Let's see how many mistakes you made in one
comment:
1. Consensus was never an issue. Jesus installed Peter as final authority in
Mat 16:13-19, John 21:15-19.
2. The Nicene Creed was agreed to in 325AD. That's the consensus.
3. ALL the Churches around the Med agreed.
>from that time additional teachings were given to Christians that would have given them the understanding that the leader, nmed Pope in the early 600's AD
>had had communications from God that added to the Christian knowledge.
4. None. The two ex-cathedra statements were fully in accordance with what
Jesus taught, according to those that knew him.
>It was a theologican of your church, Duke, John Wyclif in England
>who is named as the Morning Star of the Reformation,
>and other clergy from that time pointed out other discrepancies between New Testament teachings and what was determined should be taught
>by the leaders at Rome.
Wyclif tried to steal control of the Church and change what Jesus taught. He
failed, thankfully, but sucked some of you into his errors anyway.
>Whether a woman decides to procreate or not should not depend on a fuzzy feeling about motherhood, or that someone determines she should be involved,
>but that through medcial tests it is determined
>that it would be right for both her and a child(ren).
>it is possible that the medical profession is at that stage now for quite a large percentage of women.
Now what are you complaining about?
>Sometime, it seems to me, that some with theological training
>and have a leadership role come to be of the opinion
>that they always speak in the name of God
>and know what is right for other persons,
>even in situations outside their training.
God already established that.
wrote:
>On Friday, May 31, 2013, duke wrote:
>The leader of the Church at Rome broke the consenus means of decision making and assumed total control of the churches in the Mediterranean area about 300AD.
comment:
1. Consensus was never an issue. Jesus installed Peter as final authority in
Mat 16:13-19, John 21:15-19.
2. The Nicene Creed was agreed to in 325AD. That's the consensus.
3. ALL the Churches around the Med agreed.
>from that time additional teachings were given to Christians that would have given them the understanding that the leader, nmed Pope in the early 600's AD
>had had communications from God that added to the Christian knowledge.
Jesus taught, according to those that knew him.
>It was a theologican of your church, Duke, John Wyclif in England
>who is named as the Morning Star of the Reformation,
>and other clergy from that time pointed out other discrepancies between New Testament teachings and what was determined should be taught
>by the leaders at Rome.
failed, thankfully, but sucked some of you into his errors anyway.
>Whether a woman decides to procreate or not should not depend on a fuzzy feeling about motherhood, or that someone determines she should be involved,
>but that through medcial tests it is determined
>that it would be right for both her and a child(ren).
>it is possible that the medical profession is at that stage now for quite a large percentage of women.
>Sometime, it seems to me, that some with theological training
>and have a leadership role come to be of the opinion
>that they always speak in the name of God
>and know what is right for other persons,
>even in situations outside their training.
0 new messages