Petra is No More
Christian M. Mericle
Here's the article:
http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/news/2005/petraquits.html
I'm a die-hard fan so this is bad news for me.
-- Christian
Save Darfur -- http://www.savedarfur.org/
World Vision (Darfur) -- http://donate.wvus.org/OA_HTML/xxwvibeCCtpItmDspRte.jsp?section=10025&item=1072182
ICC (Sudan) -- http://www.persecution.org/Countries/sudan.html
Jake E. Wasdin
-Jake
bushman
> Christian M. Mericle wrote:
>> Petra has finally called it quits.
20 years too late for me. Although I recognize their early influence,
I could never stand to listen to them for even one song.
bushman
David Bruce Murray
"Christian M. Mericle" <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:514481hakoj3edaur...@4ax.com...
> Petra has finally called it quits.
It's about time. _Jekyll and Hyde_ was too little, too late.
--
David Bruce Murray is still "Making hay while the sun shines"
CD Reviews/BLOG: www.musicscribe.com/blog.html
("I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." - Dr. Bobby Clark)
Breeze
> Petra has finally called it quits.
>
> Here's the article:
> http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/news/2005/petraquits.html
>
> I'm a die-hard fan so this is bad news for me.
Their music has been with me through a lot of times, so it's kind of a
bummer for me as well. However, I haven't really gotten into any of their
music in recent years - they've changed and my tastes have changed - so it's
not like I'll really be missing anything. :) I've still got my old stuff
to listen to now and then. I guess I could say I'm "extra" glad I went to
see them in concert last year, now that I know they won't be out there
anymore.
Breeze
Jake E. Wasdin
Zamphir wrote:
My condolences. I hate to say this but I thought they stopped playing
music like 15 years ago. I didn't realize they were still around. Have
they been producing albums, doing tours and whatnot?
Henry P Vert
bushman
the most overated Xian bands out there IMO. Particularly annoying to me are
the vocals (both singers).
bushman
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
I liked 'em. Not so much the first couple of albums, but the Volz stuff
was really good, and the first few Schlitt albums were good, too. After
_Beyond Belief_ things started going downhill, and once they started bringing
in a bunch of nameless young dudes, they should have hung it up.
I always thought if they'd done a "reunion tour" with Volz and Schlitt
on vocals, Hartman on guitar, Weaver on drums, Lawry on keys, and Cates
on bass, they might have breathed a bit of life back into their career.
I, for one, would have been really excited to see that. As it stands,
though, I couldn't really muster much enthusiasm for the last 10 or so
years of their music, and _Jekyll and Hyde_ was, I guess, too little
too late.
JRjr
--
%%%%% Jerry B. Ray, Jr. %%%%%%%% www.prism.gatech.edu/~jr70 %%%%%%%%%%%%%%
"Some will shake off the sloth of faithlessness
While others simply languish in their sleep
Me, I just fight to stay awake..." -- VOL, "Black Cloud O'er Me"
Wasdin, Jake E.
Eric Fisher
>>>>>>>>
put down.
it may be the highlight of their day. ;)
eric
news.verizon.net
heard. The song was cool and it got me to open my Bible for the first time
in a long time back in the 80s. Petra will always have a special place with
me even though the later stuff didn't thrill me.
Doug T.
"Kurt Evans" <everythin...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115949942.5...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Christian Mericle <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Petra has finally called it quits.
>
> Who's next? DeGarmo and Key?
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/bit.listserv.christia/msg/0f45d19ecfaec80e
>
> Seriously though, tears welled up in my eyes when I read
> this news. The most exciting work Jesus has done in my life
> was in the late eighties and early nineties, and more than
> any other artist or group, Petra provided the soundtrack.
>
> Kurt
>
Andrew Kerr
> I can relate. Grave Robber was the first Contemporary Christian song I ever
> heard. The song was cool and it got me to open my Bible for the first time
> in a long time back in the 80s. Petra will always have a special place with
> me even though the later stuff didn't thrill me.
>
> Doug T.
>
_Beyond Belief_ will always rank as one of my all-time favorite albums,
even though I probably haven't listened to the whole thing in years.
_Unseen Power_ was good too, and _On Fire_ had some cool tracks ("Hit
You Where You Live" and "Counsel of the Holy" come to mind).
Some of the really old stuff like "Why Should the Father Bother" and
"Yahweh Love" still makes me smile whenever I stumble on it on an old
mixed CD or something. I don't think I ever heard the origingal "Rose
Colored Stain Glass Windows" but I like the Jars of Clay version on
_Never Say Dinosaur_. In fact, that whole "tribute" is pretty good (Phil
Keaggy's bass playing on "The Coloring Song" is a treat).
I lost track of Petra sometime around _No Doubt_ and although I own
_Jekell & Hyde_ I haven't really listened to it. I think once a band has
come to the point where the supporting players (bass/drums/keys/etc) are
on a "whoever's available" basis, it's time to give it up...which would
have been what, five years ago for Petra?
Bob is still The Man when it comes to guitar licks and solo's though.
Andrew
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Andrew Kerr <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Some of the really old stuff like "Why Should the Father Bother" and
>"Yahweh Love" still makes me smile whenever I stumble on it on an old
>mixed CD or something. I don't think I ever heard the origingal "Rose
>Colored Stain Glass Windows" but I like the Jars of Clay version on
>_Never Say Dinosaur_. In fact, that whole "tribute" is pretty good (Phil
>Keaggy's bass playing on "The Coloring Song" is a treat).
Yep, the tribute album is pretty good, and that's one of the few Jars of
Clay songs that doesn't bore me to tears, which is an accomplishment for
them and a statement about the quality of the source material. You should
seek out the original version (from _More Power To Ya_), though - it's quite
good as well.
Christian M. Mericle
I think the so-call Petra-haters have just as much right to post as do
Petra fans. I happen to like Petra but that doesn't make my opinion of
higher value than theirs.
Henry P Vert
band, who would never make it in the secular music arena.
Wasdin, Jake E.
Jerry B. Ray, Jr.
Henry P Vert <nospam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You must like that crap from Audio Adrenaline, the ultimate amateur
>band, who would never make it in the secular music arena.
I hate to agree with a flame, but I have to say that I've loathed
Audio Adrenaline since I first heard that "My God" song on a sampler
many years ago. It was very much amateurish and offensively bad,
and while they've gotten better, they've only made it up to "kinda
lame." I've always been surprised that they managed to have any
success, let alone the longevity they've had. Their music seems
custom targeted to irritate me.
Henry P Vert
bushman
At least Petra had good music - it was the vocals that I could never take.
bushman
"Henry P Vert" <nospam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fam981dikembnfme9...@4ax.com...
Michael A. Vickers
>Andrew Kerr <apk...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I don't think I ever heard the origingal "Rose
>>Colored Stain Glass Windows" but I like the Jars of Clay version on
>>_Never Say Dinosaur_.
>Yep, the tribute album is pretty good, and that's one of the few Jars of
>Clay songs that doesn't bore me to tears, which is an accomplishment for
>them and a statement about the quality of the source material. You should
>seek out the original version (from _More Power To Ya_), though - it's quite
>good as well.
It was borderline heresy that JoC covered it but they didn't do a bad job.
What Jerry said, though - the original is a treasure.
Michael
--
"Thus the metric system did not really catch on in the States, unless you
count the increasing popularity of the nine-millimeter bullet."
- Dave Barry
Breeze
> Their music seems
> custom targeted to irritate me.
Isn't that the case with just about *everything* in this world? ;)
Breeze
David Bruce Murray
"Wasdin, Jake E." <jake...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:Q_Wge.9479$7A2....@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
> I really wish Petra-haters would stop posting.
Well, I was a Petra fan for years. I just thought they should have retired
about ten years ago. They were a great group, one of my favorites in the
1980s and early 1990s. They never fully recovered from the departure of
John Lawry, IMO. After he left, their albums were still pretty good, but no
longer great.
Kevin Wayne
> I liked [Petra]. Not so much the first couple of albums, but the Volz
> stuff was really good, and the first few Schlitt albums were good,
> too. After _Beyond Belief_ things started going downhill, and once
> they started bringing in a bunch of nameless young dudes, they should
> have hung it up.
I pretty much agree, although I never liked the vocal change from high
and clear to generic raspy rock. I liked Volz's "Pieces of Eight" better
than anything Petra put out after *Not of This World*.
I think when Petra started doing real rock in the early 80s, hardly
anyone else was doing it. But after they broke the ground, other groups
started doing harder stuff than Petra ever did, and a lot of their fan
base migrated toward those harder groups.
I think constant lineup changes took their toll as well. Petra was
essentially "The Bob Hartman Project," and from what I read, even he
wasn't touring with them for the last five years. So what's really the
connection between recent Petra and old Petra, other than the name?
>
> I always thought if they'd done a "reunion tour" with Volz and
> Schlitt on vocals, Hartman on guitar, Weaver on drums, Lawry on keys,
> and Cates on bass, they might have breathed a bit of life back into
> their career. I, for one, would have been really excited to see that.
> As it stands, though, I couldn't really muster much enthusiasm for
> the last 10 or so years of their music, and _Jekyll and Hyde_ was, I
> guess, too little too late.
The reunion tour idea would have been cool, but would have appealed
mostly to an aging fan base. Some in that base, myself included, have
had our musical tastes change over the years; my only interest in a
reunion tour would have been nostalgia. *Jekyll and Hyde* was harder
than what I like anymore; plus, it's still the same kind of Van
Halen-era rock that doesn't recognize any musical developments in the
last 20 years.
--
Kevin Wayne
"Art is a tremendous means by which painfully guarded individuals bare
their souls." --Steve Hindalong
amerijazz
of their songs -- I think it was something from "Unseen Power" -- ad
nauseam for a while. Every time I heard them I kept thinking, "Wow,
that reminds me of that old 70s song, 'Never Been Any Reason'". It
seemed like an odd influence for a Christian band to emulate. It took
me about a year to figure out that John Schlitt had been the singer for
Head East, the band that sang that song. To this day I still can't hear
Petra without thinking of "Save my life, goin' down for the last
time..."
- Todd
Eric Fisher
show.
Christian M. Mericle
wrote:
>On 5/12/05 8:07 PM, Jerry B. Ray, Jr. wrote:
>
>> I liked [Petra]. Not so much the first couple of albums, but the Volz
>> stuff was really good, and the first few Schlitt albums were good,
>> too. After _Beyond Belief_ things started going downhill, and once
>> they started bringing in a bunch of nameless young dudes, they should
>> have hung it up.
>
>I pretty much agree, although I never liked the vocal change from high
>and clear to generic raspy rock. I liked Volz's "Pieces of Eight" better
>than anything Petra put out after *Not of This World*.
>
>I think when Petra started doing real rock in the early 80s, hardly
>anyone else was doing it. But after they broke the ground, other groups
>started doing harder stuff than Petra ever did, and a lot of their fan
>base migrated toward those harder groups.
I think the ground breaking is one of the reasons Petra is to be
cheered. Had it not been for their pioneering, it may have delayed the
whole Christian rock genre. I understand that even church people would
sometimes picket their concerts in the beginning.
<snip>
Scott Garvison
"Christian M. Mericle" <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kg0k81l3lh3k3k572...@4ax.com...
Wasdin, Jake E.
Scott Garvison wrote:
> BTW, They are the only christian band in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame.
--
*/Jake Wasdin/*
jake...@bellsouth.net
wasco....@gmail.com
Pastor Steve Winter
wrote:
>I think the ground breaking is one of the reasons Petra is to be
>cheered. Had it not been for their pioneering, it may have delayed the
>whole Christian rock genre. I understand that even church people would
>sometimes picket their concerts in the beginning.
Did they ever obey Acts 2:38 to really become true Biblical
Christians?
Pastor Winter http://www.winterhaven.name
--
Apostolic Oneness Pentecostal /*/ PreRapture Ministry
http://www.apostolic.biz for Bible studies (text and audio)
Have you obeyed Acts 2:38 as Paul taught in Acts 19:4-6?
Christian M. Mericle
-- Christian
On Wed, 18 May 2005 01:13:01 -0400, Pastor Steve Winter
<steve.N...@prime.org> wrote:
>Christian M. Mericle <newsgr...@hotmail.com> spake thusly and
>wrote:
>
>>I think the ground breaking is one of the reasons Petra is to be
>>cheered. Had it not been for their pioneering, it may have delayed the
>>whole Christian rock genre. I understand that even church people would
>>sometimes picket their concerts in the beginning.
>
>Did they ever obey Acts 2:38 to really become true Biblical
>Christians?
>
>Pastor Winter http://www.winterhaven.name
Save Darfur -- http://www.savedarfur.org/
Bazooka-Joe
> BTW, They are the only christian band in the Rock N Roll Hall of
Fame.
>
Petra has a very special place in my heart. A concert of theirs 13
years ago changed my life, my goals, my perspective on my faith, not to
mention the musical influence. I could write 3 or 4 pages describing
in detail the impact that July 23, 1992 at the Jesus Northwest festival
at the Clark County Fairgrounds had on me, but I'll spare everyone. I
love reminiscing about Petra more than any other act around I think.
What's cool, is that people my dad's age that grew up in the 70's, etc
have memories of them too. They're different from mine, but we cherish
them the same way.
My favorite Petra lineup was Hartman/Schlitt/Weaver/Lawry/Cates. There
were a few songs off of "This Means War" that were good like "He Came,
He Saw, He Conquered" and the title track. "Beyond Belief" was a
stellar album I thought. Several very good tunes in there like
"Creed", "Love", "I Am On the Rock" and of course the title track
remains one of my favorite tunes to this day. While "Unseen Power" was
absent the life-altering hit that the previous album had, it actually
had more good solid songs than its predecessor. Nearly every song on
that album, I enjoyed. "Wake Up Call" followed with no real single
great song, but a few good songs like "Sleeping Giant", "Underneath the
Blood" and "Praying Man". Hartman, Lawry and Cates all left the band
after that album, though Bob still played and produced some of the new
material here and there. "No Doubt" was, unfortunately, where I lost
all interest. I couldn't even tell you who the replacement musicians
were. It was kind of an end to an era for me. It wasn't until "Jekyll
& Hyde" that I became mildly interested again. They went back to their
roots with that album. I heard that various musicians from the
Newsboys did a lot of the drums, bass, keys and BGV's for them. But as
previous posts have stated, it was unfortunately too little too late.
I'm glad they were able to make a brief "blip on the screen" come back
with J&H and leave on a positive note. I got to meet John Schlitt a
couple of times. Super nice guy. Impressive vocal range. I cherish
the memories I have of that group and wish nothing but the best for
those guys. I wonder what's next for John & Bob?
Goosfraba.
:Bazooka-Joe
Bazooka-Joe
Bazooka-Joe wrote:
There
> were a few songs off of "This Means War" that were good like "He
Came,
> He Saw, He Conquered" and the title track. "Beyond Belief" was a
> stellar album I thought. Several very good tunes in there like
> "Creed", "Love", "I Am On the Rock" and of course the title track
> remains one of my favorite tunes to this day. While "Unseen Power"
was
> absent the life-altering hit that the previous album had, it actually
> had more good solid songs than its predecessor. Nearly every song on
> that album, I enjoyed. "Wake Up Call" followed with no real single
> great song, but a few good songs like "Sleeping Giant", "Underneath
the
> Blood" and "Praying Man".
If I had to compile a list, I'd same my top ten favorite Petra songs of
all time are:
10. Destiny
9. Jekyll & Hyde
8. Underneath the Blood
7. This Means War
6. I Am On the Rock
5. Dance
4. He Came, He Saw, He Conquered
3. Ready, Willing & Able
2. Creed
1. Beyond Belief
An honorable mention goes to "For Annie", just about the only Greg X.
Voltz-era Petra song that really ever grabbed my attention.
Bazooka-Joe
Pastor Steve Winter wrote:
> Christian M. Mericle <newsgr...@hotmail.com> spake thusly and
> wrote:
>
> Did they ever obey Acts 2:38 to really become true Biblical
> Christians?
>
> Pastor Winter http://www.winterhaven.name
Are you inferring that baptism (physical baptism...with water) is the
only way to become a "true Biblical Christian"?
Wasdin, Jake E.
Let's not dicuss that here. It seems to be different with each denomination.
Bazooka-Joe
Wasdin, Jake E. wrote:
> Bazooka-Joe wrote:
> > Pastor Steve Winter wrote:
> >
> >>Christian M. Mericle <newsgr...@hotmail.com> spake thusly and
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>Did they ever obey Acts 2:38 to really become true Biblical
> >>Christians?
> >>
> >>Pastor Winter http://www.winterhaven.name
> >
> >
> >
> > Are you inferring that baptism (physical baptism...with water) is
the
> > only way to become a "true Biblical Christian"?
> >
> > http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm
> >
>
>
> Let's not dicuss that here. It seems to be different with each
denomination.
>
I can agree to not discuss it if that's what Pastor Winter wants. Or
if he'd like to discuss it offline, I'd certainly accomodate him there
too. But that's his decision. He, afterall, is the one who brought it
up.
Bazooka-Joe
http://www.carm.org/doctrine/acts_2_38.htm
Wasdin, Jake E.
I just don't want this to turn into a huge argument, ;)
Bazooka-Joe
Wasdin, Jake E. wrote:
> I just don't want this to turn into a huge argument, ;)
Dually noted and out of respect for you I'll not pursue it any further.
My offer to the good pastor still stands though.
Bazooka-Joe
Pastor Steve Winter
>> Did they ever obey Acts 2:38 to really become true Biblical
>> Christians?
>>
>> Pastor Winter http://www.winterhaven.name
>
>
>Are you inferring that baptism (physical baptism...with water) is the
>only way to become a "true Biblical Christian"?
That is part of the new birth. Why would anyone ever imagine
themselves to be a Christian if what they have does not match
what the Bible says?
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
What is it about the word "and" that you can't understand?
Pastor Winter
Bazooka-Joe
Pastor Steve Winter wrote:
> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
> he that believeth not shall be damned.
>
> What is it about the word "and" that you can't understand?
This verse is often used by baptismal regenerationists to show that
"baptism is necessary for salvation". It says he who believes AND is
baptized will be saved. Therefore they often conclude that baptism is
a necessary part of becoming saved. But, does the verse prove that
baptism is necessary for salvation? Not at all.
Let me show you why. I could easily say that he who believes and goes
to church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief that saves,
not belief and going to church. Likewise, if you believe and read your
Bible, you'll be saved. But it isn't reading your Bible that saves
you. Rather, belief in Christ, in His sacrifice, is what saves. As
I've stated in other papers on this subject, there are numerous verses
that clearly demonstrate that justification is by faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph.
2:8; Phil. 3:9; etc.). Belief in what God has done, not what man can
do, is what results in salvation. Baptism is simply a public
demonstration of the inner work of regeneration. This is why the rest
of the verse says, "...but he who does not to believe will be
condemned." Mark 16:16 focuses on the issue of belief, not baptism.
What I am about to share here may not be very popular with some
readers. Therefore, I need to say upfront that I believe in the
absolute inspiration and authority of the Bible. It is the word of God
and what it says is authoritative. However, the simple fact is that
there are textual variations within the biblical manuscripts. The
originals are what are inspired, not the copies. We have copies of
inspired documents. These copies are not perfect, but they are very
close to it.
Again, I am not saying the Bible is untrustworthy. It is 98.5%
textually pure. The remaining 1.5% of textual variation are almost
entirely of insignificant spelling errors and minor word omissions or
additions that do not change the meaning of the text. However, Mark
16:9-20 is a significant textual variant. Many scholars, Christian
scholars, consider the ending of Mark to lack authenticity. Please
consider the following evidence.
Mark 16:9-20 doesn't appear in many of the oldest ancient manuscripts.
"The last twelve verses of Mark (16:9-20) are lacking in the two
earliest parchment codices, B and Aleph, in the Old Latin manuscript
k,, the Sinaitic Syriac, many manuscripts of the Old Armenian version,
the Adysh and Opiza manuscripts of the Old Georgian version, and a
number of manuscripts of the Ethiopic version. Clement of Alexandria,
Origen, and Ammonius show no knowledge of the existence of these
verses; other Church Fathers state that the section is absent from
Greek copies of Mark known to them (e.g. Jerome, Epist. cxx. 3, ad
hedibiam,)...The original form of the Eusebian sections makes no
provision for numbering sections after 16:8. Not a few manuscripts
which contain the passage have scholia stating that older Greek copies
lack it (so, for example, MSS. 1, 20,22, &c.), and in other witnesses
the passage is marked with asterisks or obeli, the conventional sigla
used by scribes to indicate a spurious addition to a literary
document."
There are other endings to Mark.
Another ending is found in L, Psi, 099, 0112, and minuscules 274mg 579,
k, Syrh and more is as follows:
"But they reported briefly to Peter and those with him all that had
been told. And after this Jesus himself sent out by means of them,
from east to west, the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal
salvation."
Apparent, theological error.
Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a different form to
two of them, while they were walking along on their way to the
country." This verse may be problematic. Jesus rose in the same body
that he died in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. This is
problematic because it suggests "a different form." Jesus did not
appear in a different form. He appeared in the same body he rose in.
Evidence against the Mark authorship.
There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense in these
verses.
This information about the ending of Mark is not intended to cast
doubt upon God's word. But the fact is that the ending is under a
large cloud of doubt as to its authenticity. I would not use it as a
defense for baptismal regeneration.
:Bazooka-Joe
Christian M. Mericle
<everythin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
>====================
>There are times when you feel like you can't go on
>There are times when you feel like giving in
>And there are times when you feel like you can't try anymore
>There are times of trouble in believing
>
>This test of your faith will last
>As long as it takes to pass
>Till you have no more doubt you'll endure
>And your faith will emerge true and pure
>
>No doubt it'll be all right
>With God it'll work together for good
>No doubt in the end it will be understood
>
>No doubt it'll all work out
>With faith He can move any mountain for us
>No doubt in the power of Jesus
>
>And after all is done we find out
>All we really need to have is no doubt
>
>There's a time to take a reckless leap of faith
>There's a time to be cautious and to wait
>And there's a way of learning from the past
>That this time of trouble won't last
>
>And sometimes we want to think we know
>The ways He will choose to make us grow
>But it's never the way of our choosing
>And we can't always see what He's using
>
>There will be winters in the seasons of our soul
>With a cold and bitter wind that chills our lives
>But our faith can be building a fire
>That will warm us till springtime arrives
>
>--from "No Doubt" by Bob Hartman (1995)
Unlike several others in here, I've liked some, most, or all of every
Petra album-- the exception being Double Take. "No Doubt" is my
favorite Petra song overall. It really helped me through a very tough
time in my life.
It seems there are five distinct eras in Petra music...
1. The first 3 (or was it just 2?) albums before Greg X. Volz --
"Lucas McGraw" has to be one of the funniest songs in Christian music.
2. The Greg X. Volz years.
3. The early John Schlitt years.
4. The John Schlitt years after Lawry, Cates, etc. left.
5. The later John Schlitt years-- Double Take & Revival
I had hoped that Jekyll & Hyde was the beginning of a sixth (improved)
era but that just isn't to be. Too little, too late as some have said.
I like both of John's solo albums. I heard he was working on a third
but that has been some time ago. Maybe he'll go ahead and finish it
up. That'd be great.
Bazooka-Joe
Kurt Evans wrote:
> Steve Winter <steve.N...@prime.org> wrote:
> >>Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall
> >>be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.
> >>What is it about the word "and" that you can't understand?
>
> >I could easily say that he who believes and goes to
> >church will be saved. That is true. But it is belief
> >that saves, not belief and going to church.
>
>
> >Many scholars, Christian scholars, consider the ending
> >of Mark to lack authenticity.
>
> Mark 16:9-20 wasn't written at the same time as the rest
> of the book of Mark, but I'm not sure that necessarily
> means it isn't God's Word.
>
> >Mark 16:12 says, "And after that, He appeared in a
> >different form to two of them, while they were walking
> >along on their way to the country." This verse may be
> >problematic. Jesus rose in the same body that he died
> >in (John 2:19), though it was a glorified body. This
> >is problematic because it suggests "a different form."
> >Jesus did not appear in a different form. He appeared
> >in the same body he rose in.
>
> know He didn't appear to these two in a different form?
>
> >There are 17 non-marcan words used in a non-marcan sense
> >in these verses.
>
> I'm not sure that necessarily means it isn't God's Word.
>
> Kurt
Hmmm...good points here Kurt.
My attempt was not to disprove that that last half of Mark 16 isn't
necessarily God-breathed. Because, afterall, who am I to make such a
judgment call on that? I believe the Bible is devinely inspired. The
last thing I want to do is cast a shadow of doubt upon that. But I
would not base an argument solely on the premise of these verses as
they are very suspect throughout the community, and not just by me.
While whether or not it's God-breathed may be a debatable subject,
whether or not it was written by Mark, at the time rest of the book was
written, is pretty widely appreciated. I don't know what that makes
Mark 16:9-20. And I'll leave it at that.
> Even if Mark 16 was appended by someone other than Mark,
> I'm not sure that necessarily means it isn't God's Word.
True, but I'm not sure that necessarily means it is, either.
Particularly when it contradicts verses specifically addressing
requirements for salvation. The problem for me, is that Mark 16:16
seems to contradict or add to verses that say nothing else is needed
for salvation beyond belief (at least when you interpret it as our good
pastor has, it does). John 3:16, John 5:24, 1 John 1:9, Ephesians
2:8-9, I could go on and on. There are many verses making this very
point. You cannot earn your salvation through an act of baptism or any
other means. There's no ritual you can perform that will seal your
fate. You must only believe.
How is the thief on the cross then explained? Did Jesus not tell him
at that moment that he would be in paradise with him, and do so without
a baptism of water? A follower of the "Church of Christ" (a cult
believing in the outrageous practice of apostolic succession) would
argue that is because he died before the resurrection, and so baptism
wasn't unnecessary. If that's so, then why was John baptizing? And
for what reason did John start baptizing in the first place?
And the verses that follow Mark 16:16....they will speak in tongues,
handle deadly snakes, cast out demons, etc with no harm done to
themselves. Some pentecostals tried this early on in the movement and
occasionally still do. They literally caught copperheads, rattlesnakes
and handled them in "worship" services to prove they had real faith in
sufficient amounts. They also were hospitalized and some died from
snake bites. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad. You may respond
to this argument that those activities were for the first century
church, and baptism is not. Really? How does one know? That
conclusion cannot be derrived from the context of the text.
There are some good articles on-line regarding baptismal regeneration.
Some support it; the vast majority take it apart. I suspect the real
issue though is the emotional attachment to the concept most likely,
and its most difficult to sway anyone's beliefs within a debate,
especially via discussion medium such as this.
For now, I can only agree to disagree and hope that legalism will
consume the joy that comes in Christ for baptism regenerationists, and
if they are lucky they will begin to question their ability to keep up
with the standards they see in scripture and the obvious failure of
those around them and at their church.
THEN, said person will have what I like to call a "teachable moment".
It may take years, it may never come. All I can do for now is love
them and wait.
God Bless.
Bazooka-Joe
Bazooka-Joe
Christian M. Mericle wrote:
> Unlike several others in here, I've liked some, most, or all of every
> Petra album-- the exception being Double Take. "No Doubt" is my
> favorite Petra song overall. It really helped me through a very tough
> time in my life.
>
Well, I'll give you this. "No Doubt" had some beautiful lyrics.
Stylistically it was not the Petra I had come to love and expect when I
put the CD in and hit "Play". That's not to say it wasn't any good,
just not my favorite.
> It seems there are five distinct eras in Petra music...
> 1. The first 3 (or was it just 2?) albums before Greg X. Volz --
> "Lucas McGraw" has to be one of the funniest songs in Christian
music.
> 2. The Greg X. Volz years.
> 3. The early John Schlitt years.
> 4. The John Schlitt years after Lawry, Cates, etc. left.
> 5. The later John Schlitt years-- Double Take & Revival
>
This is a great breakdown. Very logical. I was too young to
experience the first two eras. I'll have to find a copy of "Lucas
McGraw". Lawry, Cates and Hartman left after Wake-Up Call. I don't
think any of them was officially part of the band for the "No Doubt"
project. To be honest I lump No Doubt, Petra Praise 2, God Fixation,
Double Take, and Revival all in the same "era". So if I had to do my
own "Eras of Petra" there would be four:
1. 1974-1985: Pre-John Schlitt (there was a singer before Greg X.?)
2. 1986-1989: Early John Schlitt (Back to the Street, This Means War,
On Fire)
3. 1990-1994: Petra in their Prime (Petra Praise, Beyond Belief,
Unseen Power, Wake-Up Call)
3. 1995-2002: Petra's Dark Years (No Doubt, Praise 2, God Fixation,
Double Take, Revival)
4. 2003-2005: Jekyll & Hyde (short-lived but an era to itself in my
book).
> I had hoped that Jekyll & Hyde was the beginning of a sixth
(improved)
> era but that just isn't to be. Too little, too late as some have
said.
I too had the same hope. Oh well.
> I like both of John's solo albums. I heard he was working on a third
> but that has been some time ago. Maybe he'll go ahead and finish it
> up. That'd be great.
I enjoyed his first solo album. Never saw the second, though heard
about it.
Goosfraba.
:Bazooka-Joe
Breeze
> wasn't unnecessary. If that's so, then why was John baptizing? And
> for what reason did John start baptizing in the first place?
First off, something that perhaps people don't think about is that John was
baptizing *Jews.* And he wasn't baptizing them into Christianity. :) John
said that he came baptizing so that the Lamb of God should be *revealed* to
Israel. (Side note: John was far from the first to baptize. This Jewish
ritualistic/cleansing process had been going on for centuries). So how did
John's baptisms reveal the Lamb? In the same way that the Old Covenant
sacrifices did. John said, "I indeed baptize you with water, but One
mightier than I is coming... He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and
fire." Being baptized by John did not *actually* cleanse the people of
their sins any more than the sacrifices of bulls and goats cleansed them.
As Hebrews 10:1-4 says, the sacrifices were only a _shadow_ of what was to
come. What the sacrifices actually did was to *remind* people of their
sins, and not cleanse them nor purify them. The sacrifices essentially
revealed the need for a "Lamb" who could *truly* "take away the sin of the
world." In the same way, John's baptism (and water baptism in general) is a
shadow, or 'type,' of the actual substance - Christ Himself, the Lamb of
God, who would indeed take away the sin of the world. Neither water baptism
nor sacrifices can save a person from their sin. The only thing that truly
cleanses is the baptism of "the Holy Spirit and fire," which happens when a
person believes upon the Lord Jesus.
Breeze
Christian M. Mericle
wrote:
>Christian M. Mericle wrote:
<snip>
>This is a great breakdown. Very logical. I was too young to
>experience the first two eras. I'll have to find a copy of "Lucas
>McGraw". Lawry, Cates and Hartman left after Wake-Up Call. I don't
>think any of them was officially part of the band for the "No Doubt"
>project. To be honest I lump No Doubt, Petra Praise 2, God Fixation,
>Double Take, and Revival all in the same "era". So if I had to do my
>own "Eras of Petra" there would be four:
>
>1. 1974-1985: Pre-John Schlitt (there was a singer before Greg X.?)
Bob Hartman.
>2. 1986-1989: Early John Schlitt (Back to the Street, This Means War,
>On Fire)
>3. 1990-1994: Petra in their Prime (Petra Praise, Beyond Belief,
>Unseen Power, Wake-Up Call)
>3. 1995-2002: Petra's Dark Years (No Doubt, Praise 2, God Fixation,
>Double Take, Revival)
>4. 2003-2005: Jekyll & Hyde (short-lived but an era to itself in my
>book).
I can see where you're coming from. I probably just put Doutble Take
and Revival into their own group because, to me, they sound so much
different than ND, PP2, and GF. Of course, ND, PP2, and GF really
didn't sound like each other.
<snip>
>> I like both of John's solo albums. I heard he was working on a third
>> but that has been some time ago. Maybe he'll go ahead and finish it
>> up. That'd be great.
>
>I enjoyed his first solo album. Never saw the second, though heard
>about it.
It's not hard to find. Would be worth picking up.
Christian M. Mericle
<potte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Kurt Evans wrote:
>ttp://groups-beta.google.com/group/bit.listserv.christia/msg/0f45d19ecfaec80e
>>
>> "Carlos Seramos" <potte...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Keith Green's "Create in Me A Clean Heart" and other
>> >songs meant a great deal to me in the mid-80's. Later,
>> >after spending some time reading his autobiography
>> >as well as some of the other stuff that last-days
>> >ministries put out I ended up getting a little put
>> >off by the man.
>>
>> Are you sure Keith wrote an autobiography, or are
>> you thinking of the biography written by his widow?
>
>Sorry. Typo. I was talking about the book "No Compromise" by his widow
>Melody Green. Did Melody ever remarry? I know she was engaged to Bob
>Ayala at one time but they ended up breaking it off.
Yeah, she was married to Andrew Sievright but divorced him in 2000.
<snip>
Christian M. Mericle
This is from a great interview at
http://www.petrarocksmyworld.com/john_int_3.html :
Interviewer: "I want to talk about you for a second here. Gary Manuel
recently said that he had mixed and mastered three of the tracks for
your solo album. Is there now a clearer timetable on when the album
will be released?"
"John Schlitt: Let's put it this way. I've always said that I wouldn't
do a solo record until Petra was back on its feet or was closed. Well,
it looks like, as much as I wish it was the other choice, [Petra has
closed] and it is opening doors for me.
"I don't really want to do it until I see where Petra is going this
year. On the other hand, I'm certainly not going to sit on my hands if
there's a chance to do something ministry-wise. I think I'm still
supposed to do that. So, yeah, you may be seeing a John Schlitt record
... I don't know how soon, but it will finally get finished."
-- Christian
On Wed, 11 May 2005 08:03:16 -0600, Christian M. Mericle
<newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Petra has finally called it quits.
>
>Here's the article:
>http://www.christianitytoday.com/music/news/2005/petraquits.html
>
>I'm a die-hard fan so this is bad news for me.
Bazooka-Joe
War,
> >On Fire)
> >3. 1990-1994: Petra in their Prime (Petra Praise, Beyond Belief,
> >Unseen Power, Wake-Up Call)
> >3. 1995-2002: Petra's Dark Years (No Doubt, Praise 2, God Fixation,
> >Double Take, Revival)
> >4. 2003-2005: Jekyll & Hyde (short-lived but an era to itself in my
> >book).
>
> I can see where you're coming from. I probably just put Doutble Take
> and Revival into their own group because, to me, they sound so much
> different than ND, PP2, and GF. Of course, ND, PP2, and GF really
> didn't sound like each other.
Right, stylistically they went away from what worked and experimented
at least a couple different times. In their defense, they practically
had to. It was a completely different group of people. Those five
albums (ND, PP2, GF, DT & Revival) all had a different vibe, all
drastically different from the Beyond Belief, Unseen Power, Wake-Up
Call years, which had a very defined, very specific style. They went
back to that style with Jekyll & Hyde, with some adjustments to fit a
little better with the listeners of 2003 and it was great.
I could go on and talk about Petra for weeks. I think we can both
agree though, this band made a huge impact on Christian rock. They
practically wrote the book. They were THE premiere CR band of the
80's, and early 90's. I will always have copies of their albums,
and/or their MP3's in my playlists. And I'll always get nestalgic when
I hear their music. I wish I was born sooner so I could've appreciate
the entire repertoire (sp) and seen them progress and transform since
the 70's.
Goosfraba.
:Bazooka-Joe
Pastor Steve Winter
>> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
>> he that believeth not shall be damned.
>>
>> What is it about the word "and" that you can't understand?
>
>This verse is often used by baptismal regenerationists to show that
>"baptism is necessary for salvation". It says he who believes AND is
>baptized will be saved. Therefore they often conclude that baptism is
>a necessary part of becoming saved.
Yes, because that is what he verse says. You do understand that
the religion you are promoting is not the Christianity of the
Bible?
Note when Paul was commanded to be baptised:
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Many false preachers (accursed of God) teach that baptism is
merely "An outward profession of inward faith" or some such
nonsense.
It is a lie from the very pits of hell, a trick of the devil to
keep people in their sins. Water baptism is the re-birth of Water
referred to in John 3:5.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added [unto them] about three
thousand souls.
Acts 10:45 And they of the circumcision which believed were
astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the
Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 10:46 For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify
God. Then answered Peter,
Acts 10:47 Can any man forbid water, that these should not be
baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of
the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe
on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
** Sins are washed away in Jesus' name baptism **
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.
Pastor sTeve Winter
Pastor Steve Winter
>Evidence against the Mark authorship.
The false-christians have to base their hope for salvation on the
premise that the Bible is corrupt. I submit, with all due
respect, that it is the deceiving, Satanic, false-christian scum
who are corrupt.
I will explain in this brief post why every trinitarian will
die in their sins and spend eternity in a devils' hell. I do
this not to condemn souls, because the trinitarian is
condemned already, but to warn of the fires of hell.
Jude 1:23 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the
fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.
2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of
season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and
doctrine.
Remission of sins is essential for sinful humanity to be
"sin free". The word "salvation" means free from sin.
In Acts 2:38 we see that sins are remitted (washed away) by
Jesus name baptism. Now the trinitarian is not really
worshipping the Jesus of the Bible, so they see no need to be
baptised in Jesus name (even though the Bible clearly commands
it). They think that their three gods need three separate
"titles" in baptism.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children,
and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God
shall call.
This is because Jesus is the Great "I AM" of the Bible.
His name is the ONLY saving name.
Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is
none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved.
So, you see, trinity preachers really are deceiving people into
hell. I don't just say that to be mean, but rather in the
service of truth.
Both of the following statements were spoken by the same person:
Exo 3:14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said,
Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent
me unto you.
John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily , verily, I say unto
you, Before Abraham was, I am.
Now the false christian will not accept that Jesus is "I AM".
They "don't believe". They are "non-believers".
That is why Jesus said that those who would not accept that He
really was the "I AM" would die in their sins.
1. Those who do not see Jesus as "I AM" see no need to be
baptised in the name of Jesus.
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your
sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your
sins.
2. Sins are remitted by Jesus name baptism.
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
3. Those who don't believe in Jesus will refuse Jesus name
baptism and will die with their sins UN-REMITTED.
1 Timothy 5:24 Some men’s sins are open beforehand, going before
to judgment; and some men they follow after.
That is why Jesus said:
John 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your
sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your
sins.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
John 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into
the kingdom of God.
Sins are washed away by Jesus name baptism. That is why the
Bible commands it, so you can "put on Christ".
Gal 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ
have put on Christ.
Trinitarians are deceived by their filthy preachers into refusing
to "put on Christ".
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call
his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Acts 19:4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism
of repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe
on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus.
What did the people do immediately when Paul told them
to believe on Jesus?
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized,
and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
Acts 8:34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee,
of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other
man?
35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same
scripture, and preached unto him Jesus.
36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain
water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder
me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou
mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is
the Son of God.
38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he
baptized him.
39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of
the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and
he went on his way rejoicing.
Notice how the eunuch understood that believing on Jesus included
being baptised. You now have several examples from the Word of
God where hearers of the Word of God knew that belief in Jesus
included baptism.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand
souls.
Even on the day of Pentecost, on the birthday of the New
Testament Church, there were 3000 baptised in Jesus Name. Those
that receive the Word of God get baptised.
Look back just two verses and see that Peter preached Jesus Name
baptism.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall
call.
Pastor sTeve Winter
Pastor Steve Winter
>
>How is the thief on the cross then explained? Did Jesus not tell him
>at that moment that he would be in paradise with him, and do so without
>a baptism of water? A follower of the "Church of Christ" (a cult
>believing in the outrageous practice of apostolic succession) would
>argue that is because he died before the resurrection, and so baptism
>wasn't unnecessary. If that's so, then why was John baptizing? And
>for what reason did John start baptizing in the first place?
How can you false-christian scum be so ignorant? I would really
feel sorry for you if you were not out here trying to deceive
souls into the sewer with you.
Were not John's disciples re-baptised in Jesus Name?
Acts 19:2 He said unto them, Have ye received the Holy Ghost
since ye believed? And they said unto him, We have not so much as
heard whether there be any Holy Ghost.
3 And he said unto them, Unto what then were ye baptized? And
they said, Unto John’s baptism.
4 Then said Paul, John verily baptized with the baptism of
repentance, saying unto the people, that they should believe on
him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus.
5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the
Lord Jesus.
I thought by now all of the false-christians knew better than
to try that old "thief on the cross" argument to try to justify
their disobedience of the Bible in their false-christian cults.
The thief on the cross died before the New Testament Church was
born. The new testament Church was born in Acts 2:4 and the new
testament plan of salvation preached in Acts 2:38, confirmed in
Acts 2:39 and preached and practiced by the Apostles Acts 19-4-6.
One of the tricks that many false preachers use in their
deception is that they use the "thief on the cross" as "proof"
that baptism in Jesus name is not required for salvation. They
use that one account of the "thief on the cross" to deceive
people into flat ignoring *bunches* of verses about baptism, even
a verse where the Lord Himself declares baptism as ESSENTIAL,
they will ignore ALL these verses:
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
he that believeth not shall be damned.
* Jesus said,"... AND is baptized" *
Acts 22:16 And now why tarriest thou? arise, and be baptized, and
wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord.
* Sins washed away THROUGH baptism *
Acts 8:12 But when they believed Philip preaching the things
concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they
were baptized, both men and women.
* Believers were always baptized. *
Acts 19:5 When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name
of the Lord Jesus.
Romans 6:3 Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?
Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ.
* Just look at those verses about Jesus name baptism! But the
false preachers will still proclaim "thief on the cross" and
those so deceived will go "amen brother"... BUT!! What the false
preachers and those so deceived are overlooking is: The thief
DIED BEFORE Baptism in Jesus name was even instituted and
preached by the apostle Peter!! When the thief on the cross
died, the new testament church had not been born; Jesus had
not yet risen from the dead!!! The thief on the cross was dead
for over a month BEFORE Acts 2:38 was even preached. *
The thief on the cross was not even in the "church" dispensation,
the commandment to be baptised had not been given.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God
shall call.
Acts 2:40 And with many other words did he testify and exhort,
saying, Save yourselves from this untoward generation.
Acts 2:41 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized:
and the same day there were added [unto them] about three
thousand souls.
I really hope that you can see the deception in the "thief on the
cross" argument against baptism. But I hope that if your
preacher told you that lie, that you will realize that he has
lied to you about other things as well, and is not really a man
of God at all.
The Bible warns so many times, in so many places that there will
be MANY false preachers leading people to hell. People who are
being led into hell by false preachers BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE
SAVED; that is the job of the false preacher to keep them feeling
"secure".
Does your preacher teach the "thief on the cross" as an excuse to
undermine the essentiality of baptism? If so, are you going to
follow him/her/it into the pits of hell, anyway?
Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind.
And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.
Luke 6:39 And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead
the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?
Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause
divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have
learned; and avoid them.
Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus
Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple.
Acts 2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized
every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of
sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Acts 2:39 For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and
to all that are afar off, [even] as many as the Lord our God
shall call.
Pastor sTeve Winter
amerijazz
Audio Adrenaline since I first heard that "My God" song on a sampler
many years ago. It was very much amateurish and offensively bad, and
while they've gotten better, they've only made it up to "kinda lame."
>>
The Swirling Eddies did a cover version of AA's "Big House", with
Camarillo Eddy singing like Droopy the cartoon dog. There's a little
backwards reference in the intro which pokes fun at AA for basically
ripping off the Spin Doctors. I'd never thought of that until they said
it, but they were right!
- Todd
David Bruce Murray
"Christian M. Mericle" <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rvtr81pgr9l5nomvi...@4ax.com...
> On 19 May 2005 16:09:09 -0700, "Bazooka-Joe" <se...@poormanrich.com>
> wrote:
> >1. 1974-1985: Pre-John Schlitt (there was a singer before Greg X.?)
>
> Bob Hartman.
Although Hartman contributed to background vocals often, I don't remember
him ever being the key vocalist.
In 1974, Petra was: Hartman-Guitar, banjo, vocals; Greg Hough-Guitar,
mandolin, vocals; Bill Glover-Drums, percussion; and John DeGroff-bass
This is the lineup that brought us the infamous "Lucas McGraw." I think
Hough may have been there for another album or two (_Come And Join Us_?),
but I'm not completely sure since some of my cassette copies have no liner
notes.
> >2. 1986-1989: Early John Schlitt (Back to the Street, This Means War,
> >On Fire)
> >3. 1990-1994: Petra in their Prime (Petra Praise, Beyond Belief,
> >Unseen Power, Wake-Up Call)
I would say Petra in their prime was from _Beat The System_ thru _Unseen
Power_, with a decline starting with _On Fire_.
I would label all the other Volz recordings like _Not Of This World_ and
_More Power To Ya_ as Classic Petra, but they were in their peak years by
the time Volz did _Beat The System_ and the folllowup live project _Captured
In Time And Space_.
> >3. 1995-2002: Petra's Dark Years (No Doubt, Praise 2, God Fixation,
> >Double Take, Revival)
I generally agree with this. A song here and there stood out, but the
consistency of quality from previous Petra recordings was gone. The ultimate
low was definitely _Double Take_. As a concept, it was great. In execution,
it was laughable.
--
David Bruce Murray is still "Making hay while the sun shines"
CD Reviews/BLOG: www.musicscribe.com/blog.html
("I know a pagan piano riff when I hear it." - Dr. Bobby Clark)
amerijazz
but I'd love to see just what his "congregation" consists of, wouldn't
you? What is it, Steve, 7 relatives and a few people who come in from
the cold?
Personally, most of the pastors I know are so busy fulfilling God's
mission for their lives all day, every day, they don't have time to
make a bunch of yard-long troll-posts to a music newsgroup. You must
have a whole lot of non-pastoral time on your hands, and therefore very
few people who believe in your "ministry".
So Stevie, tell us: What's it like to be an abject failure at the one
thing you profess to do in life? Is it comforting to know that you are
absolutely worthless as a minister of God's word, as you sum it up in a
single line of scripture? Are you even a real pastor, or just some geek
whose taste for the bottle (which often seems to be the primary
inspiration of your rants) killed off your chances of graduating from
the seminary, so you like to play pretend on the ol' PC while "Jerry
Springer" honks in the background and old cat food stinks up the mobile
home? Hmmm?
David Bruce Murray
"Christian M. Mericle" <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:292s81l1jds3qjsmb...@4ax.com...
> John Schlitt plans to do another solo album.
That's good to hear. I wonder if Bob Hartman has ever considered going into
bluegrass.
Pastor Steve Winter
>Pastor Winter's little anti-Christian psycho-rants are all fun and joy,
My unpopularity among accursed, deceiving, false-christian scum
like "amerijazz" hardly needed reaffirmation. These pride
engorged religious filth like "amerijazz" can't even begin to
defend the stupid garbage they believe against the Bible!
Jude 1:18 How that they told you there should be mockers in the
last time, who should walk after their own ungodly lusts.
Filthy, false-christian scum like "amerijazz" don't care one bit
what the Bible says.
2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure
sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to
themselves teachers, having itching ears;
4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall
be turned unto fables.
Pastor Winter
Kevin Wayne
> you false-christian scum
How can you call "scum" people for whom Christ died?
Matt. 7:15
Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits.
*plonk*
(And yes, I have been baptized. In *Jesus'* name. You're still a false
prophet.)
--
Kevin Wayne
"Art is a tremendous means by which painfully guarded individuals bare
their souls." --Steve Hindalong
Pastor Steve Winter
>
>How can you call "scum" people for whom Christ died?
See my reply as: "Can Kevin Wayne really be that stupid?"
Jesus is the author of eternal salvation for those who obey Him,
not for the false-christian scum who labor to deceive souls into
hell.
Hebrews 5:9 And being made perfect, he became the author of
eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;
You are some kind of ignorant Kevin Wayne! You want to defend
scum that labor to deceive those "for whom Christ died" into a
comfortable disobedience of the Bible and the resulting lake of
fire. Are you really that stupid or are you deliberately
deceiving?
I believe that some of you folks have some serious misconceptions
about the Lord of the Bible, who was the perfect example for the
Christian..
I Peter 2:21 For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ
also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should
follow his steps:
I Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his
mouth:
I Peter 2:23 Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he
suffered, he threatened not; but committed [himself] to him that
judgeth righteously:
But let us also look at a particular situation that shows us the
Lord exhibiting unusual behaviour; and that is, when he
encountered false preachers, false religionists, deceivers like
the modern day trinity preachers.
Matthew 23:33 [Ye] serpents, [ye] generation of vipers, how can
ye escape the damnation of hell?
Matthew 23:27 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear
beautiful outward, but are within full of dead [men's] bones, and
of all uncleanness.
Looking carefully at verse 27. In our modern language "full of
dead men's bones and all uncleanliness" would roughly translate
as the modern term "scum". That tells me that if the Lord was
walking our streets today and encountered a denominal trinitarian
preacher, that He would call him/her/it "scum", "snake",
"hypocrite".
"Love incarnate" didn't coddle false preachers. The Apostle Paul
instructs us should we encounter anyone preaching other than the
original Acts 2:38 message:
Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any
other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you,
let him be accursed.
(Check out Acts 19, if you have any doubts that Paul adhered to
the Acts 2:38 re-birth of WATER and SPIRIT.)
Would Jesus Christ call you and/or your preacher "scum" ? If
he's not preaching the Acts 2:38 Apostolic message, He sure
would!
I hope this helps you figure things out...
Pastor Steve Winter
>
>How can you call "scum" people for whom Christ died?
Jesus is the author of eternal salvation for those who obey Him,
Pastor sTeve Winter
Vivax
"Pastor Steve Winter" <steve....@NOprime.org> wrote in message
news:4bl1911pp26dpp26p...@4ax.com...
Bazooka-Joe
The very fact that you reply to my post and refer to me and anyone who
disagrees as "False Scum" says to me you are a troll of the worst
variety. Dispite my disagreement with you on theology, and despite my
belief it is a discrepency of the worst kind, that you are adding to
the salvation message by telling the unsaved and saved alike they must
perform works to be saved in addition to their belief, that you are
preaching legalism along the lines of the pharisees and priests of
Jesus' time, I've always shown you and paid you the respect I thought
you deserved. The very fact that you have no desire to see me conform
to your mistaken beliefs shows not just me, but all who post here the
kind of man, and the kind of love (or lack there of) you have for
mankind. You do not see me as "lost", you see me as an adversary.
You, my friend, have severely damaged your witness here. Think on that
before you so hastily respond with negativity, insults, slander and
out-of-context verse quotations next time.
I WILL pray for you, and for your soul, and hope against hope that you
have the belief necessary for salvation and hope still more that those
you reach will believe dispite the salvation of works that those that
follow you think they must "earn" through a baptismal ritual.
Let me just say one last thing, lest anyone here think me not a
supporter of the baptism act in general. Baptism is good people. It's
a good thing. We should all be baptized, as it is a public act that
openly and honestly says we love Jesus Christ and we are committed to
following him, having a relationship with him, and shows that to all
who witness it.
IT IS NOT THE KEY TO SALVATION that others here claim it to be.
Salvation is a free gift from Jesus Christ that can only be obtain by
faith in Him through His grace. Not of works (such as baptism) lest
any man should boast.
If you fail to understand that God works covenantally and that He uses
signs as manifestations of his covenants (rainbow, circumcision,
communion, etc.) then you will not be able to understand where baptism
fits in God's covenant system.
Second, you need to know what baptism is. It is an outward
representation of an inward reality. For example, it represents the
reality of the inward washing of Christ's blood upon the soul. That is
why it is used in different ways. It is said to represent the death of
the person (Rom. 6:3-5), the union of that person with Christ (Gal.
3:27), the cleansing of that person's sins (Acts 22:16), the
identification with the one "baptized into" as when the Israelites were
baptized into Moses (1 Cor. 10:2), and being united in one church (1
Cor. 12:13). Also, baptism is one of the signs and seals of the
Covenant of Grace that was instituted by Jesus. It is in this sense a
sacrament. A sacrament is a visible manifestation of something spoken.
It is also said to be a visible sign of an inward grace. For example,
the communion elements of bread and wine are called the sacrament of
communion. When we take communion we are partaking of the sacrament.
The Covenant of Grace is the covenant between God and Man where God
promises to Man eternal life. It is based upon the sacrifice of Jesus
on the cross and the condition is faith in Jesus Christ. As the
Communion Supper replaced Passover, baptism, in like manner, replaces
circumcision. "They represent the same spiritual blessings that were
symbolized by circumcision and Passover in the old dispensation"
(Berkhoff, Lewis, Systematic Theology, 1988, p. 620.).
Circumcision was the initiatory rite into the Abrahamic covenant; it
did not save. A covenant is a pact or agreement between two or more
parties and that is exactly what the Abrahamic covenant was. God said
to Abraham, "I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant
between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations
to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you"
(Genesis 17:7, NIV). God later instructed Abraham to circumcise not
only every adult male, but also 8 day old male infants as a sign of the
covenant (Gen. 17:9-13). If the children were not circumcised, they
were not considered to be under the promissory Abrahamic covenant. This
is why Moses' wife circumcised her son and threw the foreskin at Moses'
feet. (Ex. 4:24-25). She knew the importance of the covenant between
God and her children. But at the same time we must understand that
circumcision did not guarantee salvation to all who received it. It was
a rite meant only for the people of God, who were born into the family
of God (who were then the Jews).
An important question here is how is it possible for an infant to be
entered into a covenant with God. There could be a lot of answers given
but the point remains: it was done; infants were entered into a
covenant relationship with God -- through their parents.
In the New Testament, circumcision is mentioned many times. But with
respect to this topic it is specifically mentioned in Col. 2:11-12: "In
him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature,
not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the
circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and
raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him
from the dead" (NIV). In these verses, baptism and circumcision are
related. Baptism replaces the Old Testament circumcision because 1)
there was a New Covenant in the communion supper (Luke 22:20), and 2)
in circumcision there was the shedding of blood but in baptism no blood
is shed. This is because the blood of Christ has been shed.
If you understand that baptism is a covenant sign, then you can see
that it is a representation of the reality of Christ circumcising our
hearts (Rom. 2:29; Col. 2:11-12). It is our outward proclamation of the
inward spiritual blessing of regeneration. It comes after faith which
is a gift of God (Rom. 12:3) and the work of God (John 6:28).
Third, the Bible says that it is the gospel that saves. "By this gospel
you are saved..." (1 Cor. 15:2). Also, Rom. 1:16 says, "I am not
ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation
of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile."
Another way of making this clear is to use an illustration. Let's
suppose that a person, under the conviction of the Holy Spirit (John
16:8), believed in Jesus as his savior (Rom. 10:9-10; Titus 2:13), and
has received Christ (John 1:12) as Savior. Is that person saved? Of
course he is. Let's further suppose that this person confesses his
sinfulness, cries out in repentance to the Lord, and receives Jesus as
Savior and then walks across the street to get baptized at a local
church. In the middle of the road he gets hit by a car and is killed.
Does he go to heaven or hell? If he goes to heaven then baptism isn't
necessary for salvation. If He goes to hell, then trusting in Jesus, by
faith, isn't enough for salvation. Doesn't that go against the
Scriptures that say that salvation is a free gift (Rom. 6:23) received
by faith (Eph. 2:8-9)?
Saying that baptism is necessary for salvation is dangerous because it
is saying that there is something we must do to complete salvation.
That is wrong! See Gal. 2:21; 5:4.
All right, so this sounds reasonable. But still, what about those
verses that seem to say that baptism is part of salvation? I'll address
those now. But, because this subject can become quite lengthy, in fact,
sufficient for a book in itself, I'll only address a few verses and
then only briefly.
John 3:5, "Jesus answered, 'I tell you the truth, no one can enter
the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.'"
Some say that water here means baptism. But that is unlikely
since Christian baptism hadn't yet been instituted. If this verse did
mean baptism, then the only kind that it could have been at that point
was the baptism of repentance administered by John the Baptist (Mark
1:4). If that is so, then baptism isn't necessary for salvation because
the baptism of repentance is no longer practiced.
It is my opinion that the water spoken of here means the water of
the womb referring to the natural birth process. Jesus said in verse
three that Nicodemus needed to be born "again." This meant that he had
been born once--through his mother. Nicodemus responds with a statement
about how he can't enter again into his mother's womb to be born. Then
Jesus says that he must be born of water and the Spirit. Then in verse
6 He says that "flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth
to spirit.." The context seems to be discussing the contrast between
the natural and the spiritual birth. Water, therefore, could easily be
interpreted there to mean the natural birth process.
I would like to add that there are scholars who agree with the
position and some who do not. Some believe that the water refers to the
Word of God, the Bible, and others claim it means the Holy Spirit. You
decide for yourself.
Acts 2:38, "Peter replied, 'Repent and be baptized, every one of you,
in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you
will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.'"
This verse is a tough one. It seems to say that baptism is part
of salvation. But we know, from other scriptures that it isn't, lest
there be a contradiction. What is going on here is simply that
repentance and forgiveness of sins are connected. In the Greek,
"repent" is in the plural and so is "your" of "your sins." They are
meant to be understood as being related to each other. It is like
saying, "All of you repent, each of you get baptized, and all of you
will receive forgiveness." Repentance is a mark of salvation because it
is granted by God (2 Tim. 2:25) and is given to believers only. In this
context, only the regenerated, repentant person is to be baptized.
Baptism is the manifestation of the repentance, that gift from God,
that is the sign of the circumcised heart. That is why it says, repent
and get baptized.
1 Pet. 3:21, "and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also
-- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus
Christ."
This is the only verse that says that baptism saves. But, the NIV
translation of the verse is unfortunate. A better translation is found
in the NASB which says, "and corresponding to that, baptism now saves
you." The key word in this section is the Greek antitupon. It means
"copy," "type," corresponding to," "a thing resembling another," "its
counterpart," etc. Baptism is a representation, a copy, a type of
something else. The question is "Of what is it a type?", or "Baptism
corresponds to what?". The answer is found in the previous verse, verse
20: "who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting
in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a
few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water.
21And corresponding to that, baptism now saves you" (NASB).
What does baptism correspond to? Is it the flood? Or, is it the ark?
What was it that saved Noah and his family? Was it the water or the
ark? Obviously, it was the Ark. Noah built and entered the ark by faith
and was saved (Heb. 11:7). The flood waters destroyed the ungodly.
Peter, when referring to the flood waters, refers to them as the means
of destruction of the ungodly (2 Pet. 2:5; 3:6). It was the Ark that
saved. Noah entered the ark by faith. Baptism here, in my opinion,
refers to the Ark, not the waters. That is why the rest of the verse
says, "not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good
conscience toward God" which is consistent with what Paul said in Col.
2:11-12 where He equates baptism with being circumcised of heart.
Acts 22:16, "And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and
wash your sins away, calling on his name."
Is the washing away of sins done by baptism, the representation
of the circumcised heart (Col. 2:11-12) which means you are already
saved, or is it by the blood of Christ (Heb. 9:14; Rom. 5:9; Eph. 1:7)?
Obviously it is the blood of Jesus and the washing here refers to the
calling on Jesus' name.
Rom. 6:4, "We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death
in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life."
Because the believer is so closely united to Christ it is said
that the symbol of baptism is our death, burial, and resurrection.
Obviously we did not die--unless, of course, it is a figurative usage.
Titus 3:5, "he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done,
but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth
and renewal by the Holy Spirit."
The washing of rebirth can only be that washing of the blood of
Christ that cleanses us. It is not the symbol that saves, but the
reality. The reality is the blood of Christ.
Gal. 3:27, "for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed
yourselves with Christ."
This is speaking of the believer's union with Christ. It is an
identification with, a joining to, a proclamation of loyalty to, etc.
In 1 Cor. 10:2 the Israelites were baptized into Moses. That means they
were closely identified with him and his purpose. The same thing is
meant here.
Conclusion:
Baptism is not necessary for salvation. It is the initiatory sign
and seal into the covenant of grace. As circumcision referred to the
cutting away of sin and to a change of heart (Deut. 10:16; 30:6; Jer.
4:4; 9:25,26; Ez. 44:7,9) baptism refers to the washing away of sin
(Acts 2:38; 1 Pet. 3:21; Tit. 3:5) and to spiritual renewal (Rom. 6:4;
Col. 2:11-12). The circumcision of the heart is signified by the
circumcision of the flesh, that is, baptism (Col. 2:11-12).
One last thought: If someone maintains that baptism is necessary
for salvation, is he adding a work, his own, to the finished work of
Christ? If the answer is yes, then that person would be in terrible
risk of not being saved. If the answer is no, then why is baptism
maintained as being necessary the same way as the Jews maintained that
works were necessary?
Michael H.
>>1. 1974-1985: Pre-John Schlitt (there was a singer before Greg X.?)
>
> Bob Hartman.
Don't think Bob was the lead singer was he? Rob Fraiser was on one or two
of the 3 Pre-Volz albums
Michael H.
news:sq6o81p95pbinbcs9...@4ax.com:
> Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but
> he that believeth not shall be damned.
>
> What is it about the word "and" that you can't understand?
Yet it doesn't say He that believet, but is not baptized shall be damned.
Christian M. Mericle
wrote:
You're probably right. Don't know why I got Hartman as lead into my
head.
What ever happened to those super-early Petra singers?
Michael H.
> You're probably right. Don't know why I got Hartman as lead into my
> head.
>
> What ever happened to those super-early Petra singers?
Rob Fraiser has been doing solo stuff for some time. Probably best known
for the songs "This Town" and "Love is Sacrifice". I think he released a
new album in the past couple of years. Thought it was funny, one of the
early members of Petra was up for a New Artist dove.
Keith
Keith
"Michael H." <mdhal...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9668E68C9C74Cm...@140.99.99.130...
Balaam's Miracle
<newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Petra has finally called it quits.
Petra was a metal band, now Petra is no more.
What Petra thought was H2O was H2SO4
(sorry, i just HAD to....)
--
Balaam's Miracle
Visit http://balaamsmiracle.cjb.net , your source to Christian underground
music.
dwacon
"Balaam's Miracle" <donote...@invalidemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:op.stsw5...@sophie.mshome.net...
> On Wed, 11 May 2005 16:03:16 +0200, Christian M. Mericle
> <newsgr...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Petra has finally called it quits.
>
> Petra was a metal band, now Petra is no more.
> What Petra thought was H2O was H2SO4
Can someone explain for those of us who flunked chemistry?
--
Guaranteed protection from Al-Quaeda
The weapons of our warfare are not carnal...
http://www.cafepress.com/powerpress.11162234
cho...@socal.rr.com
dwacon wrote:
> > Petra was a metal band, now Petra is no more.
> > What Petra thought was H2O was H2SO4
>
> Can someone explain for those of us who flunked chemistry?
>
H2O = water
H2SO4 = sulfuric acid (like in a car battery, dangerous stuff!)
>
Christian M. Mericle
Seems like I heard something similar to this said by some nerds on one
of those Disney kid's shows.