Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conclusion from Peru and Mexico
email from Randall Easter | 25 January 2008 | Randall Easter

Posted on 01/27/2008 7:56:14 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 6,821-6,833 next last
To: Cvengr

A proof might provide rationalism cause for psychological certainty, but that is discernibly different than faith and belief. Faith is a system of spiritual perception, just as our five bodily senses might be used in empirical thinking, or as logic might be used in rational thinking. Empiricism and rationalism are void, though, when it comes to providing what God provides to us in Faith.

The Bible is used to express the Word of God. Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God.

= =

INDEED!


1,401 posted on 02/05/2008 10:29:42 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1381 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

Perhaps the most acclaimed and most respected full time profs at the college . . . has a 22 year old son with the mind of a 2 year old. Has to change his diapers.

A very loving father. And very patient.


1,402 posted on 02/05/2008 10:31:42 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1390 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Sorry, dear Kosta . . . but I still persistently find a LOT of ASSUMPTIONS in virtually all your posts.

Doesn’t per se make them evil . . . but when such a plethera of assumptions are stated as fact . . . I tend to quickly lose interest.


1,403 posted on 02/05/2008 10:33:18 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1392 | View Replies]

To: irishtenor

I think there are a LOT of surprises in store for every Christian . . . in eternity.

Roland Buck’s book:

ANGELS ON ASSIGNMENT

is a good hint at such . . . it’s available for free download on the net.


1,404 posted on 02/05/2008 10:34:37 PM PST by Quix (GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1399 | View Replies]

To: Quix

>>I wonder what the RCC would think if we started to use the term “Sado-Catholicism,” considering the hair shirts and self-flaggelation<<

Wouldn’t that be called “Maso-Catholicism”?


1,405 posted on 02/05/2008 10:44:30 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1396 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Have a blessed Lent, MD.


1,406 posted on 02/05/2008 10:52:11 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1363 | View Replies]

To: Quix
Sorry, dear Kosta . . . but I still persistently find a LOT of ASSUMPTIONS in virtually all your posts

I am sorry that you don't see that every belief is an assumption if you think about it.

Doesn’t per se make them evil . . . but when such a plethera of assumptions are stated as fact . . . I tend to quickly lose interest

What can I say, Q, I am nto as talented as others. :) I do what I can.

1,407 posted on 02/05/2008 11:20:29 PM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1403 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
It would be interesting to find out how many orthodox and Papist Romanist types think it would be better for a person to be unbaptized and/or unbelieving than to be Baptized and to believe in the Love of God.

I have had the impression that Apostolics do not believe it is possible for people to love God on a large scale outside of an Apostolic Church. Whenever the subject has come up, Apostolics HAVE consistently told me that they allow for salvation and the love of God outside the Apostolic Church. However, the way it has always been described to me was in the nature of perhaps a person here or a person there, like the way we say that we are sure there are some Mormons in Heaven. Anyway, that's what I had in mind when I wrote my comment.

1,408 posted on 02/05/2008 11:35:53 PM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1074 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
But English-language bibles "solve" this problem by offering just the kind of bible you need. The NIV substitutes "Aramaic" for every NT KJV reference to "Hebrew" (language). NAB has four references to Aramaic (only in the OT), and KJV has NO "Aramaic" in the OT or the NT!

The KJ uses talitha cumi in Mk.5:41,which is, I believe, an Aramaic expression, the same word that the NIV uses.

1,409 posted on 02/05/2008 11:56:14 PM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1299 | View Replies]

To: kosta50

Don’t take my word for it, take His. That veracity is far greater than any proof man has ever conceived.


1,410 posted on 02/05/2008 11:58:08 PM PST by Cvengr (Fear sees the problem emotion never solves. Faith sees & accepts the solution, problem solved.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1388 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg; Quix; 1000 silverlings; blue-duncan; the_conscience; wmfights; HarleyD; Forest Keeper; ...
we would not think that being kept from knowledge was a sign of God's favor.

Another fragmented thought that challenges a position no one holds.

From another thread...

"In opposition to (Rome,) Hodge, following the lead of Calvin, stresses the fact that the whole set of sinful man needs to be renewed by the power of the Holy Spirit. The natural man must be "renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him" (Col. 3:10)...

This renovation is said to be not in knowledge, much less by knowledge, but unto knowledge, so that he knows. Knowledge is the effect of the renovation spoken of."


1,411 posted on 02/06/2008 12:02:29 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1362 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat; Quix
Maso-Catholicism

Some of us may have thought it, but you said it.

1,412 posted on 02/06/2008 12:07:32 AM PST by Dr. Eckleburg ("I don't think they want my respect; I think they want my submission." - Flemming Rose)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1405 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Eckleburg
By way of contrast, in my tradition, knowledge is considered a good thing, and consequently we would not think that being kept from knowledge was a sign of God's favor.

I guess he never read Genesis 2:17!

1,413 posted on 02/06/2008 12:28:04 AM PST by fortheDeclaration ("Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people".-John Adams)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1411 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; Uncle Chip; the_conscience; MarkBsnr
FK: "Why don't they see that when they mock those who believe that Paul's writings are true, they are also mocking Paul, as well as God? "

So, questioning is the same as mocking? I spent the early part of my life in a place where it was a crime to question "official truth." I have promised myself ever since my parents brought me to this country, to never accept "official truth" just because some people say it's "sacred."

Sometimes questioning is the same as mocking, and sometimes it isn't. It just depends on the presentation. But I'm not really bent out of shape over any of that as it concerns ME. I just don't like it when Christians go after Paul. :)

Now, of course questions are perfectly appropriate. If the scriptures were not God-breathed, then questions would be inappropriate because they would defeat the faith. However, since the scriptures ARE God-breathed it is fully able to take on all comers. At least, that is my position. We run into problems when we cannot agree on what the Bible means by "scriptures" and what "God-breathed" means. Those presuppositions are critical to our respective views of the Bible. Of course without common presuppositions, it is extremely difficult for our side to convince you that the Bible proves itself. If the Bible really IS just "some other book", then your objections would appear quite valid. Based on available information, Peter probably couldn't have written 1 and 2 Peter, etc.

1,414 posted on 02/06/2008 1:32:34 AM PST by Forest Keeper (It is a joy to me to know that God had my number, before He created numbers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1080 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Thank you Quix for post #1267. Well put.


1,415 posted on 02/06/2008 2:20:55 AM PST by Joya (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior, have mercy on me, a sinner!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1267 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
*** We run into problems when we cannot agree on what the Bible means by "scriptures" and what "God-breathed" means. Those presuppositions are critical to our respective views of the Bible. Of course without common presuppositions, it is extremely difficult for our side to convince you that the Bible proves itself.***

Hear Hear!

1,416 posted on 02/06/2008 5:16:35 AM PST by the_conscience ('The human mind is a perpetual forge of idols'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr; kosta50; wmfights; Forest Keeper; fortheDeclaration
When they are not definitive, we must turn to other sources. In this case, the meticulate archives of the Jewish people themselves serve most masterfully. They know, and have kept the records, of what language they spoke, and when, and where. Their priestly class was, unlike 95 percent or better of the world, literate and prided itself on that literacy and the maintaining of the records of history.

Well then are you telling us that when the writers of the New Testament used the word "Hebrew" that they really meant "Syriac" which is well known to be "Aramaic" ------ not "Hebrew"????

Are you saying that the people of that day couldn't tell the difference between "Hebrew" and "Syriac/Aramaic"????

Then you also must be saying that all the ecclesiastical writers of the ante nicene period were also likewise confused --- including your own writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia. Here -- read it and weep:

"Let us now recall the testimony of the other ecclesiastical writers on the Gospel of St. Matthew. St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III, i, 2) affirms that Matthew published among the Hebrews a Gospel which he wrote in their own language. Eusebius (Hist. eccl., V, x, 3) says that, in India, Pantænus found the Gospel according to St. Matthew written in the Hebrew language, the Apostle Bartholomew having left it there. Again, in his "Hist. eccl." (VI xxv, 3, 4), Eusebius tells us that Origen, in his first book on the Gospel of St. Matthew, states that he has learned from tradition that the First Gospel was written by Matthew, who, having composed it in Hebrew, published it for the converts from Judaism. According to Eusebius (Hist. eccl., III, xxiv, 6), Matthew preached first to the Hebrews and, when obliged to go to other countries, gave them his Gospel written in his native tongue. St. Jerome has repeatedly declared that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew ("Ad Damasum", xx; "Ad Hedib.", iv), but says that it is not known with certainty who translated it into Greek. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, St. Epiphanius, St. John Chrysostom, St. Augustine, etc., and all the commentators of the Middle Ages repeat that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew. Erasmus was the first to express doubts on this subject: "It does not seem probable to me that Matthew wrote in Hebrew, since no one testifies that he has seen any trace of such a volume." This is not accurate, as St. Jerome uses Matthew's Hebrew text several times to solve difficulties of interpretation, which proves that he had it at hand. Pantænus also had it, as, according to St. Jerome ("De Viris Ill.", xxxvi), he brought it back to Alexandria. However, the testimony of Pantænus is only second-hand, and that of Jerome remains rather ambiguous, since in neither case is it positively known that the writer did not mistake the Gospel according to the Hebrews (written of course in Hebrew) for the Hebrew Gospel of St. Matthew. However all ecclesiastical writers assert that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew, and, by quoting the Greek Gospel and ascribing it to Matthew, thereby affirm it to be a translation of the Hebrew Gospel." [Catholic Encyclopedia; Gospel of Matthew]

HEBREW --- HEBREW --- HEBREW --- No one can seem to spell the word "Syriac/Aramaic" correctly, including Jerome who translated his Latin OT directly from the "HEBREW" -- not from the "Syriac/Aramaic".

Is that what you are saying ---- that none of you, including your church fathers and present day magisterium, know how to spell words correctly???????

1,417 posted on 02/06/2008 5:21:44 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1369 | View Replies]

To: Forest Keeper
Sometimes questioning is the same as mocking, and sometimes it isn't. It just depends on the presentation

Yes, to a large extent. But, if you think about it, mocking is never really questioning because the intent is not to get to the bottom of an issue, but to ridicule it.

We run into problems when we cannot agree on what the Bible means by "scriptures" and what "God-breathed" means. Those presuppositions are critical to our respective views of the Bible

Because we are talking about perceptions and not necessarily the truth. And who or what shapes our perceptions is behind our disagreements.

A criminal doesn't necessarily think he is doing something 'wrong' for stealing cigarettes at a gas station and killing the obstinate clerk who decided to be in his way. Man's gotta smoke, and if you don't have the money, well then feeding your addiction by stealing and killing seems perfectly "justified" in the criminal's mind! You are messing with his needs now...so we have to be careful before we assume that our position is "justified" because that's how we perceive it.

If you assume the Bible is inerrant word of God, than the Bible doesn't have to prove itself, and anyone who questions it is automatically wrong, and blasphemous, and that just may be sufficient 'justification' to be deprived of life.

Look at the case of a 23-year-old journalist in Afghanistan who will most probably end his young life on gallows. His crime: insult to Islam. The charge for which he has been found guilty and sentenced to death by an Afghan judge: he downloaded a page from the Internet, and shared it with his students.

The document asked why is having more than one wife in Islam acceptable when it come to men, but having more than one husband is not acceptable when it comes to women! (the answer is quite simple and not so ridiculous as one might think)

And, for this he is going to die? All this on presumption of those in power that the Koran is "holy" and "God-breathed" and that anyone questioning it is as good as dead—because to fundamentalist minds questioning the official truth is as good as mocking it?

This is fundamentalism, FK. It is the same mental process regardless which religion or political system is involved; it varies only in degree.

1,418 posted on 02/06/2008 5:30:18 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1414 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
The KJ uses talitha cumi in Mk.5:41,which is, I believe, an Aramaic expression, the same word that the NIV uses

I didn't say they don't use Aramaic words, I said NIV substitutes the (proper) name Hebrew (actually "Hebraisti" not "Ioudisti") with a (proper) name Aramaic for the name of the languge in the NT. NAB does in four instances in the OT, and the KJV calls everything Hebrew and does not use the name Aramaic in the NT.

1,419 posted on 02/06/2008 5:37:02 AM PST by kosta50 (Eastern Orthodoxy is pure Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1409 | View Replies]

To: kosta50; MarkBsnr
I didn't say they don't use Aramaic words, I said NIV substitutes the (proper) name Hebrew (actually "Hebraisti" not "Ioudisti") with a (proper) name Aramaic for the name of the languge in the NT. NAB does in four instances in the OT, and the KJV calls everything Hebrew and does not use the name Aramaic in the NT.

So then if we go back and check any of your earlier posts we won't find in any of them where you said or implied that the Greek word "Hebraisti" actually means "Chaldee" or "Aramaic" or something other than "Hebrew"????

1,420 posted on 02/06/2008 6:20:58 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1419 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,381-1,4001,401-1,4201,421-1,440 ... 6,821-6,833 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson