Posted on 10/05/2001 3:08:36 PM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 157
Dunno what you'll think of Emo Phillip's call for doctrinal purity:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said 'Stop! don't do it!'
'Why shouldn't I?' he said.
I said, 'Well, there's so much to live for!'
He said, 'Like what?'
I said, 'Well...are you religious or atheist?'
He said, 'Religious.'
I said, 'Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?'
He said, 'Christian.'
I said, 'Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?'
He said, 'Protestant.'
I said, 'Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?'
He said, 'Baptist!'
I said, 'Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist church of God or Baptist church of the lord?'
He said, 'Baptist church of God!'
I said, 'Me too! Are you original Baptist church of God, or are you reformed Baptist church of god?'
He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of God!'
I said, 'Me too! Are you reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1879, or reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915?'
He said, 'Reformed Baptist church of God, reformation of 1915!'
I said, 'Die, heretic scum,' and pushed him off.
A saint was once given the gift of speaking the language of the ants. He approached one, who seemed the scholarly type and asked:
"What is the Almighty like? Is He in any way similar to the ant?"Said the ant, "The Almighty? Certainly not!
We ants, you see, have only one sting. But the Almight, he has two!"A bitter controversy rages among ant religious schools of thought as to where exactly the second sting is located on the heavenly body of the ant.
A man watched a monkey lift a fish from the water and place it in tree. "What are you doing?" he asked. "Why I'm saving it from drowning."
The Word became flesh; He came to dwell among us... through Him all things came to be; no single thing was created without Him. All that came to be was alive with His life, and that life was the light of men. The light shines on in the dark, and the darkness has never quenched it.
The Word became flesh.. Who can change flesh back into words?
Could it be you guys are just a little jealous?! ;^D
Re: 1 Tim. 3:15 "But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth."
Well, no one asked me 8^( but I would argue that the "truth" which Paul is referring to here is the Word of God (Jesus' words to the Father: "THY WORD IS TRUTH."), or the Gospel ( Paul's words: " ...the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation..." Eph 1:13 and Col. 1:5). The church is the "pillar and foundation of truth" because it has been entrusted with the Word of God and exists to uphold it and hold it up!
So, the scriptures are not the pillar and foundation of truth; they represent Truth itself. The Church is the pillar and foundation which uphold the scriptures. WHAT AN AWESOME RESPONSIBILITY AND PRIVILEGE WE HAVE !
SD, I can't find that verse about Mary being full of grace. I've heard it, though. (Or I could be confusing it with the Hail Mary recitation.) I did a word search and did find where JESUS is said to be "full of grace" and Stephen (the deacon) to be "full of grace" (as well as other virtues).
Hi, David. Yes, Jesus is the divine Logos--- "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God....and the Word became flesh [my heart sings!] and dwelt among us..." And I know that He will one day sit in judgment... But what was in my mind when I posted were the words of Christ in John 12, where He said: "Whoever rejects Me and does not accept my words has something to judge him: the WORD that I spoke, it will condemn him on the last day."
However, you raise an interesting point about "the Word of God" (Christ's title) being equated with the collection of holy scripture. What follows are the verses which contain that phrase:
1 Kings 12:22 But this word of God came to Shemaiah the man of God:
1 Chronicles 17:3 That night the word of God came to Nathan, saying:
Proverbs 30:5 Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.
Matthew 15:6 he is not to `honor his father' with it. Thus you nullify the word of God for the sake of your tradition.
Mark 7:13 Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that."
Luke 3:2 during the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the desert.
Luke 5:1 One day as Jesus was standing by the Lake of Gennesaret, with the people crowding around him and listening to the word of God,
Luke 8:11 This is the meaning of the parable: The seed is the word of God.
Luke 11:28 He replied, "Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it."
John 10:35 If he called them `gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken--
Acts 4:31 After they prayed, the place where they were meeting was shaken. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.
Acts 6:2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, "It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables.
Acts 6:7 So the word of God spread. The number of disciples in Jerusalem increased rapidly, and a large number of priests became obedient to the faith.
Acts 8:14 When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them.
Acts 11:1 The apostles and the brothers throughout Judea heard that the Gentiles also had received the word of God.
Acts 12:24 But the word of God continued to increase and spread.
Acts 13:5 When they arrived at Salamis, they proclaimed the word of God in the Jewish synagogues. John was with them as their helper.
Acts 13:7 who was an attendant of the proconsul, Sergius Paulus. The proconsul, an intelligent man, sent for Barnabas and Saul because he wanted to hear the word of God.
Acts 13:46 Then Paul and Barnabas answered them boldly: "We had to speak the word of God to you first. Since you reject it and do not consider yourselves worthy of eternal life, we now turn to the Gentiles.
Acts 17:13 When the Jews in Thessalonica learned that Paul was preaching the word of God at Berea, they went there too, agitating the crowds and stirring them up.
Acts 18:11 So Paul stayed for a year and a half, teaching them the word of God.
1 Corinthians 14:36 Did the word of God originate with you? Or are you the only people it has reached?
2 Corinthians 2:17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.
2 Corinthians 4:2 Rather, we have renounced secret and shameful ways; we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.
Ephesians 6:17 Take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
Philippians 1:14 Because of my chains, most of the brothers in the Lord have been encouraged to speak the word of God more courageously and fearlessly.
Colossians 1:25 I have become its servant by the commission God gave me to present to you the word of God in its fullness--
Thessalonians 2:12-14 And we also thank God continually because, when you received the word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the word of God, which is at work in you who believe.
1 Timothy 4:5 because it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.
Titus 2:5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 6:5 who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age,
Hebrews 13:7 Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.
1 Peter 1:23 For you have been born again, not of perishable seed, but of imperishable, through the living and enduring word of God.
1 John 2:14 I write to you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write to you, young men, because you are strong, and the word of God lives in you, and you have overcome the evil one.
Revelation 1:2 who testifies to everything he saw--that is, the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Revelation 1:9 I, John, your brother and companion in the suffering and kingdom and patient endurance that are ours in Jesus, was on the island of Patmos because of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus.
Revelation 6:9 When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained.
Revelation 19:13 He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God.
Revelation 20:4 I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony for Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or his image and had not received his mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Do any of these phrases refer to the collection of writings that make up Scripture? Interesting. Yours truly, Hopefulpilgrim
...just pray to You in my own words ?????? Did that ever occur to the guy? Who ever said we had to use a book of sample prayers?
Do y'all know the one about the Baptist, Catholic, Muslim, and Methodist missionaries that were eaten by a cannibal on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, respectively...and on Friday the cannibal had an ecumenical movement? 8^ P
Dumb story and foolish central character. Prayer is not something we read from a book, it is a conversation with God. If one cannot talk to God without reading a script, then one has no idea who God is. Imagine if your wife could not address you unless she had a book in her hand to read responses from - not translating - just made up words chose from a list..:
flip flip flip, "My stomach aches for food, cans't though tell it when it will be filled" (translation, page 4 - when is dinner).
Wife: flip flip flip, "Norm!" oops, wrong book. flip flip, "The pancakes will be ready in fifteen minutes after preparing the ingredients"(translation, page 2,000,486 - whenever).
Imagine if your entire family did the same - nobody could speak to you unless they read the words from some script. It's called being plastic and so useless as to be unable to think for oneself. If one has to read prayers from a prayerbook, they're doomed in spiritual combat. But then they'd be so decieved as to think 'spiritual combat' a metaphor.
The great person in prayer is not one who can memorize and repeat verbatim a script. The great person in prayer is the one that can communicate with the Lord - One who knows the will of the Lord and the authority he has through God. Reading prewritten prayers is a monument to ignorance of a relationship with God.
God doesn't want you reading what someone else had to say in a pre-written formula. He wants to hear from your heart - not someones prepared remarks and wishlist for all occasions in order of topic. "For a new car, turn to chapter 3. For good weather, chapter 5." Note, such a thing could easily be called witchcraft.. If you're reading it and expecting a pre-determined result with no regard for God's will - just saying words, you are relying on the script to get what you want instead of relying on God. This is witchcraft. Only in witchcraft they'd call it an incantation. Theyed burn candles for the occasion and perform little rituals. I'd note that prayer beeds were not made up by Catholicism, they were imported from pagan religion. They are used in ritual for "centering" which is the new age terminology for clearing the mind. If you don't know things spiritual, you won't know the significance of that either. Or how wrong it is. Prayer beads are about as useful as the memorized prayer - try walking into your home each day and saying the same paragraph to your wife 26 times . I can tell you how long it would take to be over it. Repeating prayers is a form of taking God's name in vain. And it's because you aren't waiting on an answer from him; but, from a ritual. Again, witchcraft. It is witchcraft because your invoking a man made ritual and expecting a programmed response. I know that'll tick off a few people; but, God doesn't work on rituals - he works on conversation based on obedience to his will. Men have just tried to make him perform like a puppet through the pagan rituals God always has found offensive.
Clement is toilet paper. I've read it. It has no flow of thought, just an endless cut and paste of verses from other works with know logical order of thought and no central message. It is someone attempting to look genuine while dropping suggestion. The primacy statement in the volume is dropped in out of nowhere and the thought dissappears into a morass of other senseless groupings including one passage from pagan mythos stated as fact (story of the pheonix). This is why nobody buys it outside your circles. It smaks of fraud so loudly...
Clement I hints at this; the Apocolypse of Peter says Peter did.
The Apocolypse of Peter.. who cares? It tries to be scripture and was rejected as such. Therefore, what weight in believeability do we give it? If it isn't inspired and fails on that mark, then it's historical significance is highly dubious and must be substantiated. Failing an ability to substantiate what it says, your left with what amounts to fiction.
Revelations evidently identifies hated Rome with hated Babylon, as each had destroyed the temple of God.
Revelation was written 31 years after ya'll say he died. And the author of Revelation states plainly that the message he writes is from God, not from himself. Therefore, it doesn't establish common usage. Though others borrowed from Revelation after it was written and it later became common usage - that *can* be shown. But during Peter's time, it is nowhere established that it was common usage - nowhere. If it wasn't common usage during the time that I Peter was written, then you have no argument. Peter could hardly appeal to common usage in making a statement if that common usage does not exist.
By 160-170, according to Arnold Toynbee in his book the Shrine of Peter, The aedecula, a memorial to Peter had been set up on Vatican Hill,and it was at that spot, which is under the main altar of Peter, that the digging you mock have taken place, and which found a grave and written reference to Peter. Certain Ireneus was so certain of the tradition that it made it part of his argument. Most historians are more willing to accept this evidence than any tendentius and sectarian theories based on the spotty history in the New Testament.
Ireneus isn't the tower of credibility either. And Toynbee isn't saying anything we don't know from other places. Doesn't make it anymore authoritative. But I understand the approach - the more Catholic and pro Catholic authors that repeat the claim, the more likely someone will bite and believe it - Not Hardly. Proof is required and not just because a Catholic is saying it. Ya'll have no credibility on claims made - none. Therefore, requiring proof from you is prudent. The primary issue here is we have a pretty good understanding from the Bible as to where Peter was and where he *was not*. The thing yall miss is that I Peter is actually dated slightly before II Timothy. I don't think ya'll actually missed it so much as understand the significance of the fact and can't argue it. Which is why I raise it.
But apart from that, take a look at your argument that Peter had no business in Rome. Even if the cities of Mesopotamia had large numbers of Jews, Peter still had business everywhere if he was reaching out to the Jews. One out every ten inhabitants in the Roman Empire was Jewish, and all its major cities:- Rome, Alexandria and Antioch being the largest-- had large Jewish colonies.
Back up the cart there spanky, Judea was under roman control. Let's play Mr. obvious for a moment, shall we? Population numbers are based on overall population added up and divided against how many of culture x. This doesn't mean x was scattered thoroughly. And where are you getting your numbers? Next point: There was already someone in Rome with things well in hand by the writing of I Peter. And I Peter could not have been written from Rome. Could not have been. II Timothy was written between 65-67. By the writing of I Timothy, Mark isn't in the Picture - He's off with Peter. By II Timothy, Paul is sending for Mark outside of Italy. These people are in movement with a purpose. Italy is covered. Peter has a ministry to the Jews. And you want to argue that Peter left the Biggest Jewish population in the world to go preach to 'little jerusalem' in Rome.. Noting that we don't know how many jews were concentrated in Rome Proper or even in all of Italy, it is safe to say that If the largest concentration is at Babylon and Peter was teaching Gentiles alongside the Jews. There is no reason for him to turn around and go to Rome where we already know Paul has talked to the Jews alongside the Gentiles. Peter has no reason to minister to those who already are being ministered to.
und the Mediterranean than it would ever again be until the 20th Century. So he not only had the duty, he had the ability to live up to that duty, because travel within the Roman empire was easier in the 1st and second centuries than it would every again be until the 20th Century. The fact that Paul could appeal to Rome and reasonably expect to be transported there, show how easy it would have been for Peter to make the same trip.
The problem again is the misnomer that because a small population of jews existed that Peter had to be present, not the case. there were others commissioned to that ministry as well that could easily have fit the purpose if that was needed. They weren't there either. Again. If Peter ministered to Gentiles in the crowds he taught and Paul ministered to Jews. It is not an attrocity, They were meeting their primary obligations and taking care of others alongside. If your job is to raise wheat, it's inconsequential if you have Apple trees on the same property, But you go where the wheat grows and you plant that as your major crop. You don't go where wheat barely thrives and plant apple trees as your majority crop.
I can explain very easily from the Bible without having to make excuses. Why is it you guys constantly have to beg the what ifs and stretch the boundaries of reason? Hmmm. We're not talking about deep spiritual things here, this is common sense stuff. And you are squirming and grasping at straws to give an appearance that your story works. It doesn't. That's another reason why you need PROOF. You accuse Peter of being a liar - discount the fact that when Paul sent for Mark between 65-67 Mark was Not even in Italy, let alone Rome and was with Peter. If Mark wasn't in Italy, neither was Peter. Simple Algebra: If a=b and a <> c, then b <> c (ie Not c!). If the two were together, heck lets make it three, Silas was there too. If the three were together and one of them isn't in Italy, none of them are in Italy. Unless you know how human beings can be two places at once, you have a pretty High and thick wall to get through.
So we need to be evangelizing everyone who's not in our church? I'm going to start an outreach to the Lutherans... what the...?
There are millions around the world who agree with me and disagree with you. This argument against sola Scriptura is not persuasive either.
But when there are millions more who use the same methodology and who disagree with you about foundational teachings, the argument against "Scripture alone" becomes that much more apparent and persuasive.
Pray for John Paul II
i've got tears in my eyes and I'm trying not to wake anyone
Pssst - it's only in their version... know what I mean. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink, know what I mean?
Immediately the word falacious springs to mind. Two Words for you "Broad path" and "Chinese". You're appeal on believeability based on what others think relagates it to popularity based on reason. 'The way of a man seems right to him but it's end is destruction.' Remember Proverbs. It was so important it is said Twice in short space and verbatim the same. If you can't check it against God's word it isn't worth spit. Seems you all have a problem understanding what God's word is. Let me give you a hint - it is Consistent. It doesn't contradict itself. Knowing we have 66 reliable books, if something pretends to authority and it doesn't line up with the authority we have, it's trash - cause last I knew, God hasn't changed the new covenant.
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.