To: Alex Murphy; bkaycee; blue-duncan; boatbums; CynicalBear; daniel1212; Gamecock; HossB86; Iscool; ...
2 posted on
04/30/2015 10:29:02 AM PDT by
RnMomof7
To: RnMomof7
In a word - nonsense.
Also, the treatment of Galileo was due to his rewriting the Bible, not his science. Copernicus was a monk and had none of the problems that did Galileo.
The matter of the primacy of Peter is merely one of whether someone trusts the Gospel (Matthew 16:17-19) or not. Perhaps Our Lord, Jesus, was simply making idle chit-chat. But I'm betting not.
Peace.
3 posted on
04/30/2015 10:38:54 AM PDT by
Montana_Sam
(Truth lives.)
To: RnMomof7
Good read. However, I might suggest that many of what is being called “presuppositions” are actually the result of “conclusions”. That is, someone said, “X is true.” That person held sway in the hearer’s thinking and they “concluded” that it was, therefore, true. Conclusions have a way of burrowing down deeply into our thinking until they seem like “presuppositions”, but if traced back to their origin, began as conclusions. Small point, I know, but I guess I just had to say it.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson