The Neverending Story (The New Christian Chronicles)

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

[malakhi]

The Neverending Story
An ongoing debate on Scripture, Tradition, History and Interpretation.

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

Thread 162
TNS Archives

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I guess they haven't been paying very close attention.Bunch of Newbies. :)

BigMack

[malakhi]

I'm reading through your discussion of forgiveness, and wanted to interject a thought. In Judaism, forgiveness is a bilateral, not a unilateral, act. You cannot 'forgive' someone who has not repented and asked for forgiveness.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Your on #23272....By the time you read this I'll be in bed. Thats what you get for being a Vampire. :)

BigMack

[JHavard]

You cannot 'forgive' someone who has not repented and asked for forgiveness.

Living next to Palistine, I can understand that thinking. Lol JH

[Iowegian]

In Judaism, forgiveness is a bilateral, not a unilateral, act. You cannot 'forgive' someone who has not repented and asked for forgiveness.

That is interesting and I haven't heard that before. Is this derived from Scripture (if so where?) or some other source?

[malakhi]

we have lost alot of our friends over the last few years when we bacame fundalmentalist. We have not been biligerent about it at all, there has just been times when we would have liked to talk about it with people, and practically all of them are steering clear of us, family included.

Ya think maybe its Mack's "patrolling of the perimeter" that's scaring them off? ;o)

[fortheDeclaration]

The Church under Constance, was that a good thing or bad? And why? If you don't mind answering

I never mind answering a question (1Pet.3:15).

It was very bad!

It led to a combination of church and state which should never happen.

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Living next to Palistine, I can understand that thinking. Lol JH

hav. I'm kinda curious about how you mean this?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

the TR-808

Who makes it. Roland? Boss? Alesis?

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Ya think maybe its Mack's "patrolling of the perimeter" that's scaring them off? ;o)

It was when I started to build my "rack" that did it......(catholics have no sense of humor :)

BigMack

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Roland TR-808

"Fraggle Rocks"

:)

BigMack

[Invincibly Ignorant]

"Fraggle Rocks"

Lol. Do you remember that goofy show?

[Havoc]

I believe JH's answer is correct off the top of my head. But a more interesting question might be:

If Peter was in Rome from 42 ad to 67 ad, why did Paul need to write a lengthy letter to the Romans in 57AD?

Just another major issue to add to the pile of problems with the Catholic claims.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

No, never seen it, just remembered your post from last night.

BigMack

[malakhi]

"drot" posted on several Christian related threads, so I thought someone here might know something about him. He had an ill son and I was thinking about him and wanted to know how things were going. So if anybody knows anything let me know.

Mom, you seem to know everybody. Are you familiar with this freeper?

[Invincibly Ignorant]

If Peter was in Rome from 42 ad to 67 ad, why did Paul need to write a lengthy letter to the Romans in 57AD?

Ah. Let's see. Cuz Peter mostly hung out in the Suburbs? :-)

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

If Peter was in Rome from 42 ad to 67 ad, why did Paul need to write a lengthy letter to the Romans in 57AD?

Just another major issue to add to the pile of problems with the Catholic claims.

Just to add to the fire a bit:

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Peter was the bishop of the church at Rome and that he held the position as the first Pope. The Bible record conclusively testifies against this.

"In A.D. 57 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.

"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.

"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims].

"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.

"From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.

"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.

"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"

While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.

BigMack

[malakhi]

To bring that up (down, rather) to modern TV standards... The political correctness of having the right number of minorities is correct. But the prudishness would be totally gone. Instead, the sex aspect would be played up significantly. Eve, unnaturally thin, with surgically enhanced breasts, would leave the garden wearing a leather halter top and thong. Noah and the kids would be worth a whole months worth of incest humor. God would be completely absent. No virgins. No one would sleep with anyone they were married with. There would be a lot of campy innuendo about the 'beloved disciple' and his relationship with Jesus.

In other words, pretty much "Must See TV" Thursday nights on NBC.

[malakhi]

PATRIOTS 20 RAMS 17

WOW, WHAT A GAME!

Sorry Rams fans. I broke my pledge of not rooting for either team about halfway through the first quarter. I was pulling for the Patriots to get the upset.

We were getting the kids to bed when the fumble recovery for a touchdown was called back due to a holding penalty, so I didn't get to see what happened. Was the holding penalty a good call?

The Patriots did what they needed to do to win. They got turnovers, got points off of turnovers, and played tough enough on defense. I thought that during the pregame introduction, they looked loose, and not intimidated (unlike the Giants last year, who had 'failure' stamped on them before they even set foot on the field). I think they effectively countered the speed of the Rams offense with good coverage downfield, and HARD tackling. It helped that they were able to get pressure without blitzing too much.

Buh bye, Madden and Summerall. I can't believe they were questioning the Pat's decision to try to score with almost 1:30 left. The Patriots played to win, rather than to avoid losing.