10 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusDarfius, you know your Bible better than this than to spout this
That is conjecture that Peter was the rock that Jesus built the church on. It's Catholic, heretical conjecture. The Holy Spirit was the rock.
crap.
St Matthew 16:17-19a
Jesus said to [Peter] in reply: 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter [kepa in Aramaic and
Kephas in Greek, which means 'rock'] and upon this rock I will
build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail
against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven...
Jesus renamed Simon Kephas (a better transliteration would be
'Rocky'😉 and built His church upon him.
This is fundamental Scripture 101. I don't see how you could reject
this doctrine which is explicitly Biblical.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by Nemesio12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. 12:3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. 12:4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
Um. Where in Scripture does it say that 2/3s of heaven sided with
God?
Nemesio
I thought you knew Scripture, Nemesio?
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe Holy Spirit THROUGH Peter built the church. I think we're thinking of different churches. The Catholic church used Peter the MAN and imaginary endorsement from him (it doesn't exist) to support their claim that the Catholic Church is the only Christian church.
Darfius, you know your Bible better than this than to spout this
crap.
St Matthew 16:17-19a
Jesus said to [Peter] in reply: 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.
For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly
Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter [kepa in Aramaic and
Kephas in Greek, which means 'rock'] and upon this [b ...[text shortened]... 101. I don't see how you could reject
this doctrine which is explicitly Biblical.
Nemesio
Peter was the man who was in charge of the other apostles spiritually, but the Holy Spirit through Peter established the Christian Church in the name of Jesus Christ. As He did in all of the other apostles.
10 Mar 05
1 edit
Originally posted by DarfiusAre you kidding?
12:1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: 12:2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered. ...[text shortened]... and to his throne.
I thought you knew Scripture, Nemesio?[/b]
Please, PLEASE, never claim to be a literalist ever again.
EVER! Because if you do, you are a bloody liar!
It says stars. STARS. When did stars mean angels in the literal
world?
And, even if you can maintain that 'stars = angels,' this passage
comes in the MIDST of the Last Things. The seven trumpets have
already sounded, signifying God's ultimate victory, the 'mysterious
plan of God's being fullfilled, as he promised to his servants the
prophets.' (Rev 10:7).
So, this supposed fall of stars...I mean angels hasn't even happened
yet, unless you think that the seven trumpets have been blown
already.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusPeter was the rock upon which the church was built (naturally the
The Holy Spirit THROUGH Peter built the church. I think we're thinking of different churches. The Catholic church used Peter the MAN and imaginary endorsement from him (it doesn't exist) to support their claim that the Catholic Church is the only Christian church.
Peter was the man who was in charge of the other apostles spiritually, but the Holy Spir ...[text shortened]... ished the Christian Church in the name of Jesus Christ. As He did in all of the other apostles.
Holy Spirit was involved!).
This is definitive Christian Doctrine from the literal Bible.
I never said 'Roman Catholic Church.' Please get it out of your mind
that I am their representative. If you want their representative, email
the Pope.
The church was built on Peter. Period. Your claim that it wasn't
is heresy!
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioMy position was always to take the Bible literally when it was proper and logical.
Are you kidding?
Please, PLEASE, never claim to be a literalist ever again.
EVER! Because if you do, you are a bloody liar!
It says stars. STARS. When did stars mean angels in the literal
world?
And, even if you can maintain that 'stars = angels,' this passage
comes in the MIDST of the Last Things. The seven trumpets have
already soun ...[text shortened]... en happened
yet, unless you think that the seven trumpets have been blown
already.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by NemesioThe church was built on Jesus Christ through Peter (and the other apostles). To say otherwise would be heretical.
Peter was the rock upon which the church was built (naturally the
Holy Spirit was involved!).
This is definitive Christian Doctrine from the literal Bible.
I never said 'Roman Catholic Church.' Please get it out of your mind
that I am their representative. If you want their representative, email
the Pope.
The church was built on Peter. Period. Your claim that it wasn't
is heresy!
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by DarfiusWell, seeing as this is a prophecy to take place in the future,
My position was always to take the Bible literally when it was proper and logical.
then it would be logical to say that this didn't happen yet and,
as such, to use it to bolster your claim that 1/3 of the angels
fell from heaven is illogical.
Nemesio
10 Mar 05
Originally posted by eagles54Clearly you misread that. You should read that as I have more love for Jesus than I have for my friends and family.
Do you keep score? Maybe you should take to heart Jesus' teachings on humility.
That's the 2nd apology you owe me. And yes, I do keep track of that. Though I forgive you beforehand on each account.
10 Mar 05
1 edit
Not at all.
Well maybe you need to review it again. Tell me how can there be fallen angels, when these angels have been in the presence of god?
I have never once been to Sunday school. I don't know if you registered this last time I said it, but I came to Christianity through research, no one "fed" me anything.
No I was unware
.5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
1st Thessalonians,
What were you saying about buddhism?[/
This is a new one to me, but it is nice example of the good stuff that can be salvaged. However it is just one small line in a rather obsure chapter of the NT. Whilst the buddist equivalent is one of its fundimental principles. Plus it is kind of contridicted in revelations 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy etc....
b]
11 Mar 05
Well maybe you need to review it again. Tell me how can there be fallen angels, when these angels have been in the presence of god?
Angels had free will at one point. When some of them chose to go against God, they were cast out. Hence fallen. Satan is the prince of the air at this time. Ruler of this world until Jesus comes again.
This is a new one to me, but it is nice example of the good stuff that can be salvaged. However it is just one small line in a rather obsure chapter of the NT. Whilst the buddist equivalent is one of its fundimental principles. Plus it is kind of contridicted in revelations 22:19
And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy etc....
Tell me, do you think the Christians who lived in the time of Jesus simply accepted what the apostles said hook, line, and sinker? Did none of them feel compelled to varify anything? Perhaps a dozen did, eh? Did none of them find the "lies" and expose them? What about the Jews and Romans? Where's the writing detailing how these were lies? Do the writers of the NT seem delusional? Like liars? You do realize they all died for these "lies", correct?
Do not take away from these words means simply to not change anything within the book.
11 Mar 05
2 edits
Originally posted by DarfiusAngels had free will at one point. When some of them chose to go against God, they were cast out. Hence fallen. Satan is the prince of the air at this time. Ruler of this world until Jesus comes again. ?
So angels have free will, yet still some of them chose to go against god even though they know for sure that god exists. They get cast out of heaven for this. Where as humans who can only speculate of the existence of god, get a life time of torment in hell if they don't believe. And this is gods justice ?
Tell me, do you think the Christians who lived in the time of Jesus simply accepted what the apostles said hook, line, and sinker? Did none of them feel compelled to varify anything? Perhaps a dozen did, eh? Did none of them find the "lies" and expose them? What about the Jews and Romans? Where's the writing detailing how these were lies? Do the writers of the NT seem delusional? Like liars? You do realize they all died for these "lies", correct?
I do believe that a man called Jesus once lived, but I don't believe the accounts in the NT are completely accurate. Most sources seem to agree that they were writen some 60-150 years after the events. I think there is a certain amount of fabrication, exaggeration and miss-translation in the NT. Humans haven't really changed that much in the last 2000 years. Ok we are better educated and have modern day items that our ancestors could only dream about, but the basic human nature is still the same. I've said this before, there is a holy man in india alive today call Sai Babi, if you look on the net you'll find lots of stuff about him. To some he is akin to a modern day Jesus to others he is a con man with designs on young men. Whether he is real or not doesn't matter, This guy has 100,000's of followers. If we with our modern day communication methods and education can't find out the truth on something happening today. How can we expect our ancesters to have got it 100% accurate when they were written 100 years after the event ?