Posted on 12/27/2011 8:24:19 PM PST by RnMomof7
Few people aren't eccentric about at least some things. As to UFOs, Quix never said that he believed in actual "aliens" but in fallen angels posing as such to deceive the lost. But, let's be honest, that is hardly the reason you despise him, is it?
So long, Quix.
Like I said, by the end of the year FreeRepublic could end up consisting of a half dozen harpies chatting on the last FReepathon thread after getting everyone else banned.
Perhaps you've not seen the UFO groups' meeting minutes he used to post in threads and wax lyrical about humans being eaten in slurries by aliens. Then he'd tie them in with the Vatican and the one world order types. Some of them got really bizarre.
Doesn't the Church of the Y Generation interpret it as XBox?
How did God ensure we have the Bible? Do I need to start at the beginning? Yes, he DID use men, "but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." (II Peter 1:21) And first of all God did write on stone tablets and after that he spoke to Moses who wrote his words down. Then God inspired prophets to write his revelation. Then there was the Word made flesh, Jesus, who spoke and taught truths and then the Holy Spirit reminded those disciples of what Jesus taught after he ascended back to heaven and they also wrote down those words as lead by God the Holy Spirit. God chose Paul to reveal further truth to the believers through letters as did Peter and James, John and Jude. Copies were made of those letters by careful scribes just as those did and they were dispersed throughout the entire known world of believers. The following link goes into further detail http://themeliosproject.com/2010/02/07/reliability-of-the-scriptures/:
Throughout the centuries, men have sought to undermine the Bible and disprove it as what it claims to be: the inspired Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16-17, 2 Peter 1:20-21). Countless objections have been raised toward its accuracy and authenticity. How can we be sure that we hold the actual Scriptures in our hands today? Haven’t they been distorted and chopped up throughout the years? Doesn’t the Bible contradict itself? Wasn’t the Bible written down years after the events described in it took place?
For every question, there is an answer. Hopefully, in this post, many of those questions will indeed be answered. In exploring the reliability and authenticity of the Scriptures, four main points are going to be covered: 1) the textual validity the Bible, 2) the archaeological evidence that supports it, 3) the internal consistency of the Bible, and 4) the veracity and magnitude of the prophecies fulfilled in the Scriptures.
This link goes into further detail about The Formation of the Canon of the New Testament http://www.the-highway.com/ntcanon_Warfield.html:
IN ORDER to obtain a correct understanding of what is called the formation of the Canon of the New Testament, it is necessary to begin by fixing very firmly in our minds one fact which is obvious enough when attention is once called to it. That is, that the Christian church did not require to form for itself the idea of a “ canon,” — or, as we should more commonly call it, of a “Bible,” — that is, of a collection of books given of God to be the authoritative rule of faith and practice. It inherited this idea from the Jewish church, along with the thing itself, the Jewish Scriptures, or the “ Canon of the Old Testament.” The church did not grow up by natural law: it was founded. And the authoritative teachers sent forth by Christ to found His church, carried with them, as their most precious possession, a body of divine Scriptures, which they imposed on the church that they founded as its code of law. No reader of the New Testament can need proof of this; on every page of that book is spread the evidence that from the very beginning the Old Testament was as cordially recognized as law by the Christian as by the Jew. The Christian church thus was never without a “Bible” or a “canon.”
But the Old Testament books were not the only ones which the apostles (by Christ’s own appointment the authoritative founders of the church) imposed upon the infant churches, as their authoritative rule of faith and practice. No more authority dwelt in the prophets of the old covenant than in themselves, the apostles, who had been “made sufficient as ministers of a new covenant “; for (as one of themselves argued) “if that which passeth away was with glory, much more that which remaineth is in glory.” Accordingly not only was the gospel they delivered, in their own estimation, itself a divine revelation, but it was also preached “in the Holy Ghost” (I Pet. i. 12); not merely the matter of it, but the very words in which it was clothed were “of the Holy Spirit” (I Cor. ii. 13). Their own commands were, therefore, of divine authority (I Thess. iv. 2), and their writings were the depository of these commands (II Thess. ii. 15). “If any man obeyeth not our word by this epistle,” says Paul to one church (II Thess. iii. 14), “note that man, that ye have no company with him.” To another he makes it the test of a Spirit-led man to recognize that what he was writing to them was “the commandments of the Lord” (I Cor. xiv. 37). Inevitably, such writings, making so awful a claim on their acceptance, were received by the infant churches as of a quality equal to that of the old “Bible “; placed alongside of its older books as an additional part of the one law of God; and read as such in their meetings for worship — a practice which moreover was required by the apostles (I Thess. v. 27; Col. iv. 16; Rev. 1. 3). In the apprehension, therefore, of the earliest churches, the “Scriptures” were not a closed but an increasing “canon.” Such they had been from the beginning, as they gradually grew in number from Moses to Malachi; and such they were to continue as long as there should remain among the churches “men of God who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
There certainly are a few who don't seem to think the commandments of Jesus apply to them. They are always ready to insist everybody else MUST obey them, but they sure are selective when it comes to heading them themselves. Commands such as love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you (Matt. 5:44).
That's expecting a bit much, isn't it?
What do you think of the idiot children of the Reformation who claim that Jesus did not turn the water into actual wine?
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
How do you feel about Catholic priest getting drunk and gambling at church socials ?
Sorry. I was trying to explain some earlier comments, but those comments were also personal.
Getting drunk would be a problem. Playing bingo... not so much. But them, Mark was referring to doctrinal beliefs, you’re just spreading slander and calumny.
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.