Posted on 06/15/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by bkaycee
Haven’t read more than bits . . . it looks like an excellent doc.
THANKS TONS FOR POSTING IT.
Not sure when I’ll get to it.
Bless you in your efforts hereon.
INDEED.
NONSENSE.
Jesus didn't chose Paul as the 12th disciple. For a reason.
It is outside at the street/sidewalk behind St. Maria Maggiore.
Certainly seems that way, but I am sure people who know very little or nothing about the Church history or the Church in general, are probably easily impressed with his machinations.
Is that an argument of fact or your opinion? Do you understand the difference? Do you also understand that there are people who hold academic degrees in Bible study who do not agree with you? Are you the litmus test of what is true? If you are going to argue a point, then argue it with facts, not with axiomatic preusmptions.
Where does Moses speak of Jesus? The basis of your argument is not the OT but the NT.
Regarding your second question: Scripture is trustworthy, and is both internally and externally substantiated
That is not universally recognized as a fact. That may be one's belief or opinion, but not a fact.
Do you honestly expect me to answer your questions when you speak of pink unicorns from Jupiter? I mean, do you really/ Facts are something I’ve tried very hard to present to you. Scripture after scripture after scripture. But those facts aren’t good enough for you. I have nothing further to offer you than more scripture. Perhaps you will find the answers you’re looking for in searching out people who hold academic degrees in Bible study. or perhaps you will just end up more confused than ever because man’s opinion changes and is at best the opinion of a man. God’s Word never changes.
Neither Paul nor Luke were exactly unbiased sources, were they? So, why should I accept what they say as a matter of fact?
Isaiah had already prophesied that some would not believe
That is not a prophesy but a well known method of covering all your bases. I prophesy that some people will refuse to believe the earth is round...
People generally do not heed warnings, some try to ride out the calamities, etc. and then become breaking news stories. There will always be unbelievers; that in itself does not prove the "prophesy" is correct.
I warmly recommend that you read Jewish interpretations and provide me with evidence that they don't understand their own scripture better than Christians do.
Jesus picked up the Isaiah prophecy and applied it to Himself:
Jesus, or better yet whoever wrote the verses, supposedly picked up Psalm 100:1 and applied it to him too. The NT was written to show that Jesus was the Messiah. It doesn't mean it proves it. I know you believe it is true, and that's fine with me, but that doens't prove it either.
The bottom line is this: if the requirement to show the Bibe is true is that I must a priori believe it is true, then that is no proof at all. It is ciruclar reasoning.
Paul applied the Isaiah prophecy to Israel’s disbelief and gave the reason...that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in
Giving the reason as an opinion doesn't prove it either. Where is his proof that Israel was blinded until all the elect gentiles are "saved"? That is his theory which is apparently accepted as gospel without a shred of evidence.
Then why were they checking the scirptures (according to Luke)?
But pink unicorns on Jupiter are true. All you have to do is believe it. :)
This is precisely what you are offering me. More scripture. Why should I accept what is in the scriptures unless I already believe? In which case it is no proof. All I see are different tales and different people interpreting them differently.
You speak of the scripture as an immutable truth but offer no evidence that it is so except through blind acceptance. What kind of a "proof" is that? It's the pink unicorns on Jupiter kind of a "proof": you must believe it. Which, in an of itself, doesn't make it true.
Oh boy, someone got carried away!
The backbone of a religion called "Paulianity". :)
Uh, yeah we do. It is not possible to confess Jesus as Lord unless you follow His teachings. Period. If one attempts to do so then that one is a liar.
I am confident that you, as most people who cite Rom 10:9, try to live a holy and sanctified life in practice, even as they claim that it is not a need. But there are plenty that I have also met that do not...those who still lie, cheat, steal, whoremonger, abort, and so on while living in some sort of delusion that they have been saved forever and that their conduct has nothing to do with it one way or the other.
And those people are going to be in for a very nasty surprise come the particular judgment. To say nothing of those who taught them.
By the way, your citation of Luke 18:34 is probably not the best, as a Papist like myself could merely say that they did not understand that He was going to rise from the dead in three days. You might be better citing 1 Cor 2:14-15. (That is what I usually consider when somebody is utterly obtuse)
And I do appreciate that goal. Frankly, my goal in conversing with you is your salvation as well.
I wouldn't suspect that it would.
We accept that Tradition (creeds), because it is essentially a summary of scripture
And we accept Tradition (big "T" as opposed to little "t") in accordance with the Scriptures.
By the way, in regard to the citation from Galatians 1:8. You ought to consider that very, very, very carefully while looking in a mirror. You might also want to look at 2 Pet 2:1-3 while looking in that same mirror.
Why was a believer checking the Scriptures? lol ...
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.