Posted on 01/03/2017 10:37:25 AM PST by AC Beach Patrol
“Only a complete fool would trust the pagan Romans on anything.”
So are you claiming Jan_Sobieski is a fool? He wrote in post #18: “When the Roman Church was following Jesus Christ and was led by His spirit, they did something very good: Assembled the New Testament Cannon!”
There are only two possibilities for you: 1) You’ll now have to wiggle out of this by admitting the Roman Church is Christian and not “pagans” as you have suggested or outright stated before, or, 2) you’ll have to admit you just called Jan_Sobieski a fool.
Which is it?
That statement was out of ignorance, but I think Jan is quite capable of learning, unlike you.
“That statement was out of ignorance, but I think Jan is quite capable of learning, unlike you.”
So if Jan_Sobieski has to learn something, you’re actually saying he is ignorant at this point. What is it you believe he is ignorant of?
.
It is no affair of yours.
If there is anything Jan wishes to ask of me he will.
.
“It is no affair of yours.”
Thanks for confirming that I was right.
“If there is anything Jan wishes to ask of me he will.”
He might if you had the common courtesy to ping him when you mention him in posts. You keep mentioning Jan_Sobieski and don’t ping him.
You were the one who brought Jan into a discussion between you and me.
You were the one that keeps asking a stupid question as though any reply to you would dignify the ridiculous question.
I don’t keep mentioning him, you do. I simply answered your demonic question.
.
“You were the one who brought Jan into a discussion between you and me.”
You were the one who was wrong from the beginning and then couldn’t answer even simple questions - and you were the one who mentioned Jan_Sobieski three times (IIRC) and never pinged him. Try to be honest.
“You were the one that keeps asking a stupid question as though any reply to you would dignify the ridiculous question.”
I never ask stupid questions. I simply ask questions that are so good that Protestant anti-Catholics can never answer them. That’s why you never answer them. That’s why that will probably continue.
“I don’t keep mentioning him, you do.”
Only because he shows you are wrong no matter how you slice it. Let the anti-Catholics fall against the anti-Catholics.
I simply answered your demonic question.
.
Nobody in their right mind would answer your demonic questions.
That is all you seek; to justify your anti-Yeshua paganism.
Your satanic tar babies will remain yours alone.
Nothing in Yehova’s word authorized Roman pagans to form a “church” to confuse and confound the Gospel of the Kingdom delivered at Sinai.
Paul gets it right in Romans and in Hebrews.
Moses’ Gospel and Paul’s are one and the same.
Rome’s is the broad path to destruction.
.
“Nobody in their right mind would answer your demonic questions.”
You made a point and I asked you about how that squares with Jan_Sobieski. Of course you won’t answer the question. Most likely everyone can tell why you won’t answer the question.
“That is all you seek; to justify your anti-Yeshua paganism.”
That is all you seek; to justify your anti-Christ anti-Catholicism. And, to a lesser extent, your nascent anti-Jan-Sobieskism.
“Your satanic tar babies will remain yours alone.”
No, everything I say sticks firmly to you because everything I say is true.
“Nothing in Yehova’s word authorized Roman pagans to form a “church” to confuse and confound the Gospel of the Kingdom delivered at Sinai.”
And now were back to your ranting. You keep avoiding my questions. I bet everyone knows you have to.
“Paul gets it right in Romans and in Hebrews.”
And yet you can’t even come close to his example. Instead you have to post utter nonsense and run for cover when someone asks you some simple questions. Paul was a brave man. You should copy him rather than oppose him in practice.
“Moses’ Gospel and Paul’s are one and the same.”
If that were so then Paul would have insisted on circumcision. He doesn’t. Here are some Protestants who might be as anti-Catholic as you but have an apparently firmer grasp of reality about the difference between what Moses brought in covenant and what Christ brought and Paul preached:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q9StCY-ZOBA
“Rome’s is the broad path to destruction.”
Anti-Catholicism is a mental illness. I asked simple questions. You won’t answer them. I bet everyone knows why.
.
So, you don’t believe Paul; what’s new
.
“So, you don’t believe Paul; what’s new”
I do believe Paul. I also believe Moses. I just don’t confuse the two. No one needs circumcision to be in the covenant of Christ.
But keep avoiding my questions at all costs. You apparently have to anyway.
Circumcision has nothing to do with it.
Paul declared the “Oracles” (voice) of Yehova to be given to the House of Judah.
That obviously excludes the pagan Roman “church” completely. Their “canon” has no authority in Heaven, nor on Earth.
That which was not delivered by believers from the House of Judah (i.e. John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul) in their native language is not the word of Yehova.
.
“You continue to demonically cloud every issue.”
It’s amazing how you project like that.
“Circumcision has nothing to do with it.”
It did for Moses. That’s the point.
“Paul declared the “Oracles” (voice) of Yehova to be given to the House of Judah.”
Luke was Greek - and wrote a gospel and Acts under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. And in the Church there is no Jew or Greek. Keep flailing. It’s what you do best.
“That obviously excludes the pagan Roman “church” completely. Their “canon” has no authority in Heaven, nor on Earth.”
Except you use it if you’re a Christian. Your hypocrisy only embarrasses you.
“That which was not delivered by believers from the House of Judah (i.e. John, Peter, James, Jude, and Paul) in their native language is not the word of Yehova.”
And what was their native language? On a daily basis they spoke Aramaic. Sometimes they used Hebrew. They wrote in Greek - as well as Aramaic or Hebrew at times. Which one was their native language? Show a verse that declares which is their native language.
And what about Luke? He was Greek and wrote in Greek. Are you saying Luke’s gospel is NOT “is not the word of Yehova”?
You will probably not answer that question either. That’s fine because everyone will be able to surmise why if you don’t.
.
You are utterly devoid of Biblical understanding.
Circumcision has nothing to do with the Gospel of the Kingdom.
That Gospel was exactly the same when Moses preached it as when Paul preached it.
Paul assured us of that in his letter to the dispersed Hebrews.
Choke on it !
.
.
P.S. There is no evidence that Luke was a Greek. That is fable.
.
“P.S. There is no evidence that Luke was a Greek. That is fable.”
No, there is evidence:
1) His name is Greek.
2) He wrote in Greek.
3) He was universally said to be Greek by early Christians. No one ever said otherwise until the last few decades.
Thus, what you’re peddling is most likely the fable.
“You are utterly devoid of Biblical understanding.”
Actually, I apparently understand it far better than you do.
“Circumcision has nothing to do with the Gospel of the Kingdom.”
Yet you conflated the gospel of Moses and Paul as being the exact same thing (”Moses’ Gospel and Paul’s are one and the same.” - Post #48) when they clearly differ since one included circumcision and the other didn’t.
“That Gospel was exactly the same when Moses preached it as when Paul preached it.”
Except they weren’t (e.g. circumcision).
“Paul assured us of that in his letter to the dispersed Hebrews.”
Except Paul’s name is nowhere in Hebrews. So how do you know Luke wasn’t Greek (”There is no evidence that Luke was a Greek. That is fable.”) but you assume Paul wrote Hebrews when his name appears no where in the text of scripture in Hebrews? Hypocrisy is one of the mainstays of an anti-Catholic.
“Choke on it !”
Ah, the real sentiment of the anti-Catholic comes out. I won’t choke on it or anything else you dish out. I will just watch you continue to flounder and flail as you always do. Everyone has to have a calling in life: Yours apparently is to show how intellectually bankrupt and hypocritical anti-Catholicism is.
The cultural errors in both the “Gospel of Luke” and the Acts prove that neither was originally written in Greek.
Names get played with, all of them.
He isn’t “said to be Greek.”
‘Catholic’ on and keep us laughing.
.
“The cultural errors in both the “Gospel of Luke” and the Acts prove that neither was originally written in Greek.”
A cultural “error” would imply nothing about the original language of the text.
“Names get played with, all of them.”
Oh, come on.
“He isn’t “said to be Greek.””
Yes, he is. Even more specifically he is said to be a Greek from Antioch.
“‘Catholic’ on and keep us laughing.”
No reasonable person is laughing, but you might be.
And here I thought she only did so in order to wave to the Pope from a position where she might be seen.........and it evidently worked out.
It's certainly good to know you had a pathway into her heart to know what her intent was and can be assured that her climb was a total waste of time.........
.
Failure to properly relate a cultural idiom proves that the translator had no understanding of the underlying culture in the original language of the translated text.
Basically, all of the Greek translations of the Messianic writings were “babblefished” from Hebrew to other languages.
In the case of the Greek translations, the LXX was used as their babblefish.
I don’t expect you to understand any of this; your Bible understanding is childishly trivial.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.