Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 53 to 65 of 73
  1. #53
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,943
    Your really stretching things there, remember. The bible is really the only accounting of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ and there is no evidence of Jesus not being dead and resurrected exactly as was prophesied from the bible.

    All of the conjecture of "did he die, was he "really" dead" is all simple agnostic and gnostic rantings to attempt to dispute Christian belief. Without the resurrection, Christianity is worthless.

    For those who don't want to believe that Jesus was God incarnate that is your God given right to make that decision. I would seriously think about what it is that makes those who do not believe so adament in wanting to prove to others that what they believe is not true. Just where does such a notion come from? What is behind the attempts to discredit Jesus the Christ?

    Ask more questions and the answers will be better.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  2. #54
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Grand Forks, MN
    Posts
    1,373
    "Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?" - Job38:2

    like I said,
    you are trying to prove your point thru repetition.

    you say ,I need to study history to see that jesus was god.
    that is meaningless.
    the study of history leads one to the conclusion that jesus was a fanatic that was executed for disorderly conduct and stirring up resurrection.
    there are people like that in every generation.


    that is foolishness.
    is all historical study objective, much less the writers?

    and there is writing by their followers and/or con-men wishing to embellish a story for personal gain.
    at the same time there are people writing of the fraud these fanatics are trying to pull.


    you keep repeating your limited knowledge.
    as if you have read everything to arrive at a conclusion, how ignorant.

    the romans used as a marketing tool (to possible jewish converts),the fullfillment of the jewish old testament,in jesus ,to bolster their new testament.by creating stories of jesus to fit that line.(and/or jesus himself may have "faked" some of these situations,to sell his credibility.

    are all the books ever written credible? how can ye judge.

    and valentinian III was a momma's-boy of an emporer.the roman empire was crumbling.425-455 a.d.

    constantine converted the roman state to the christianity of his "catholic" church.first ,at the council of arles in 314 a.d.and then it was sealed at the council of nicea in 325a.d..this is where arius was punched in the nose and tossed out and the arians were banished.
    at the council of nicea in 325a.d.,the nicean creed was adopted,which formally defined god as a diety of three equal and co-existing parts;the father ,son and holy ghost.

    to say valentinian III made the pope the head of the catholic church(before that the emporer of rome was)in his reign,only supports the notion that the roman empire was crumbling,and the way out for them was to morph into a religion.
    if he made that decision@44o a.d.

    and the empire lost africa in 439
    and gaul@440 and britian@ 446.
    he was in the process of trying to save something of rome.


    did you know that once the Roman Catholic Church triumphed, it stopped preaching toleration?

    after the time of jesus there were hundreds of teachers all preaching that they were the true doctrine of christ and all the others were frauds.
    some of them said that john was the true messaiah and that jesus was just an imposter.simon the magician(1st century contemporary of jesus) was another that began the gnostic traditions.then the roman churh became one of the factions.,which luckily(for them)were busy having missionaries "convert" the barbarians to the north.and when those barbarians finally overran rome,the chuch was spared.for their priests had been taught the romans version of religion.

    gnosticism was an important part of the sect of the essenes at the qumran community at the dead sea."the wilderness"
    this caused strife with other groups like the pharisees and the sadduccees.
    there are ties between jesus and the essenes.a translation of the word,"nazarene"and its variants came from the hebrew word,"nozrim",a plaural noun stemming from the term "nazrie ha-Brit"or "keepers of the covenant";a designation of the essene community at qumran.
    it is contested that a place called "nazereth" even existed at the time of jesus.

    and if you are looking for a lineage of the churh that has been around since then,it is this essene community.and earlier influences like zoroaster and hermes and pythagoras.
    continuing on in all the heretical traditions(as labeled by the romans)through britian ,gaul,mandeaens, manicheans,johanninites,etc.to secret societies like rosicrucians and the knights templar and to the illuminati(skull and bones fraternity is in the tradition of the illuminati of bavaria)to the freemasons of today.


    Historically Baptist have been persecuted by the organized church(you know who),so that history regarding their perpetuity has been almost destroyed and disappeared. However, i do not base my beliefs and convictions or doctrines on history but on the Word of God.
    it's all a matter of Authority! mankind has always detested authority after the fall of mankind.
    which begs the question, to whom or what did Jesus give the Authority to preach the gospel and baptise and train for the souls of this World?

    look at some historical personages feelings on the subject:

    marcus aurelius ,emporer died 180 a.d.-didn't even mention the christians or jesus in his memoirs,though he listed many othhers from the time that had influence on the people.
    napolean in his diary was the one who considered jesus "just some fanatic,like that exists in every generation"
    or micheal ,the prince of albany (head of the stuart family,english kings)that claims that the royal bloodline is decended from david(thru jesus'kids and wife mary magdelaine),which is the story of the holy grail.the vessel,mary's womb.when she left with joseph of arimethea to go to gaul,which marrying into other royal blood became the merovingian,carolingian kings of europe.
    including people like charlemagne,charles martel,pepin the short,dagobert,the stuarts,the plantegenets,and all the others in the family.like crusaders and founders of the templars like godefroi de bullion and hugues de payens
    the royalty of europe are mostly related like this.so is george bush,thru the walker family.many times over.


    who's the fanatic? who's blind?

    but I digress;

    so you really ought to stay away from thinking history will help the case of religion,because it surely doesn't.


    why limit yourself on what you know or think you know?
    aren't there more historical books or witnesses than what you are aware of?
    are the public schools and universities the gospel truth in all matters of history or religion?

    should we or anyone take our limited knowledge of historical facts, much less yours, as evidence to say that Jesus Christ is not alive and the Son of the Living God to be true?

    When Lucifer fell, he had a five-point plan of wicked insurrection against God. Five-times he hissed "I WILL" in direct opposition to the most high. SIN was born in Lucifer's heart! And so it is true of us.
    Satan wants to take as many as he can to Hell!
    who are you following?
    Did you know that the devil is the father of lies and a deceiver?

    why would the devil deceive those who believe in God vs. those who don't, you saying that the Creator doesn't really exist? satan is a created being!

    but does it matter to you? do you even care? why respond?

    what god are you protecting or standing up for? you probably don't even know.

    P.S. Need not respond.






    [Edited by arc8 on 08-15-2004 at 04:13 PM]

  3. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Originally posted by remember
    robo,
    sounds good to me.

    bootlen,
    many have died for three days,
    ever read the "tibeten book of the dead"that is a thing that can be done.
    of voodoo priests that "die" for three days.

    and you can't say jesus died,that is refuted by many stories.
    and I can't say he didn't,that too is refuted in many stories.

    jesus could have been alive when taken down from the cross.normally the romans left people there to die.like being hung,sometimes you don't die right away.

    and the sabbath(saturday) no body was around.so who knows which story is true.on sunday,there were conflicting reports.and there isn't any way of knowing if any of those reports that are around today ,actually were from that day.
    ================================================== =========

    You know, remember, we've been through this before. You complain about repetativeness and yet ask the same questions and make the same arguments.

    Jesus' death was confirmed by Roman soldiers whose life depended on an accurate report. The spear in His side confirms His death. Maybe you don't understand the integrity required of 1st century Roman soldiers.

    Yes, yes , I know all about the so-called voo-doo crap about which you posted. Most of it is debunked easily. The rest has no proof of accuracy. Very poor documentation. The death, burial, and ressurection of Christ is very well documented.

    If someone seemed particulary tough to die, then legs were broken so that the crucified could not lift themselves up to exhale. They were about to break Jesus' legs but, instead, pierced his lungs with a spear, confirming death. Seems to me like if what He went through with the scourging, crucifixion, and hanging on the cross for 6 hours...all this after having not slept for at least 36 hours prior to His arrest...might just be fatal. Pardon me while I take my tongue from my cheek.

    And query me this my (refusing to be) learned friend: Why would so many people be willing to die an early painful death if they had not seen and believed what is written in the Gospels? Would you die for a lie? I wouldn't. There are even some truths I wouldn't die for. But many walked and talked with Jesus, witnessed all that happened and still stood their spiritual ground.

    I have not physically touched Jesus but He has made Himself very real in my life. There have been too many things happen that prove He is Who He says He is. Many more than it takes to convince me...and I am considered to be a skeptic.

    And the time is coming very soon when it will all come out in the wash. I really do feel sorry for those who refuse to even give Christ a chance. But remember that you cannot say you were not told.

    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  4. #56
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,943
    Originally posted by bootlen
    I have not physically touched Jesus but He has made Himself very real in my life. [/B]
    My advance apologies if my next statement is too theist for some, but I gots to say it; the spirit is overtaking me.....

    I may not have physically touched Jesus but Jesus has certainly touched my life!

    OK, I'll go back now to being regular ole obnoxious RoBo.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  5. #57
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Memphis TN USA
    Posts
    6,945
    Anybody that says they have all the answers, does not even understand the question. All these people that think they have found the only way are deceiving themselves. You are not infallable, so your religion is not much better. It is pridefullness to say "Baptist are better than Chatholics" or anyother christian denomination. Claiming the have all the answers put you in the same catagory as the pope.

    Although I have doubts, it is just the details, creeds and rituals. There is no doubt in my mind that the way of Jesus is not the result of deceptions by evil. Be that the devil or any other form of evil.

    I have investigated myths and religions of all sorts. I can easily see the differences. I can see the traditions of man thrown into many Christian beleifs too. Somebody has quided everyone of us into our understanding of the bible. I do not care how proud you are, nobody had a perfect teacher. Nobody has a perfect understanding of the words written in the bible.

    Don't let you pride stand in the way of your greatness.
    If the superheat ain't right it ain't charged right.

  6. #58
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Originally posted by kim
    Anybody that says they have all the answers, does not even understand the question. All these people that think they have found the only way are deceiving themselves. You are not infallable, so your religion is not much better. It is pridefullness to say "Baptist are better than Chatholics" or anyother christian denomination. Claiming the have all the answers put you in the same catagory as the pope.

    Although I have doubts, it is just the details, creeds and rituals. There is no doubt in my mind that the way of Jesus is not the result of deceptions by evil. Be that the devil or any other form of evil.

    I have investigated myths and religions of all sorts. I can easily see the differences. I can see the traditions of man thrown into many Christian beleifs too. Somebody has quided everyone of us into our understanding of the bible. I do not care how proud you are, nobody had a perfect teacher. Nobody has a perfect understanding of the words written in the bible.

    Don't let you pride stand in the way of your greatness.
    ================================================== ==========

    Exactly, Kim. Exactly. That is the very reason we should all read the Bible for ourselves and not rely on others to explain it. I have been saying that from the very start. Open the Book and read it for yourself and ask the Holy Spirit to teach you. Scripture itself says to do that.

    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  7. #59
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Eastern PA
    Posts
    68,943
    bootlen, therin lies the delema. Without being filled with the Holy Spirit naysayers of biblical passages get hung up on scientific proof and historical accuracy. If one is not going into reading the bible with an open mind and heart their is little chance of coming away with anything that the bible intended.
    Government is a disease...
    ...masquerading as its own cure…
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 NIV


  8. #60
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Grand Forks, MN
    Posts
    1,373
    Anybody that says they have all the answers, does not even understand the question.

    what is your question?

    All these people that think they have found the only way are deceiving themselves. You are not infallable, so your religion is not much better.

    what is religion?
    isn't religion of man?

    It is pridefullness to say "Baptist are better than Chatholics" or anyother christian denomination. Claiming the have all the answers put you in the same catagory as the pope.

    the pope has a precious soul like the rest of us, we are all sinners!

    pridefulness; then why say it.
    did i say baptist are better than catholics? were you offended?
    i guess it is not politically correct to say that people are wrong.
    i'm not saying i'm right although it seems to all i have all the answers.
    if i just quote God's word and say nothing of myself, would this still be pridefulness? or should i lie about all religions are all okay, seeing that they are really not the same in doctrine and practise. why is that?
    God is not the Author of confusion. something is amissed. what is it?
    i would rather believe God instead of man and his religion.

    Although I have doubts, it is just the details, creeds and rituals. There is no doubt in my mind that the way of Jesus is not the result of deceptions by evil. Be that the devil or any other form of evil.
    I have investigated myths and religions of all sorts. I can easily see the differences. I can see the traditions of man thrown into many Christian beleifs too. Somebody has quided everyone of us into our understanding of the bible. I do not care how proud you are, nobody had a perfect teacher. Nobody has a perfect understanding of the words written in the bible.


    who are our guides or is The guide?
    who is qualified to guide us in all matters of life?
    who is authorized to lead us in the Word of Lord?

    perhaps some godly man.
    perhaps the pope.
    perhaps a certain church(an organized one).
    perhaps The Holy Ghost.
    perhaps the Word of God.

    wouldn't you think that God would have us to know what His manifold wisdom and will is for our lives.
    but how, we are all miserable, how can we if there is not a guide!
    But bless the Lord that he gave us His Word and his Spirit to guide us, even us uneducated people.

    Don't let you pride stand in the way of your greatness.

    Blessed is the Lord for all his Mercies he has bestow on us.

  9. #61
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Originally posted by RoBoTeq
    bootlen, therin lies the delema. Without being filled with the Holy Spirit naysayers of biblical passages get hung up on scientific proof and historical accuracy. If one is not going into reading the bible with an open mind and heart their is little chance of coming away with anything that the bible intended.
    ================================================== ==========

    I know what you're saying, Robo. But Scripture says, "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God." Also, "The Gospel is God's power unto salvation." If people will just read the Bible with a mind to learn what it is saying, The Holy Spirit will be faithful to enlighten them. We can post here till our fingers bleed, but unless and until they read it for themselves or hear it verbatim, they will stay lost. Frankly, I don't have time to post the whole of Holy Scripture here...just little snatches here and there, hopefully enough to pique their curiosity so they will "search the Scriptures" themselves.

    It really ticks me to read these posts from those who have never read the Bible, or have maybe read enough to think they don't want any part of it, and put down Jesus, Christianity, church, and the rest of the associated issues and claim to have the answers. They have NO answers.

    The only thing worse is those who read philosophers, psychiatrists, and psychologists who are even more lost (if that is possible) and then try to make the Bible fit in. God laughs at man's philosophy.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  10. #62
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Memphis TN USA
    Posts
    6,945
    The Bible is philosophy too.
    You call Thomas Aquinus a philosophy. He called himself a bible scholar. Thomas Aquinus probably did more for christianity than all the people that post to this thread combined. You might not like the catholics, but Thomas Aquinas' group has converted more pagan than you ever will. I quess you can find something wrong with the Jesuits too if you try.
    If the superheat ain't right it ain't charged right.

  11. #63
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    East Grand Forks, MN
    Posts
    1,373
    The Bible is philosophy too.
    You call Thomas Aquinus a philosophy. He called himself a bible scholar. Thomas Aquinus probably did more for christianity than all the people that post to this thread combined. You might not like the catholics, but Thomas Aquinas' group has converted more pagan than you ever will. I quess you can find something wrong with the Jesuits too if you try.


    is conversion to catholicism christian?
    are numbers of conversions to a religion a sign of greatness?

    apparently the bible is not God's Word for you. it seems the church is your sole faith and practice.
    i submit to you: without the Word of God, there is no church of God. without obedience to God's commandments there can be no scriptural church.

    here's an organized church's dogma; "Heresy - Practically speaking, this is false teaching against the dogma and doctrine of the Church(what about the bible?). A person who obstinately follows false teaching is called a heretic. Canon Law #751 says "Heresy is the obstinate denial or doubt, after baptism(the baptist were killed because they believe in believers baptism and wouldn't deny it), of a truth which must be believed by divine and catholic faith." One notable heretic was Martin Luther, the founder of the Protestantism. As St. Thomas Aquinas writes, "The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval." A more commonly used term today in this regard might be "cafeteria Catholic.""

    so the bible is of no consequence in the church. so the church dogma is the final authority. where did they get it from? the pope.

    " Divine Revelation and the documents of the Church make it clear that only the Magisterium can ultimately judge these matters and that the salvation of the faithful does not depend on having to privately interpret the Sacred(*will why not, i know how to read*) Tradition or govern oneself in ecclesiastical affairs."

    "And so I say to you, you are Peter(*the pebble*), and upon this rock(*massive stone*) I will build my church, and the gates of the hell shall not prevail against it." Mt. 16:18"

    *the Lord is the Rock, read the BIBLE!*

    bible writs; then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
    But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Mt.16:22-23

    *man is corrupt. the Lord was talking about the Church as a institution.*

    "First Vatican Council on Papal Primacy

    We renew the definition of the Ecumenical Council of Florence, by which all the faithful of Christ must believe "that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world{no wonder baptist were executed and why separation of church and state exist), and that the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter(a sinful man, i'm glad he's not in charge but Christ), the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church and faith(where does the bible teach this), and teacher of all Christians; and that to him was handed down in blessed Peter, by our Lord Jesus Christ(false, it was to a institution), full power to feed, rule, and guide the universal Church(local church as it is taught in scriptures), just as is also contained in the records of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons.


    here's a little tid bit of history: "The myth that the original Baptists were believers within the Roman Catholic Church who came out during the 16th Century, as the Protestants did, is one that is dredged up repeatedly by modern historians. Supposedly the Baptists withdrew when the Catholic Church showed its true colors during the Council of Trent (1545-1563), as if the Catholic Church had not shown its true colors from the 13th Century onward when it established the Inquisition as a search-and-destroy unit against all who had Baptist convictions. In contrast to the theory of Catholic origins for Baptists is this statement by one of the most learned men of the 18th Century:"

    Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest men who ever lived, declared it was "his conviction that the Baptists were the only Christians who had not symbolized with Rome." [5]"

    here's some more: "Thus we see that Baptists have been a distinct people from the time of Christ to the present day. They did not come out from the Catholic Church in various, imperfect degrees of reformation from Romanist error, as the Protestants did, but preserved the apostolic truth from the beginning and did not need to be reformed. Although born-again Protestants and Baptists are part of the same family of God, they are not part of the same Church and never have been. Baptists and Protestants have never been united in a "visible church," and knowledgeable Baptists cannot accept the view of an all-encompassing "invisible" or "universal church" which has no New Testament support. There is no historical or theological basis for any ecumenical union or cooperation between Protestants and Baptists.

    A study of the Waldenses thoroughly vindicates the traditional Landmark Baptist conviction that there have always been Baptist churches on this planet in all centuries from the time of Christ to the present day. Frank S. Mead described this belief in these terms:

    There is a direct historic "succession" of Baptist churches from New Testament times; that is, Baptist churches have existed in practice, though not by name, in every century..."

    here's more: "At Zurich, after many disputations between Zuinglius and the Ana-Baptists, the Senate made an Act, that if any presume to re-baptize those who were baptized before (i.e. as infants) they should be drowned. At Vienna many Ana-Baptists were tied together in chains that one drew the other after him into the river, wherein they were all suffocated (drowned)." (Vida Supra, p. 61)

    "In the year of our Lord 1539 two Ana-Baptists were burned beyond Southwark, and a little before them 5 Dutch Ana-Baptists were burned in Smithfield," (Fuller, Church History.)

    "In 1160 a company of Paulicians (Baptists) entered Oxford. Henry II ordered them to be branded on the forehead with hot irons, publicly whipped them through the streets of the city, to have their garments cut short at the girdles, and be turned into the open country. The villages were not to afford them any shelter or food and they perished a lingering death from cold and hunger." (Moore, Earlier and Later Nonconformity in Oxford, p. 12.)

    The old Chronicler Stowe, A.D. 1533, relates:

    "The 25th of May--in St. Paul's Church, London--examined 19 men and 6 women. Fourteen of them were condemned; a man and a woman were burned at Smithfield, the other twelve of them were sent to towns there to be burned."

    Froude, the English historian, says of these Ana-Baptist martyrs--

    "The details are all gone, their names are gone. Scarcely the facts seem worth mentioning. For them no Europe was agitated, no court was ordered in mourning, no papal hearts trembled with indignation. At their death the world looked on complacent, indifferent or exulting. Yet here, out of 25 poor men and women were found 14, who by no terror of stake or torture could be tempted to say they believed what they did not believe. History has for them no word of praise, yet they, too, were not giving their blood in vain. Their lives might have been as useless as the lives of most of us. In their death they assisted to pay the purchase of English freedom."--end

    don't tell me the organized church is of God.

    sorry for a long thread.
    note: * --- * are my writs.



  12. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    SC
    Posts
    20,677
    Originally posted by kim
    The Bible is philosophy too.
    You call Thomas Aquinus a philosophy. He called himself a bible scholar. Thomas Aquinus probably did more for christianity than all the people that post to this thread combined. You might not like the catholics, but Thomas Aquinas' group has converted more pagan than you ever will. I quess you can find something wrong with the Jesuits too if you try.
    ================================================== ==========Where did I call Thomas Aquinas a philosopher? You have me mistaken for someone else.

    The Bible is nowhere near being philosophy. Philosophy is a man-made perspective on issues. God has much more than man's perspective. We cannot even scrape the surface of God's perspective.

    I won't argue Aquinas' contribution to Christianity. Never said I don't like Catholics. My wife and her family were Catholics. My pastor was Catholic. Many of my friends and co-workers are Catholics. I don't have a problem with Catholics. I suspect I'll see alot of them in Heaven. You're pretty good at putting words in my posts. That is what I DON'T like.
    No reserve. No retreat. No regrets.

    For those who have fought for it, freedom has a sweetness the protected will never know.

    http://www.airwarvietnam.com/16thSOSGunners2.jpg

    Proud member of KA Club

  13. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Memphis TN USA
    Posts
    6,945
    Philosophy is the study of life. The bible contains the truest philosophy ever written. It was the basis of study for most of the philosophers. It is just semantics though. If philosophy implies human works to you, that is fine by me.
    If the superheat ain't right it ain't charged right.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event