The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

Southern Baptists ending talks with Catholic Church ^ | 3/24/01 | AP

[hopefulpilgrim]

That's great except nobody ever gets to discover calculus.

If "calculus" is in there to be discovered, and someone wants to learn, he/she will surely get there.

[Iowegian]

Care to take a stab at my question du jour? Is your understanding of God the same now as it was when you were first saved? Does that mean God or the Truth changed or does it mean you understanding grew?

Before I answer your question, answer some for me. Aren't you one of those who chastise us proddies for supposedly believing in things that you say can't be tracked back to the first or second centuries? Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote? So which is it to be? You guys always want to have it both ways. Does your body ever hurt from the constant contortions you go through?

[RobbyS]

Try putting yourself, at least in thought, amidst the tumult of real religious controversy,as in the 4th and fifth centuries which goes beyond mere scholastic squabbling, and results in the establishment of dogmas and the doctrines that flow logically from those dogmas. Thus, no Theotokos; no Christianity.

[JHavard]

JH, you are either invincibly ignorant or willfully Lying .

Uh... dadwags you might want to chech this out before you eat your plate of crow.

Thank you Big Mack, but which one were you helping me out of, the "Invincibly ignorant one, or the "willfully Lying" one?

I can't seem to make up my mind which one I like, the invincibly part sounds nice, but I don't care for the ignorant part. Then on the willfully Lying one, I can live with willfully, but then I don't lie, so there goes the lying part. Hummmmm, I wonder if I could take "willfully invincible", and let them keep the ignorant lying part? :-)

[malakhi]

Berasheet bara Elohiem (Aleph Tav or Alpha Omega) .......... In the beginning G-d(s) the Alpha & Omega created from nothing the heaven and earth....... Do I read that right?

Close, but no cigar:

Bereshit bara Elohim et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

"In the beginning God created heaven and earth."

Elohim is not properly translated 'God(s)'.

[First Conservative]

Re your #438. (Re ur screen name - don't you wish!)

You either did not read very much of the site:

http://www.users.aol.com/libcfl/libc.htm

Or, you were intentionally trying to mislead or deceive (no RC would do that - would they?). Lurkers,(and others) check out the site for yourselves.

The site is that of the Landmark Independent Baptist Church of Archer, FL. The only reference to Calvinism relates to Sovereign Grace (Eph 1:4-5) which has always existed - long before Calvin.

Anyone that might think Baptists would accept or agree to "infant baptism" is truly ignorant. Thousands of baptists (anabaptists and other baptists by other names) have been martyred for resisting this heresy. Independent Baptists believe in Scriptural baptism of Believers, as did ALL early Christians, and NOT infant baptism. This website clearly explains why.

This website is also a source for describing the New Testament Church that was founded by Jesus and exists today. This is the church of God from which apostate Baptists with the error of infant baptism began the Roman Catholic Church beginning about 250 A.D.

I am certain "IMRight" (LOL) is aware of this.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Try putting yourself, at least in thought, amidst the tumult of real religious controversy,as in the 4th and fifth centuries which goes beyond mere scholastic squabbling, and results in the establishment of dogmas and the doctrines that flow logically from those dogmas. Thus, no Theotokos; no Christianity.

And we all wonder why catholics have so much trouble with the simple Word of God. :)

BigMack

[malakhi]

but we already have word from the Bible that the Pharisees, among others, used tradition to make the scriptures of none effect

Havoc, in Deuteronomy, God gave men authority to interpret the Law. Jesus himself acknowledged the authority of the Pharisees to interpret the Law.

Please keep in mind too what I have pointed out previously: that the Pharisees were not a monolithic group. The Shammaites were much more 'rigid' and 'legalistic', and likely were the group that drew Jesus's ire. On the other hand, Jesus had a great deal in common with the Hillelites.

[First Conservative]

Re your #447.

Once again (as always), you affirm that you are still a "post!"

TRUTH slides past you without recognition like water off of a duck's back. That is really sad.

[malakhi]

Why is it that somehow your (RC) understanding grew and developed, but when we come up with something contrary to your beliefs (even if we cite Biblical support) you say it isn't what the apostles or church fathers wrote?

Good point, Io.

[malakhi]

Hummmmm, I wonder if I could take "willfully invincible", and let them keep the ignorant lying part? :-)

How about 'invincibly willful'? ;o)

[First Conservative]

Re your #448.

What was all that gibberish you posted about? I could not recognize a response to anything that I have posted - although you addressed it to me. Don't bother trying to rephrase it.

[Proud2BAmerican]

I agree! ;-)

[JHavard]

This is the church of God from which apostate Baptists with the error of infant baptism began the Roman Catholic Church beginning about 250 A.D.

FC, I have begun to develop mental pictures of all the guys and gals that partisipate on these threads, and if I was as good at cartooning as I used to be, I would love to do caricatures of all you people.

As far as you are concerned, I haven't got all your details worked out yet, but I'll tell you this much, for you I would start with a likeness to a pit bull, and work from there.

Congratulations, you are wearing them down.
your friend, JH

[First Conservative]

Re your #533.

Regarding your feigned failure to understand why baptists and other fundamentalists did not attend the Church Councils called by the Roman Emperor, perhaps you shoud re-read Matthew 22:21 ("...render unto Caesar...) in context to see what Jesus says - but you know that - you just choose to ignore it as does your RC church(sic).

[First Conservative]

Re your #540.

Since your Catholic(sic) sect did not exist in the First Century when the New Testament was written, how can you possibly claim "your church wrote the NT?"

In view of 2 Tim 3:16-17, and 2 Pet 1:20-21 your claim borders on blasphemy!

[malakhi]

I agree! ;-)

P2BA, I don't find that in scripture anywhere... ;o)

I did find this in an apocryphal book:

Jason agreed that if the office were conferred upon him he would pay the king three thousand six hundred and sixty talents annually. (4 Maccabees 4:17)

[Titanites]

"Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?" (Mt. 13:55-56).

Mary was very busy and had a lot more than these few children, didn't she?

After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once... (1Cor 15:6)

And that doesn't even include all his sisters.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Try putting yourself, at least in thought, amidst the tumult of real religious controversy,as in the 4th and fifth centuries which goes beyond mere scholastic squabbling, and results in the establishment of dogmas and the doctrines that flow logically from those dogmas. Thus, no Theotokos; no Christianity.

Try putting yourself beyond these vain babblings.

[Pelayo]

Not only do you have no idea of what I'm talking about, but you also still did not answer my question. Is it to hard? BTW I liked how you tried to prove your point with the Evolution problem and the Galileo affair in the same argument.

As usual with you guys, you never can get it right, can you. Logic and reason may be employed to better explain things. But, your individual logic and reason - absent that of God, cannot understand the spiritual truths of God.

First, it has not been proved logically that we got anything wrong to begin with. Second where do you get the idea that human reason means human understanding? I can believe certain things because they are logical (i.e. There is a God, He is Perfect, Evil is to be avoided) however I may or may not be able to understand them. Fortunately my human reason kicks in and critically asks "why should I understand? I'm not God."

Anything else to cry about while you're at it, or would you rather just ask how you can get the holy spirit and learn something?

Oh nice "superior Christian" attitude. How about you answer my question about the photos/images thing.