Discussion:
10's of 1,000's, perhaps 100's of 1,000,s Saw God!
(too old to reply)
Mattb.
2017-01-17 23:08:22 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:53:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it.
He does that often. If he really is cornered he will edit the context
of a post and pretend he didn't.
; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
I've never known anyone who is 100% correct all the time. Not sure I
could stand to be around such a person.
Patrick
2017-01-17 21:15:51 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:28:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
John 3
5Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh is
born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit.…

Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.

the Bible makes it clear that baptism is extremely important and that
those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and who have
decided to follow Him, will be baptized.

This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol
must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians
claim the "water" is the preached word of God.

But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism.
Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and
receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom.
6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 21:26:02 UTC
Permalink
On 17/01/17 21:15, Patrick wrote:

<snip>
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:32:00 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:26:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
<yawn>
Go talk to Duke.
I'm busy.
duke
2017-01-18 11:46:20 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward. But if you continue to go thru life
as a sinner, then you're right.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:18:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward.
That sounds like pure superstition to me. Have you any evidence to
support that view?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward.
That sounds like pure superstition to me. Have you any evidence to
support that view?
One is only cleansed, AND ABSOLVED, of all past sin. Man is a natural born
sinner and the whole nasty world is out there..

Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:11:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward.
That sounds like pure superstition to me. Have you any evidence to
support that view?
One is only cleansed, AND ABSOLVED, of all past sin. Man is a natural born
sinner and the whole nasty world is out there..
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
So what you're saying is that everybody goes to hell. No exceptions,
except by the merest chance of timing. Which makes the Cross a complete
waste of time. Nice one.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 12:07:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward.
That sounds like pure superstition to me. Have you any evidence to
support that view?
One is only cleansed, AND ABSOLVED, of all past sin. Man is a natural born
sinner and the whole nasty world is out there..
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
So what you're saying is that everybody goes to hell.
RH, you sure you're not really firewater from Concrete, Wa? His "So" openings
usually all fall flat in silliness statements also.
Post by Richard Heathfield
No exceptions,
except by the merest chance of timing. Which makes the Cross a complete
waste of time. Nice one.
Actually, without the cross, heaven is open to no one.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:17:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
What you are describing is legalistic ritual. The whole point of Jesus's
mission was to lead us away from all that nonsense. Baptism is an
outward sign of inward repentance and death to self, not a badge that
gets you into heaven.
It does if you die immediately afterward.
That sounds like pure superstition to me. Have you any evidence to
support that view?
One is only cleansed, AND ABSOLVED, of all past sin. Man is a natural born
sinner and the whole nasty world is out there..
Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.
So what you're saying is that everybody goes to hell.
RH, you sure you're not really firewater from Concrete, Wa? His "So" openings
usually all fall flat in silliness statements also.
I'm quite sure that I'm not firewater. I'm quite sure that I'm not from
Concrete. I don't know where Wa is, but I'm not from there.

As for what you call my "silly" statement, it is the inevitable
consequence of your claim. We may therefore safely deduce that your
claim is silly.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
No exceptions,
except by the merest chance of timing. Which makes the Cross a complete
waste of time. Nice one.
Actually, without the cross, heaven is open to no one.
Even /with/ the cross, if you are correct it is still open to almost no
one, since almost no one dies whilst in the process of being absolved by
a Roman Catholic priest.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Robert
2017-01-18 01:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:28:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
John 3
5Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh is
born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit.…
Flesh is flesh and all flesh is born of water. It is natural, just as
it is natural for the spirit to be born of Spirit.

Time and time again you've been shown this, time and time again you
have been shown the local context as well as the broader context. And
yet again you have been told and show that you MUST be born again,
spiritually, to enter heaven.

Jesus baptized no one by water.
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
Incorrect. The subject was being reborn, all the way through. Clearly
evident by the comment of Nicodemus saying how can I crawl back into
my mothers womb. Jesus died for you, as an individual, the least you
can do is show him some respect as to his words. Your religion would
never stand for you, they have shown that when they said, "kill them
all and let God sort them out."
Post by Patrick
the Bible makes it clear that baptism is extremely important and that
those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and who have
decided to follow Him, will be baptized.
Important because it is a public display of ones faith in Christ.
Post by Patrick
This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol
must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians
claim the "water" is the preached word of God.
Your definition of Christian is RC and you should not be so cowardly
nor deceitful about it.
Post by Patrick
But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism.
Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and
receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom.
6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).
The bible clearly establishes it is by faith one is saved, and washed
clean of sins by the shed blood of Christ, since without the shedding
of blood, sin cannot be forgiven.

Rom 6:3,4 no water baptism mentioned.
Col 2:12-13 most likely water baptism as it is symbolically burying us
as in death, to new life. All symbolic. RC's are never buried in
baptism, they are not immersed.
Titus 3:5 No water mentioned nor inferred.
ea
2017-01-18 03:52:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:11:38 -0800, Robert snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-19 12:30:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:28:10 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
John 3
5Jesus answered “Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the
kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. 6 Flesh is
born of flesh, but spirit is born of the Spirit.…
Flesh is flesh and all flesh is born of water. It is natural, just as
it is natural for the spirit to be born of Spirit.
Time and time again you've been shown this, time and time again you
have been shown the local context as well as the broader context. And
yet again you have been told and show that you MUST be born again,
spiritually, to enter heaven.
Jesus baptized no one by water.
Post by Patrick
Those who hold baptism to be required for salvation point to “born of
water” as evidence. Jesus describes it and tells him plainly how—by
being born of water and the Spirit. This is a perfect description of
baptism! Jesus could not have given a more detailed and accurate
explanation of baptism.
Incorrect. The subject was being reborn, all the way through.
We're born naturally in water and we are reborn in water. That's what Jesus
said.
Post by Robert
Clearly
evident by the comment of Nicodemus saying how can I crawl back into
my mothers womb. Jesus died for you, as an individual, the least you
can do is show him some respect as to his words. Your religion would
never stand for you, they have shown that when they said, "kill them
all and let God sort them out."
Clearly you should show some respect for Jesus' words.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
the Bible makes it clear that baptism is extremely important and that
those who have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior and who have
decided to follow Him, will be baptized.
Important because it is a public display of ones faith in Christ.
No, one becomes a Christian in baptism. Can't you read?
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
This verse is so important that those who say baptism is just a symbol
must deny that Jesus here refers to baptism. "Born again" Christians
claim the "water" is the preached word of God.
Your definition of Christian is RC and you should not be so cowardly
nor deceitful about it.
It's the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
But the early Christians uniformly identified this verse with baptism.
Water baptism is the way, they said, that we are born again and
receive new life—a fact that is supported elsewhere in Scripture (Rom.
6:3–4; Col. 2:12–13; Titus 3:5).
The bible clearly establishes it is by faith one is saved, and washed
clean of sins by the shed blood of Christ, since without the shedding
of blood, sin cannot be forgiven.
Actually his 3 references destroy you. But you already destroyed yourself. You
reject the teachings of Jesus.
Post by Robert
Rom 6:3,4 no water baptism mentioned.
Col 2:12-13 most likely water baptism as it is symbolically burying us
as in death, to new life. All symbolic. RC's are never buried in
baptism, they are not immersed.
Titus 3:5 No water mentioned nor inferred.
Titus 3:3 says we were slaves to sin, and 3:5 says he saved us thru the Holy
Spirit, who gives us new birth and new life by washing us.

Robert, the man who hangs himself.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-17 21:17:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
I believe that you owe Robert an apology.
Or why you have decided to post here?
To alt.christnet.christianlife, you mean? Well,
alt.religion.christianity was pretty dead, that's why.
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
ANd you know in your heart that you cannot.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 21:30:42 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Patrick
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
I'm a Christian. I don't need any "special belief" to be a Christian. I
just need to follow Christ --- to accept for myself His redeeming
sacrifice and to accept Him as Lord. That's all anyone needs to do to be
a Christian. "My yoke is easy, and my burden is light."
Post by Patrick
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
Why on earth would I have to defend it? If I'm wrong to believe in God,
I have no defence. And if I'm right, God will defend me from any
important attacks.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:33:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
I'm a Christian
That is what your butt buddy, robert, says.
Talk to my hand.
Or go talk with Duke.
Robert
2017-01-18 01:28:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
I believe that you owe Robert an apology.
Or why you have decided to post here?
To alt.christnet.christianlife, you mean? Well,
alt.religion.christianity was pretty dead, that's why.
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
ANd you know in your heart that you cannot.
Always the bully and braggart.
ea
2017-01-18 03:51:11 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:28:36 -0800, Robert nip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:43:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
I believe that you owe Robert an apology.
Or why you have decided to post here?
To alt.christnet.christianlife, you mean? Well,
alt.religion.christianity was pretty dead, that's why.
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
ANd you know in your heart that you cannot.
Always the bully and braggart.
What is wrong with what I said?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:23:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
I believe that you owe Robert an apology.
Or why you have decided to post here?
To alt.christnet.christianlife, you mean? Well,
alt.religion.christianity was pretty dead, that's why.
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
ANd you know in your heart that you cannot.
Always the bully and braggart.
What is wrong with what I said?
And I quote:

Me: I'm a Christian.

You: That is what your butt buddy, robert, says.

Message-ID: <***@4ax.com>

You don't see anything wrong with that?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 00:09:34 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:23:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 14:22:33 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
I believe that you owe Robert an apology.
Or why you have decided to post here?
To alt.christnet.christianlife, you mean? Well,
alt.religion.christianity was pretty dead, that's why.
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Why would I be afraid to comment? I've been using Usenet for nearly 20
years. I don't scare easily.
Yup, I was right.
You do not wish to commit to any special belief.
Because then you would have to try to defend it.
ANd you know in your heart that you cannot.
Always the bully and braggart.
What is wrong with what I said?
Me: I'm a Christian.
You: That is what your butt buddy, robert, says.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
And then again, you seem to like to refer back to the past.
Why did I say this?
Now I have to try to remember.
This is where you claimed to be a christian.
And I said that robert also said this.
But robert has shown he can't possibly be a christian with what he
believes, and how he insults others.
If you are going to put robert under your wing, then so be it.
I have no respect for someone who does not commit to his own beliefs,
or one who lies, or one who insults others.

I will stand face to face with any bully.
And I will exchange blows, insults or whatever he throws.
I refuse to act like the wimp who runs from a fight.
Especially if I know I am right.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:23:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Always the bully and braggart.
What is wrong with what I said?
Me: I'm a Christian.
You: That is what your butt buddy, robert, says.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
And then again, you seem to like to refer back to the past.
Well, it's certainly in living memory. It was within the last day or two.
Post by Patrick
Why did I say this?
Now I have to try to remember.
This is where you claimed to be a christian.
And I said that robert also said this.
Well, you said "your butt buddy, robert", which is in the spirit of the
playground bully rather than of the adult enquirer after truth.

You asked what is wrong with what you said, and /that/ is what is wrong
with what you said.
Post by Patrick
But robert has shown he can't possibly be a christian with what he
believes, and how he insults others.
Robert has said that he is a Christian. I am prepared to take him at his
word. You say that you are a Christian. I am prepared to take you at
your word, too. I just wish you would both start acting like it.
Post by Patrick
If you are going to put robert under your wing, then so be it.
I don't have any wings. Robert belongs under God's wing, just as you and
I do.
Post by Patrick
I have no respect for someone who does not commit to his own beliefs,
or one who lies, or one who insults others.
I will stand face to face with any bully.
And I will exchange blows, insults or whatever he throws.
I refuse to act like the wimp who runs from a fight.
Especially if I know I am right.
For as long as you act in the way you are acting, you are quite wrong,
no matter how right you think you are. Robert will respond much better
to your love than to your fist.

The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a
traveller came along wrapped in a warm cloak. They agreed that the one
who first succeeded in making the traveller take his cloak off should be
considered stronger than the other. Then the North Wind blew as hard as
he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveller fold
his cloak around him; and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt.
Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveller took off
his cloak. And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was
the stronger of the two. (Aesop)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:04:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:34:11 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:23:25 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Always the bully and braggart.
What is wrong with what I said?
Me: I'm a Christian.
You: That is what your butt buddy, robert, says.
You don't see anything wrong with that?
And then again, you seem to like to refer back to the past.
Well, it's certainly in living memory. It was within the last day or two.
For you, it may be.
I live in the moment, right now.
If you expect me to remember something, I am politely asking you to
quoye what you said, I said, someone else said....
Post by Patrick
Why did I say this?
Now I have to try to remember.
This is where you claimed to be a christian.
And I said that robert also said this.
Well, you said "your butt buddy, robert", which is in the spirit of the
playground bully rather than of the adult enquirer after truth.
Why don't you "gloss over" this.
That seems to be a habit of yours.
You asked what is wrong with what you said, and /that/ is what is wrong
with what you said.
OK.
Time for you to do some glossing....
Post by Patrick
But robert has shown he can't possibly be a christian with what he
believes, and how he insults others.
Robert has said that he is a Christian. I am prepared to take him at his
word. You say that you are a Christian. I am prepared to take you at
your word, too. I just wish you would both start acting like it.
<Yawn>
WHo made you the Christian in charge of the playground.
Post by Patrick
If you are going to put robert under your wing, then so be it.
I don't have any wings. Robert belongs under God's wing, just as you and
I do
And this is a problem between us.
You feel once you are under the wing, no effort is required.
I believe that things happen, and I am not guaranteed a spot.
I must work at my faith. Every Day. Every Minute.
There are no guarantees for us.
And our names are NOT written in the Book-o-life.
Post by Patrick
I have no respect for someone who does not commit to his own beliefs,
or one who lies, or one who insults others.
I will stand face to face with any bully.
And I will exchange blows, insults or whatever he throws.
I refuse to act like the wimp who runs from a fight.
Especially if I know I am right.
For as long as you act in the way you are acting, you are quite wrong,
no matter how right you think you are. Robert will respond much better
to your love than to your fist.
I don't live for his respect.
I will merely consider he is a catholic basher.
He is a hammer, and everything around him looks like a nail.
If he declares some doctrine of mine to be wrong,he needs to defend
his post.
The North Wind and the Sun were disputing which was the stronger, when a
traveller came along wrapped in a warm cloak. They agreed that the one
who first succeeded in making the traveller take his cloak off should be
considered stronger than the other. Then the North Wind blew as hard as
he could, but the more he blew the more closely did the traveller fold
his cloak around him; and at last the North Wind gave up the attempt.
Then the Sun shined out warmly, and immediately the traveller took off
his cloak. And so the North Wind was obliged to confess that the Sun was
the stronger of the two. (Aesop)
Thanks for the story.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:59:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
WHo made you the Christian in charge of the playground.
You see this as a power struggle, then? Interesting. I don't see it that
way.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
If you are going to put robert under your wing, then so be it.
I don't have any wings. Robert belongs under God's wing, just as you and
I do
And this is a problem between us.
Why? Don't you like the company?
Post by Patrick
You feel once you are under the wing, no effort is required.
I don't know how you manage to conclude that from what I've said, since
at every turn I've been stressing the need to behave responsibly, to
apologise for our mistakes, to treat each other with respect, not to
mock each other (preferably not at all, but certainly not without good
cause), to forgive each other, and so on. That's not "no effort"! (Well,
not for me, anyway. I have to work at it.)
Post by Patrick
I believe that things happen, and I am not guaranteed a spot.
I must work at my faith. Every Day. Every Minute.
Well, I agree that we must work at our faith constantly.
Post by Patrick
There are no guarantees for us.
And our names are NOT written in the Book-o-life.
Interesting point of view. I don't agree with it, but I'll let it pass.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
For as long as you act in the way you are acting, you are quite wrong,
no matter how right you think you are. Robert will respond much better
to your love than to your fist.
I don't live for his respect.
Do you live for God's respect?
Post by Patrick
I will merely consider he is a catholic basher.
Try thinking of him as a brother in Christ.
Post by Patrick
He is a hammer, and everything around him looks like a nail.
If he declares some doctrine of mine to be wrong,he needs to defend
his post.
Well, that's between you and him. But he's your brother, not your enemy.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 21:19:58 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 18:35:55 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
The rob/rich duo once again.
rich jumps in when rob is in big trouble.
Tag team....
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 21:20:35 UTC
Permalink
whatever.
One angel did not have a discussion with Mary and Joseph at the same
time. Get over it.
<whoosh>
Yup, right over your head. I know.
Well, again you have misunderstood me. What went over /your/ head is
that, in drawing attention to the part of the thread over which there is
no disagreement, you have completely missed the point of my objection to
the way you mocked Robert's correct statement. I presume you are doing
this deliberately, since you cannot be so stupid as to be doing it
accidentally after all this time.
If you aren't afraid to commit yourself to your agenda, then no matter
what I say, you will skirt around the issue.
No, the only reason I appear to you to be skirting around the issue of
my agenda is because I don't have one. I've already said plainly and
simply that I called you on your inappropriate mocking of a correct
statement. That's the whole thing. Everything since then has been you
being an ass and me trying (foolishly, it seems) to educate you.
Is that your agenda then?
I wouldn't call it an agenda. I'd call it a lost cause!
To educate me?
It seems you are ineducable.
I will not accept a lie as factual.
Then why bang on about gold plates in New York?''
One [piece of bull shit deserves a bull shit answer.
Oh, I see. You mean you deliberately lied? Okay. That's very interesting.
Don't be stupid.
Do you actually think I believe in the gold plates?
Well, either you do, or you lied. Which is it?
Let me give you a hint....
No, I don't.
Okay, that makes it very clear.
One last question for you.
And I understand if you refuse to answer.
Do you believe (like robert) that once you are saved, you are always
saved? If you answer yes, this might explain a lot to me.
I don't know what Robert believes, so I don't know whether I believe the
same thing Robert believes. My own belief is based on the teaching of
the Bible.
ahhh. Same answer as I expect from robert.
Diversion, skirt, obfuscate, and then change the subject.
I gotcha.
You asked whether I believed "once saved, always saved", and I answered
by quoting Biblical passages that I believe are very, very relevant to
the question and by the reading of which the answer to your question
becomes obvious. That isn't changing the subject. It's answering the
question.
Romans 8:28-30: "And we know that in all things God works for the good
of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image
of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and
sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he
also justified; those he justified, he also glorified."
<Snip more "saved" and "justified" stuff.....>
I understand now.
You are one o dem "once saved - always saved" jerk-offs.
Sorry, am I to understand that you do /not/ claim to be a Christian? You
are a /former/ Christian? Is that right? You are not being clear.

But it would certainly make sense. The fact that you behave so
abominably in public discussions should have clued me in.
And you feel you must defend robert because he was getting his ass
kicked.
I have already made it very clear that my objection was to /your/
mocking a correct statement that Robert made. If he had mocked a correct
statement that you had made, and if I'd happened to notice it, I'd have
objected to /that/ mockery just as stridently.
I guess I must next ask: "Do you want to play?"
there are multitudes of souls in hell today because they believed the
false doctrine of “once saved, always saved.”
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
Listed below are scripture verses along with my comments on each
verse.
I read a few of them. Very funny. Now go crack a book.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:29:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:20:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
whatever.
One angel did not have a discussion with Mary and Joseph at the same
time. Get over it.
<whoosh>
Yup, right over your head. I know.
Well, again you have misunderstood me. What went over /your/ head is
that, in drawing attention to the part of the thread over which there is
no disagreement, you have completely missed the point of my objection to
the way you mocked Robert's correct statement. I presume you are doing
this deliberately, since you cannot be so stupid as to be doing it
accidentally after all this time.
Yup. Deliberately.
After all, you need help.
Post by Richard Heathfield
If you aren't afraid to commit yourself to your agenda, then no matter
what I say, you will skirt around the issue.
No, the only reason I appear to you to be skirting around the issue of
my agenda is because I don't have one. I've already said plainly and
simply that I called you on your inappropriate mocking of a correct
statement. That's the whole thing. Everything since then has been you
being an ass and me trying (foolishly, it seems) to educate you.
Is that your agenda then?
I wouldn't call it an agenda. I'd call it a lost cause!
To educate me?
It seems you are ineducable.
I am not a heretic to my faith.
Why would I ever consider picking up your convenient belief of once
saved, always saved. That would be unforgivable.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I will not accept a lie as factual.
Then why bang on about gold plates in New York?''
One [piece of bull shit deserves a bull shit answer.
Oh, I see. You mean you deliberately lied? Okay. That's very interesting.
Don't be stupid.
Do you actually think I believe in the gold plates?
Well, either you do, or you lied. Which is it?
Do you know how to keep an ass wipe in suspense?
Post by Richard Heathfield
Let me give you a hint....
No, I don't.
Okay, that makes it very clear.
One last question for you.
And I understand if you refuse to answer.
Do you believe (like robert) that once you are saved, you are always
saved? If you answer yes, this might explain a lot to me.
I don't know what Robert believes, so I don't know whether I believe the
same thing Robert believes. My own belief is based on the teaching of
the Bible.
ahhh. Same answer as I expect from robert.
Diversion, skirt, obfuscate, and then change the subject.
I gotcha.
You asked whether I believed "once saved, always saved", and I answered
by quoting Biblical passages that I believe are very, very relevant to
the question and by the reading of which the answer to your question
becomes obvious. That isn't changing the subject. It's answering the
question.
So, what is the answer: Yes or NO?
Post by Richard Heathfield
I understand now.
You are one o dem "once saved - always saved" jerk-offs.
Sorry, am I to understand that you do /not/ claim to be a Christian? You
are a /former/ Christian? Is that right? You are not being clear.
Now, who is playing a head game?
You really are showing your true colors here.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But it would certainly make sense. The fact that you behave so
abominably in public discussions should have clued me in.
If you lie about my religion, the RCC doctrine or dogma, or if you
insult my beliefs, get ready to be attacked.
Post by Richard Heathfield
And you feel you must defend robert because he was getting his ass
kicked.
I have already made it very clear that my objection was to /your/
mocking a correct statement that Robert made.
Yes, you made it perfectly clear.
And that was a lie.
You know what that makes you, don't you?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 22:45:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:20:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
If you aren't afraid to commit yourself to your agenda, then no matter
what I say, you will skirt around the issue.
No, the only reason I appear to you to be skirting around the issue of
my agenda is because I don't have one. I've already said plainly and
simply that I called you on your inappropriate mocking of a correct
statement. That's the whole thing. Everything since then has been you
being an ass and me trying (foolishly, it seems) to educate you.
Is that your agenda then?
I wouldn't call it an agenda. I'd call it a lost cause!
To educate me?
It seems you are ineducable.
I am not a heretic to my faith.
Nobody is. If you... wait, let's take personalities out of it.

Let's invent a hypothetical person, P, who subscribes to a religion R1,
which consists entirely of beliefs B1, B2, B3. Since he subscribes to
R1, P holds beliefs B1, B2, B3.

On reflection, however, he decides that he doesn't believe B3, but
believes, say, B4 instead. In effect, he has now constructed a new
religion R2, which consists of beliefs B1, B2, B4.

Is he a heretic to R1? Yes. Is he a heretic to /his/ faith? No, of
course not, because his faith is now R2, not R1.
Post by Patrick
Why would I ever consider picking up your convenient belief of once
saved, always saved. That would be unforgivable.
What you believe is entirely up to you. You say my belief is convenient,
but actually it is /in/convenient in all kinds of ways. For example, my
belief constrains me from speaking to you in the same kind of way that
you speak to me, which I sometimes find rather restrictive.

Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and
am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until
that day.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
You asked whether I believed "once saved, always saved", and I answered
by quoting Biblical passages that I believe are very, very relevant to
the question and by the reading of which the answer to your question
becomes obvious. That isn't changing the subject. It's answering the
question.
So, what is the answer: Yes or NO?
Read the Bible, and you'll be able to find out for yourself.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I understand now.
You are one o dem "once saved - always saved" jerk-offs.
Sorry, am I to understand that you do /not/ claim to be a Christian? You
are a /former/ Christian? Is that right? You are not being clear.
Now, who is playing a head game?
Is this supposed to be a head game? Sorry. I thought it was a search for
truth. My mistake.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
But it would certainly make sense. The fact that you behave so
abominably in public discussions should have clued me in.
If you lie about my religion, the RCC doctrine or dogma, or if you
insult my beliefs, get ready to be attacked.
Well, I haven't lied yet and I don't intend to start now. As for
attacks, I've already seen how ineffectual your attacks are. For
example, the best you could do against Robert was to mock him for being
*right*! But if you would rather attack people than seek after truth,
that is your prerogative, and it's my prerogative not to be bothered.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
And you feel you must defend robert because he was getting his ass
kicked.
I have already made it very clear that my objection was to /your/
mocking a correct statement that Robert made.
Yes, you made it perfectly clear.
And that was a lie.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Patrick
You know what that makes you, don't you?
Well, I know that it makes /you/ a poor judge of character.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:33:20 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:45:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:20:35 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
If you aren't afraid to commit yourself to your agenda, then no matter
what I say, you will skirt around the issue.
No, the only reason I appear to you to be skirting around the issue of
my agenda is because I don't have one. I've already said plainly and
simply that I called you on your inappropriate mocking of a correct
statement. That's the whole thing. Everything since then has been you
being an ass and me trying (foolishly, it seems) to educate you.
Is that your agenda then?
I wouldn't call it an agenda. I'd call it a lost cause!
To educate me?
It seems you are ineducable.
I am not a heretic to my faith.
Nobody is. If you... wait, let's take personalities out of it.
Let's invent a hypothetical person, P, who subscribes to a religion R1,
which consists entirely of beliefs B1, B2, B3. Since he subscribes to
R1, P holds beliefs B1, B2, B3
I am with you.
On reflection, however, he decides that he doesn't believe B3, but
believes, say, B4 instead. In effect, he has now constructed a new
religion R2, which consists of beliefs B1, B2, B4.
I am with you....
Is he a heretic to R1? Yes. Is he a heretic to /his/ faith? No, of
course not, because his faith is now R2, not R1.
Yes, yes....
Post by Patrick
Why would I ever consider picking up your convenient belief of once
saved, always saved. That would be unforgivable.
What you believe is entirely up to you. You say my belief is convenient,
but actually it is /in/convenient in all kinds of ways. For example, my
belief constrains me from speaking to you in the same kind of way that
you speak to me, which I sometimes find rather restrictive.
I can understand that.
But if you are saved, why would it be difficult for you to be
"dwelling " all of the time? (or whatever you call it.) If you are
saved, it really should be easy.

The problem with some of you OSAS folks is that they are just as
insulting and cruel as the ones who do not believe OSAS.
To me, this is a problem. I refuse to accept the idea that a OSAS
person can sin all he wants ... cuz he be saved....
Yet this is no cause for shame, because I know whom I have believed, and
am convinced that he is able to guard what I have entrusted to him until
that day.
Good for you.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
You asked whether I believed "once saved, always saved", and I answered
by quoting Biblical passages that I believe are very, very relevant to
the question and by the reading of which the answer to your question
becomes obvious. That isn't changing the subject. It's answering the
question.
So, what is the answer: Yes or NO?
Read the Bible, and you'll be able to find out for yourself.
So, what is the answer -- yes or no...?
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I understand now.
You are one o dem "once saved - always saved" jerk-offs.
Sorry, am I to understand that you do /not/ claim to be a Christian? You
are a /former/ Christian? Is that right? You are not being clear.
Now, who is playing a head game?
Is this supposed to be a head game? Sorry. I thought it was a search for
truth. My mistake.
You are playing a headgame like robert.
You do not wish to commit yourself to a belief.
Instead, you act smug and pretend to know more that others.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
But it would certainly make sense. The fact that you behave so
abominably in public discussions should have clued me in.
If you lie about my religion, the RCC doctrine or dogma, or if you
insult my beliefs, get ready to be attacked.
Well, I haven't lied yet and I don't intend to start now.
So, what is the answer -- yes or no...?
As for
attacks, I've already seen how ineffectual your attacks are. For
example, the best you could do against Robert was to mock him for being
*right*! But if you would rather attack people than seek after truth,
that is your prerogative, and it's my prerogative not to be bothered.
Pay attention.
My belief is well stated in the Nicene Creed.
I am a Roman Catholic who understands my faith, my beliefs, and I am
ready to help others understand Catholic doctrine and dogma.
But... do not belittle what I believe.
Don't tell me I am wrong in my reasoning.
Unless you are prepared to defend your own beliefs.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
And you feel you must defend robert because he was getting his ass
kicked.
I have already made it very clear that my objection was to /your/
mocking a correct statement that Robert made.
Yes, you made it perfectly clear.
And that was a lie.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Patrick
You know what that makes you, don't you?
Well, I know that it makes /you/ a poor judge of character.
I beg to differ.
I am an excellent judge of character.
My common sense has served me well over the years.
I was promoted 10 times in the USAF because of my good decisions.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:45:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Why would I ever consider picking up your convenient belief of once
saved, always saved. That would be unforgivable.
What you believe is entirely up to you. You say my belief is convenient,
but actually it is /in/convenient in all kinds of ways. For example, my
belief constrains me from speaking to you in the same kind of way that
you speak to me, which I sometimes find rather restrictive.
I can understand that.
But if you are saved, why would it be difficult for you to be
"dwelling " all of the time? (or whatever you call it.) If you are
saved, it really should be easy.
I don't know what you mean by "dwelling". I know what the word usually
means -- "living in a place" -- but I don't know why or how you are
using it here.
Post by Patrick
The problem with some of you OSAS folks is that they are just as
insulting and cruel as the ones who do not believe OSAS.
(By "OSAS" I guess you mean "Once Saved Always Saved".)

Logically: if OSAS folks are just as insulting and cruel as non-OSAS
folks, then that isn't a problem with OSAS folks per se, but a problem
with folks in general.
Post by Patrick
To me, this is a problem. I refuse to accept the idea that a OSAS
person can sin all he wants ... cuz he be saved....
Yes, I can understand that. But that's a very worldly way of looking at
salvation. To me, OSAS means that when a person accepts Christ's
redeeming sacrifice for his or her sin and repents of his or her sinful
nature, he or she accepts Christ's nature in its place, and from then on
he or she earnestly strives to do Christ's will. By definition, when one
is doing Christ's will, one is not sinning. Nevertheless, being human,
we do sometimes fall down. "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1).

You might call it "due diligence". Christians must strive not to sin,
and in return Jesus intercedes when they fail to meet God's standard of
perfection.

<irrelevant stuff snipped>
Post by Patrick
Pay attention.
My belief is well stated in the Nicene Creed.
Fair enough.
Post by Patrick
I am a Roman Catholic who understands my faith, my beliefs, and I am
ready to help others understand Catholic doctrine and dogma.
Fair enough, but bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted to
non-Catholic groups, so you're necessarily going to find non-Catholic
viewpoints promulgated herein, as well as Catholic viewpoints.
Post by Patrick
But... do not belittle what I believe.
Well, I certainly don't belittle the Nicene Creed. If you believe that,
fair enough. So do I.
Post by Patrick
Don't tell me I am wrong in my reasoning.
I will never tell you that you are wrong in your reasoning unless I
believe that you are wrong in your reasoning. If I do believe that you
are wrong in your reasoning, I reserve the right to say so. If you don't
want to read criticisms of your reasoning, well, that's what filters are
for.
Post by Patrick
Unless you are prepared to defend your own beliefs.
I don't need to defend them. If they're wrong, they're indefensible. And
if they're right, then God will defend them for me when necessary. The
same applies to your own beliefs.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
And you feel you must defend robert because he was getting his ass
kicked.
I have already made it very clear that my objection was to /your/
mocking a correct statement that Robert made.
Yes, you made it perfectly clear.
And that was a lie.
No, it wasn't.
Post by Patrick
You know what that makes you, don't you?
Well, I know that it makes /you/ a poor judge of character.
I beg to differ.
I am an excellent judge of character.
My common sense has served me well over the years.
I was promoted 10 times in the USAF because of my good decisions.
Fantastic. But when you call a man a liar, you need better evidence for
that claim than "I was promoted 10 times in the USAF" if you wish to be
taken seriously.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-18 23:34:21 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:00:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:45:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Why would I ever consider picking up your convenient belief of once
saved, always saved. That would be unforgivable.
What you believe is entirely up to you. You say my belief is convenient,
but actually it is /in/convenient in all kinds of ways. For example, my
belief constrains me from speaking to you in the same kind of way that
you speak to me, which I sometimes find rather restrictive.
I can understand that.
But if you are saved, why would it be difficult for you to be
"dwelling " all of the time? (or whatever you call it.) If you are
saved, it really should be easy.
I don't know what you mean by "dwelling". I know what the word usually
means -- "living in a place" -- but I don't know why or how you are
using it here.
I believe it was robert who asked me if the Holy Spirit dwells in me.
I said no. That word indicated that he has set up housekeeping inside
me. And that is not what I would believe.
Actually, I can't remember why I used that word. I have a terrible
short term memory, so let's just bypass that.
Post by Patrick
The problem with some of you OSAS folks is that they are just as
insulting and cruel as the ones who do not believe OSAS.
(By "OSAS" I guess you mean "Once Saved Always Saved".)l
Yes.
Logically: if OSAS folks are just as insulting and cruel as non-OSAS
folks, then that isn't a problem with OSAS folks per se, but a problem
with folks in general.
Why?
If my soul was absolutely saved (for sure), then I would probably life
a very Christ like life. I don't know how you could not. But then, I
look at that belief much different than you. It is something I just
cannot fathom. After all, God gave me a free will. I make decisions
every day. If I were a OSAS person, I believe I could do just about
anything I wanted. After all, there will be no judgment, no
punishment, and all will be well, no matter what I do.

And that just doesn't make sense to me.
And if doesn't make sense, it just isn't true.
Post by Patrick
To me, this is a problem. I refuse to accept the idea that a OSAS
person can sin all he wants ... cuz he be saved....
Yes, I can understand that. But that's a very worldly way of looking at
salvation. To me, OSAS means that when a person accepts Christ's
redeeming sacrifice for his or her sin and repents of his or her sinful
nature, he or she accepts Christ's nature in its place, and from then on
he or she earnestly strives to do Christ's will.
Now, I understand that.
And that makes sense.
However..... it doesn't happen.
By definition, when one
is doing Christ's will, one is not sinning. Nevertheless, being human,
we do sometimes fall down. "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1).
OK....
I also have the same advocate.
And Jesus can forgive me of my sins if I repent.
And Jesus passed this same doctrine to his disciples.
Jesus gave his disciples the power to heal, to speak in tongues, and
to forgive sin. "Whose sins you forgive, will be forgiven..."

This is a very powerful gift that Jesus gave to his disciples.
You might call it "due diligence". Christians must strive not to sin,
and in return Jesus intercedes when they fail to meet God's standard of
perfection.
I agree whole heartedly.
However, men are sinners, and we sometimes fail.
<irrelevant stuff snipped>
Post by Patrick
Pay attention.
My belief is well stated in the Nicene Creed.
Fair enough.
Post by Patrick
I am a Roman Catholic who understands my faith, my beliefs, and I am
ready to help others understand Catholic doctrine and dogma.
Fair enough, but bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted to
non-Catholic groups, so you're necessarily going to find non-Catholic
viewpoints promulgated herein, as well as Catholic viewpoints.
And that is fine with me.
I am speaking about ME and ME alone.
Post by Patrick
But... do not belittle what I believe.
Well, I certainly don't belittle the Nicene Creed. If you believe that,
fair enough. So do I.
Post by Patrick
Don't tell me I am wrong in my reasoning.
I will never tell you that you are wrong in your reasoning unless I
believe that you are wrong in your reasoning. If I do believe that you
are wrong in your reasoning, I reserve the right to say so. If you don't
want to read criticisms of your reasoning, well, that's what filters are
for.
Post by Patrick
Unless you are prepared to defend your own beliefs.
I don't need to defend them. If they're wrong, they're indefensible. And
if they're right, then God will defend them for me when necessary. The
same applies to your own beliefs.
OK.
I believe you are wrong in your beliefs.
And unlike robert, I can lay out what, where, and why.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Well, I know that it makes /you/ a poor judge of character.
I beg to differ.
I am an excellent judge of character.
My common sense has served me well over the years.
I was promoted 10 times in the USAF because of my good decisions.
Fantastic. But when you call a man a liar, you need better evidence for
that claim than "I was promoted 10 times in the USAF" if you wish to be
taken seriously.
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied. It has nothing to do with me.
And when you claim I am a poor judge of character, I will explain why
you are wrong. And it has EVERYTHING to do with me.


Every promise of salvation in the scripture has a condition. If we
fulfil the conditions the promises are ours. For example, we read in
Colossians 1:21-23: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above
reproach in His sight if indeed you continue in the faith…” Do you see
the condition?

We know that if we sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous. Yes, if we are genuinely sorry and repentant
there is an abundance of forgiveness in Jesus. But the danger is that
by repeatedly yielding to the same temptation a hardening sets in. We
are not as sorry as when we first fell in this sin, become more and
more hardened and finally end up with “an evil heart of unbelief” and
lose our confidence. We depart from the living God. We put ourselves
outside of His hand.

http://activechristianity.org/once-saved-always-saved/?gclid=CJWchsHrzNECFZCPswod3SIIBQ

So let us not allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of
security and put our salvation in jeopardy, but rather do as Paul
exhorts in Philippians 2:12: “Therefore, my beloved, as you have
always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my
absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”


Christians can sin and they often do sin but to believe that a
Christian can live any way he or she likes, and still be saved, is
dangerous. Some argue that a ‘real’ Christian wouldn’t commit these
sins and it is the ‘almost Christians’ who fall foul of this type of
entrapment from the enemy. I believe that would be wrong too.
Committed Christians sin for all sorts of reasons and we are only
saved by God’s amazing Grace, not our level of commitment. God knows
our true heart!

If God didn’t want us to be able to choose He would not have given us
the gift of freewill. It is this gift which places us above the
animals. It is this gift which allows us to choose to either worship
God or not worship God. It is this gift, and only this gift, which
allows us to truly love Him like a son. It is this gift which proves
that ‘once saved, always saved’ must be wrong.
If we are saved in spite of ourselves then there is no freewill. If
there is no freewill then the Bible is wrong!
I don’t believe that the Bible is wrong...
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:05:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:00:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
The problem with some of you OSAS folks is that they are just as
insulting and cruel as the ones who do not believe OSAS.
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Logically: if OSAS folks are just as insulting and cruel as non-OSAS
folks, then that isn't a problem with OSAS folks per se, but a problem
with folks in general.
Why?
Well, I could re-cast your sentence as follows WITHOUT changing the
underlying apportionment of insulting behaviour and cruelty:

"The problem with some of you folks who do not believe OSAS is that they
are just as insulting and cruel as the ones who do believe OSAS."

In this re-casting of the sentence, each side remains just as insulting
and cruel as before, and yet the blame for the problem has shifted to
the opposite side.

We deduce that, even if the premise (that OSAS folks and non-OSAS folks
are equally insulting and cruel) is true, the conclusion that the
problem rests solely with either camp is clearly false.
Post by Patrick
If my soul was absolutely saved (for sure), then I would probably life
a very Christ like life. I don't know how you could not. But then, I
look at that belief much different than you. It is something I just
cannot fathom. After all, God gave me a free will. I make decisions
every day. If I were a OSAS person, I believe I could do just about
anything I wanted. After all, there will be no judgment, no
punishment, and all will be well, no matter what I do.
And that just doesn't make sense to me.
And if doesn't make sense, it just isn't true.
It makes sense to me. It's called personal responsibility. A child who
knows his father will forgive him no matter what he does /could/ behave
in all kinds of despicable and reprehensible ways. He could steal money
from his mother's purse; he could pull the hair of the girl who lives on
the corner; he could forge his father's signature on a note excusing him
from PE; he could put rat poison in the next door neighbour's dog food.
But most kids I know don't behave like that, even though they are sure
of their father's forgiveness. Rather, they do their best to behave
well, and sometimes they fail, but they're /trying/ to be good kids.

As a Christian, I try to behave in a way that makes my Father proud of
me. Sometimes I fail, but I know He still loves me even when I do fail.

Someone who deliberately goes out of His way to flout God's will at
every turn clearly does not want to accept Christ as Lord. That is very
different to someone who /does/ want to accept Christ as Lord (but
occasionally screws up).
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
To me, this is a problem. I refuse to accept the idea that a OSAS
person can sin all he wants ... cuz he be saved....
Yes, I can understand that. But that's a very worldly way of looking at
salvation. To me, OSAS means that when a person accepts Christ's
redeeming sacrifice for his or her sin and repents of his or her sinful
nature, he or she accepts Christ's nature in its place, and from then on
he or she earnestly strives to do Christ's will.
Now, I understand that.
And that makes sense.
However..... it doesn't happen.
Well, there we must agree to differ, because I see it happening around
me all the time. Christians mess up sometimes, sure, but the ones I know
personally are trying very hard not to, and it would be silly of me to
assume that the /only/ Christians who are like that are the ones I know
personally, wouldn't it?
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
By definition, when one
is doing Christ's will, one is not sinning. Nevertheless, being human,
we do sometimes fall down. "But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous" (1 Jn 2:1).
OK....
I also have the same advocate.
Right.
Post by Patrick
And Jesus can forgive me of my sins if I repent.
Right. And you repented when you accepted Christ as Saviour and Lord.
Post by Patrick
And Jesus passed this same doctrine to his disciples.
Jesus gave his disciples the power to heal, to speak in tongues, and
to forgive sin. "Whose sins you forgive, will be forgiven..."
Okay. I realise you consider that passage to apply not just to Jesus's
disciples but to Roman Catholic priests as well. There we must agree to
differ, since we will never agree to agree!
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
You might call it "due diligence". Christians must strive not to sin,
and in return Jesus intercedes when they fail to meet God's standard of
perfection.
I agree whole heartedly.
However, men are sinners, and we sometimes fail.
When we become Christians, "sinner" is no longer our defining
characteristic. That's why Paul wrote "while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". We become saints (and yes, I realise that the term has a
more specialised meaning for Roman Catholics than for other Christians,
but it's hard to find a more neutral word, unless you want to use the
word "Christians"). Now /Christ/ is our defining characteristic - or the
spiritual nature, if you like. Nevertheless, because we are still human,
we still sin sometimes, but when we do, Christ is our advocate before
God (1 Jn 2:1).
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
I am a Roman Catholic who understands my faith, my beliefs, and I am
ready to help others understand Catholic doctrine and dogma.
Fair enough, but bear in mind that this thread is cross-posted to
non-Catholic groups, so you're necessarily going to find non-Catholic
viewpoints promulgated herein, as well as Catholic viewpoints.
And that is fine with me.
I am speaking about ME and ME alone.
Fine.

<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Unless you are prepared to defend your own beliefs.
I don't need to defend them. If they're wrong, they're indefensible. And
if they're right, then God will defend them for me when necessary. The
same applies to your own beliefs.
OK.
I believe you are wrong in your beliefs.
And I believe you are wrong in yours. (Wait...)
Post by Patrick
And unlike robert, I can lay out what, where, and why.
And I can do the same for yours. BUT... what's the point? No matter how
much I point out how your beliefs are in error, it's very unlikely to
make you change your mind. And, quite frankly, although I have been
known to change my beliefs as a result of argument (and I mean debate,
not slanging matches), it is fairly rare nowadays, and you are very
unlikely to make /me/ change /my/ mind.

So why bother?
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Well, I know that it makes /you/ a poor judge of character.
I beg to differ.
I am an excellent judge of character.
My common sense has served me well over the years.
I was promoted 10 times in the USAF because of my good decisions.
Fantastic. But when you call a man a liar, you need better evidence for
that claim than "I was promoted 10 times in the USAF" if you wish to be
taken seriously.
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied. It has nothing to do with me.
Well, the accusation has everything to do with you. Now, in this case
you accused me of lying when I said (truthfully) that my original
objection in this thread was to your mocking a correct statement made by
Robert.

I still assert that this is the truth (because it /is/ the truth), but
Post by Patrick
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied.
Now, you haven't explained why (you think) I lied. Nor have you even
shown that I /did/ lie (which, of course, I did not). But you /said/
that, when you call a person a liar, you always - always - explain why
they lied. And yet you called me a liar /without/ explaining. So that
makes your statement untrue. So either you yourself lied, or you were
mistaken.
Post by Patrick
And when you claim I am a poor judge of character, I will explain why
you are wrong. And it has EVERYTHING to do with me.
Well, you said I lied when I didn't. How does that make you a good judge
of character?
Post by Patrick
Every promise of salvation in the scripture has a condition. If we
fulfil the conditions the promises are ours. For example, we read in
Colossians 1:21-23: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above
reproach in His sight if indeed you continue in the faith…” Do you see
the condition?
Yes, of course.
Post by Patrick
We know that if we sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous. Yes, if we are genuinely sorry and repentant
there is an abundance of forgiveness in Jesus.
Right.
Post by Patrick
But the danger is that
by repeatedly yielding to the same temptation a hardening sets in.
Yes. This is sometimes called the sin-confess cycle. There's an
excellent discipleship course called "Freedom in Christ" that deals very
intelligently with this problem. Here's a summary:

<http://www.ficm.org.uk/node/473>

To summarise the summary(!) very briefly, it says that the sin-confess
cycle is a cycle because we leave out an important step - resistance.

James 4:7 says: "Submit, therefore, to God. Resist the devil and he will
flee from you."

Confession is fine, but then must come resistance. Let's say the sin in
question is, oh, I don't know... I want something that won't be too
emotive. Littering. That'll do.

What follows is a completely imaginary example, as I'm not personally a
litter-bug, but I hope it will illustrate the point.

Littering is irresponsible, careless, inconsiderate behaviour. God
doesn't want us to be irresponsible, careless, or inconsiderate. So when
we behave in that way, it's a sin.

I drop a piece of litter. A bus ticket, say. Later, I realise that I've
done that, so I confess the sin. (Hardly a big deal, but we should
confess /every/ sin.) And then, the next time I get off a bus, I drop my
ticket once more. And then, later on, I realise I've done it again, and
I'm angry with myself, and I confess the sin, and everything's fine for
a while, but then I get off another bus and... well, there's the cycle.

What's missing? Resistance!

Resistance, contrary to what you may have heard, is /not/ useless. But
it has to be active and well-considered resistance.

Having identified a sin-confess cycle, you plan for it. You take
specific and relevant steps to resist it. For example, I might buy
myself a little pouch in which to keep used bus tickets, and carry it
everywhere with me. When I've bought my ticket from the driver, I can
put it in the pouch, where it's quite safe in case an inspector wants to
see it (and if he does, I put it back in the pouch afterwards). Over
time, I will notice that the pouch is beginning to fill up. When it's
getting a little full, I don't drop the whole pouch on the pavement. No,
I can proudly take it to a bin and empty it there, and then put it back
in my pocket for next time.

That is, I take positive steps to resist the temptation to repeat the sin.

If the sin involves a purchase of some kind, one strategy for resisting
might be to avoid visiting the shop that sells the product in question,
or to avoid visiting the area of town where the service is for sale. The
point here is to recognise the weakness but not to indulge it - to avoid
putting oneself in situations where one is tempted.

If this is done honestly and with determination, Jesus will honour it!
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 17:57:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:05:17 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:00:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
The problem with some of you OSAS folks is that they are just as
insulting and cruel as the ones who do not believe OSAS.
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Logically: if OSAS folks are just as insulting and cruel as non-OSAS
folks, then that isn't a problem with OSAS folks per se, but a problem
with folks in general.
Why?
Well, I could re-cast your sentence as follows WITHOUT changing the
"The problem with some of you folks who do not believe OSAS is that they
are just as insulting and cruel as the ones who do believe OSAS."
In this re-casting of the sentence, each side remains just as insulting
and cruel as before, and yet the blame for the problem has shifted to
the opposite side.
We deduce that, even if the premise (that OSAS folks and non-OSAS folks
are equally insulting and cruel) is true, the conclusion that the
problem rests solely with either camp is clearly false.
Good for you.
You are putting me to sleep.
Post by Patrick
If my soul was absolutely saved (for sure), then I would probably life
a very Christ like life. I don't know how you could not. But then, I
look at that belief much different than you. It is something I just
cannot fathom. After all, God gave me a free will. I make decisions
every day. If I were a OSAS person, I believe I could do just about
anything I wanted. After all, there will be no judgment, no
punishment, and all will be well, no matter what I do.
And that just doesn't make sense to me.
And if doesn't make sense, it just isn't true.
It makes sense to me.
+ That is NOT my problem.
It's called personal responsibility.
That is what the rest of us call it also.
Do not think you are the only one who recognizes personal
responsibility.
A child who
knows his father will forgive him no matter what he does /could/ behave
in all kinds of despicable and reprehensible ways. He could steal money
from his mother's purse; he could pull the hair of the girl who lives on
the corner; he could forge his father's signature on a note excusing him
from PE; he could put rat poison in the next door neighbour's dog food.
But most kids I know don't behave like that, even though they are sure
of their father's forgiveness. Rather, they do their best to behave
well, and sometimes they fail, but they're /trying/ to be good kids.
I disagree.
A parent cannot give forgiveness for certain crimes.
He/she could try to make an excuse for the child.
And they often do.
Sometimes we sin against God. Sometimes we sin against our neighbors.
You think the parent will forgive. And I claim the parent may
continue to love his child, but he has not right to forgive.
I think you have your terms confused.
As a Christian, I try to behave in a way that makes my Father proud of
me. Sometimes I fail, but I know He still loves me even when I do fail.
I know God will continue to love me.
As will my father.
However, forgiveness cannot be given unless certain requirements are
met. THEY MUST BE MET......
Although God is always ready and willing to forgive us, He requires
two things of us as conditions of forgiveness: repentance and
forgiveness of others. Depending on the circumstances, confession and
restitution may also be needed.
Someone who deliberately goes out of His way to flout God's will at
every turn clearly does not want to accept Christ as Lord. That is very
different to someone who /does/ want to accept Christ as Lord (but
occasionally screws up).
In other words.
"Once saved, always saved" is only good for people who follow God's
commandments. Once you are saved, and you do something bad, NOW WHAT?
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
To me, this is a problem. I refuse to accept the idea that a OSAS
person can sin all he wants ... cuz he be saved....
Yes, I can understand that. But that's a very worldly way of looking at
salvation. To me, OSAS means that when a person accepts Christ's
redeeming sacrifice for his or her sin and repents of his or her sinful
nature, he or she accepts Christ's nature in its place, and from then on
he or she earnestly strives to do Christ's will.
Now, I understand that.
And that makes sense.
However..... it doesn't happen.
Well, there we must agree to differ, because I see it happening around
me all the time. Christians mess up sometimes, sure, but the ones I know
personally are trying very hard not to, and it would be silly of me to
assume that the /only/ Christians who are like that are the ones I know
personally, wouldn't it?
What happens when a OSAS person slips up and doesn't something really
bad out of one passionate mistake? Do you just say one prayer, and
you are accepted back in the fold>?
When we become Christians, "sinner" is no longer our defining
characteristic. That's why Paul wrote "while we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". We become saints (and yes, I realise that the term has a
more specialised meaning for Roman Catholics than for other Christians,
but it's hard to find a more neutral word, unless you want to use the
word "Christians"). Now /Christ/ is our defining characteristic - or the
spiritual nature, if you like. Nevertheless, because we are still human,
we still sin sometimes, but when we do, Christ is our advocate before
God (1 Jn 2:1).
I am exhausted.
Let me come back to this later.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 09:57:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:05:17 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
A child who
knows his father will forgive him no matter what he does /could/ behave
in all kinds of despicable and reprehensible ways. He could steal money
from his mother's purse; he could pull the hair of the girl who lives on
the corner; he could forge his father's signature on a note excusing him
from PE; he could put rat poison in the next door neighbour's dog food.
But most kids I know don't behave like that, even though they are sure
of their father's forgiveness. Rather, they do their best to behave
well, and sometimes they fail, but they're /trying/ to be good kids.
I disagree.
Of course.
Post by Patrick
A parent cannot give forgiveness for certain crimes.
I see no reason why not. Indeed, a Christian parent is /required/ to
forgive, no matter what the child's crime.
Post by Patrick
He/she could try to make an excuse for the child.
That's a quite separate issue.
Post by Patrick
And they often do.
Sometimes we sin against God. Sometimes we sin against our neighbors.
You think the parent will forgive. And I claim the parent may
continue to love his child, but he has not right to forgive.
He doesn't have the right not to. Matt 6:12.

NIV UK: And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
Douay Rheims: And forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors.
The Message: Keep us forgiven with you and forgiving others.
Post by Patrick
I think you have your terms confused.
Why do you think so?

According to oxforddictionaries.com the term "forgive" means "stop
feeling angry or resentful towards", with subsidiary meanings of "no
longer feel angry about or wish to punish" and "cancel (a debt)".

A parent certainly has the right to do all of these things, and
according to Matt 6:12 doesn't have the right not to. Of course, in the
case of an actual crime a parent cannot protect a child against a higher
authority than the parent (so if Joe Doe steals a car, Mr Doe can
forgive Joe by ceasing to be angry with him, but Joe will still have to
go to court). Fortunately for us, there is no higher authority than God.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
As a Christian, I try to behave in a way that makes my Father proud of
me. Sometimes I fail, but I know He still loves me even when I do fail.
I know God will continue to love me.
As will my father.
Right.
Post by Patrick
However, forgiveness cannot be given unless certain requirements are
met. THEY MUST BE MET......
I can forgive someone (stop feeling angry towards them, or cancel their
debt to me) without imposing any conditions. I'm not saying it's easy,
but it /can/ be done. How much more can God forgive us without imposing
conditions on us! Nevertheless, He /does/ impose conditions...
Post by Patrick
Although God is always ready and willing to forgive us, He requires
two things of us as conditions of forgiveness: repentance and
forgiveness of others. Depending on the circumstances, confession and
restitution may also be needed.
Right.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Someone who deliberately goes out of His way to flout God's will at
every turn clearly does not want to accept Christ as Lord. That is very
different to someone who /does/ want to accept Christ as Lord (but
occasionally screws up).
In other words.
"Once saved, always saved" is only good for people who follow God's
commandments.
Well, that's not /quite/ what I meant (almost, but not quite). Rather,
it's people who earnestly desire to follow God's commandments (love God,
love each other), even if they don't always get it right. That is, it is
for people who accept Christ as Saviour and as Lord.
Post by Patrick
Once you are saved, and you do something bad, NOW WHAT?
Repentance, confession, resistance.

<snip>
Post by Patrick
What happens when a OSAS person slips up and doesn't something really
bad out of one passionate mistake? Do you just say one prayer, and
you are accepted back in the fold>?
It doesn't matter whether a person subscribes to "once saved always
saved" or not. What matters is what God thinks. As for "what happens",
it seems to me that the question is an attempt to convert grace into
law. But God's grace is bigger than that.

1 John teaches that, if we confess our sins, God forgives; that we
should strive not to sin but that, on those occasions when despite our
effort we lapse into sin, Christ is our advocate; that those who claim
to be in the light but hate a brother or sister (eg Robert, or MattB, or
you, or duke, or me) are still stumbling around in the darkness, but
those who love their brothers and sisters live in the light, and there
is nothing in them to make them stumble.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 19:44:35 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Unless you are prepared to defend your own beliefs.
I don't need to defend them. If they're wrong, they're indefensible. And
if they're right, then God will defend them for me when necessary. The
same applies to your own beliefs.
OK.
I believe you are wrong in your beliefs.
And I believe you are wrong in yours. (Wait...)
Post by Patrick
And unlike robert, I can lay out what, where, and why.
And I can do the same for yours. BUT... what's the point? No matter how
much I point out how your beliefs are in error, it's very unlikely to
make you change your mind. And, quite frankly, although I have been
known to change my beliefs as a result of argument (and I mean debate,
not slanging matches), it is fairly rare nowadays, and you are very
unlikely to make /me/ change /my/ mind.
So why bother?
Perhaps you are right.
Post by Patrick
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied. It has nothing to do with me.
Well, the accusation has everything to do with you. Now, in this case
you accused me of lying when I said (truthfully) that my original
objection in this thread was to your mocking a correct statement made by
Robert.
And again.... you are lying to yourself.
The statement was not correct.
It was based on a premise that was totally incorrect.
And I pointed that out several times.
I still assert that this is the truth (because it /is/ the truth), but
Post by Patrick
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied.
Now, you haven't explained why (you think) I lied. Nor have you even
shown that I /did/ lie (which, of course, I did not).
Yes, I did.
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
It was a total lie.
But you /said/
that, when you call a person a liar, you always - always - explain why
they lied.
Yes, I did.
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
It was a total lie.
And yet you called me a liar /without/ explaining.
Yes, I did explain.
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
It was a total lie.
So that
makes your statement untrue. So either you yourself lied, or you were
mistaken.
I was mistaken in the fact that I felt you would be logical enough and
have enough intelligence to see what I was talking about. I was
wrong. You refused to even consider my point of view.
Post by Patrick
And when you claim I am a poor judge of character, I will explain why
you are wrong. And it has EVERYTHING to do with me.
Well, you said I lied when I didn't. How does that make you a good judge
of character?
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
It was a total lie.
Post by Patrick
Every promise of salvation in the scripture has a condition. If we
fulfil the conditions the promises are ours. For example, we read in
Colossians 1:21-23: “And you, who once were alienated and enemies in
your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of
His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above
reproach in His sight if indeed you continue in the faith…” Do you see
the condition?
Yes, of course.
Post by Patrick
We know that if we sin we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus
Christ the righteous. Yes, if we are genuinely sorry and repentant
there is an abundance of forgiveness in Jesus.
Right.
Post by Patrick
But the danger is that
by repeatedly yielding to the same temptation a hardening sets in.
Yes. This is sometimes called the sin-confess cycle. There's an
excellent discipleship course called "Freedom in Christ" that deals very
<http://www.ficm.org.uk/node/473>
I pass.
I understand what I need to know.
That is, I take positive steps to resist the temptation to repeat the sin.
So do I.....
So does everyone who is a Christian.
If the sin involves a purchase of some kind, one strategy for resisting
might be to avoid visiting the shop that sells the product in question,
or to avoid visiting the area of town where the service is for sale. The
point here is to recognise the weakness but not to indulge it - to avoid
putting oneself in situations where one is tempted.
If this is done honestly and with determination, Jesus will honour it!
I agree.

What happens if you don't do it with honesty and determination? Do
you lose your OSAS status?

That is the question.

And don't even try to tell me that the person who slipped, wasn't
really saved in the first place. That is disingenuous.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:44:52 UTC
Permalink
[Attribution restored]
<snip>
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied. It has nothing to do with me.
Well, the accusation has everything to do with you. Now, in this case
you accused me of lying when I said (truthfully) that my original
objection in this thread was to your mocking a correct statement made by
Robert.
And again.... you are lying to yourself.
The statement was not correct.
It was based on a premise that was totally incorrect.
And I pointed that out several times.
You are wrong in several different ways. To be clear, you accused me of
lying about my original motivation for posting my objection, and that
accusation is misplace.

Let's start with "lying to myself" - no, I know precisely why I made my
original objection, and it was indeed for the reason I said, so I'm not
lying to myself. Secondly, the statement /was/ (and is) correct.
Thirdly, even if it weren't (which it is), it would have to be
/deliberately/ incorrect to constitute a lie (and since it isn't
incorrect it can't be deliberately incorrect). Fourthly, it was based on
the correct premise that I know precisely why I posted and conveyed that
reason correctly. Fifthly, it doesn't matter how many times you point
out something - if it isn't true, it isn't true, even if you repeat it
fifty times or a hundred times.

Now, it may be that you are confusing the issue with the /original/
issue, i.e. Robert's claim that the NT had not yet been written when
Mary and Joseph received angelic visitations. You mocked him for making
that (correct) claim. Now, he /also/ made a minor error in that he did
not distinguish between the angelic visit to Mary and the angelic visit
to Joseph, and I think that's the bit you're concentrating on, but I
wasn't worried about that bit and I didn't object to your complaining
about it. My objection was to your mocking of his /correct/ claim that
the NT had not been written at that point.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I still assert that this is the truth (because it /is/ the truth), but
Post by Patrick
When I call a person a liar, I always - always - explain why they
lied.
Now, you haven't explained why (you think) I lied. Nor have you even
shown that I /did/ lie (which, of course, I did not).
Yes, I did.
Well, no, you didn't.
Post by Patrick
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
I know he made a correct statement based on a correct premise. He /also/
made a minor error as mentioned above, and I raised no objection to your
complaint about that. My objection was purely to your mocking of his
/correct/ statement, and was unrelated to his /incorrect/ statement.
Post by Patrick
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
Yes, I do. And EVEN IF I WERE INCORRECT (which I'm not), it still
wouldn't be a lie. A lie is a deliberate untruth.

It seems you don't even know what a lie *is*, and yet you brand me as a
liar.
Post by Patrick
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
Interesting point of view.
Post by Patrick
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
Well, the premise was correct - the NT was /not/ written at the time in
question.
Post by Patrick
It was a total lie.
Since you appear not to know what "lie" means, I'll let that pass.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 21:21:32 UTC
Permalink
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
I can't tell the difference between all you bashers.
You all follow the same creed and rules.
In case you have forgotten:

Catholic Basher (cb) CREED: "Life sucks and then you die."

cb Rule # 1: If you can't dispute the facts, insult the fact finder

cb Rule # 2: It is permitted for any
cb'er to insult a person in order to elicit insults back from him,
justifying the original insult.

cb Rule # 3: Find any article critical of the Catholic Church
no matter how old it is.... and post it as if it were NEW news......

cb Rule # 4: .. If you can't argue the REAL
facts, interpret the other persons words incorrectly and
dishonestly, ... and then debate these new made-up words.

cb Rule #5 : If you can't fight the facts, then make up new ones.

cb Rule #6 : When an basher comes up with
a particularly good insult against the RCC or any Catholic, it
is advisable for other bashers to chime in with "me too's."
Mattb.
2017-01-17 22:24:53 UTC
Permalink
++ I can certainly show you when EXPERTS feel each book was written.
But we know they were not all compiled into a "New testament" until
centuries later.
New Testament
James--A.D. 44-49
Galatians--A.D. 49-50
Matthew--A.D. 50-60
Mark--A.D. 50-60
1 Thessalonians--A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians--A.D. 51-52
1 Corinthians--A.D. 55
2 Corinthians--A.D. 55-56
Romans-- A.D. 56
Luke--A.D. 60-61
Ephesians--A.D. 60-62
Philippians--A.D. 60-62
Philemon--A.D. 60-62
Colossians--A.D. 60-62
Acts--A.D. 62
1 Timothy--A.D. 62-64
Titus--A.D. 62-64
1 Peter--A.D. 64-65
2 Timothy--A.D. 66-67
2 Peter--A.D. 67-68
Hebrews--A.D. 67-69
Jude--A.D. 68-70
John--A.D. 80-90
1 John--A.D. 90-95
2 John--A.D. 90-95
3 John--A.D. 90-95
Revelation--A.D. 94-96
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
I am happy that you find it interesting.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke were historians who wrote "history."
St Paul never met Jesus when He was alive.
The rest is HISTORY. or advice to the followers of Jesus.
As for your belief in "half-brother," go for it.
That is another discussion, and you know that well.
Or...... you are just plain stupid.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother. His is also the first
book written or at least started.

Nothing I said above was incorrect.
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:36:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.

1. The Meaning of Brother

The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.

Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
biological brothers but uncle and nephew:

“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).

Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!

2. Children of Mary?

These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).

3. Other Women Named Mary

James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.

After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
writes:

“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).

4. Consensus of the Early Church

The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers

+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
Mattb.
2017-01-17 22:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
So you are claiming James was not Jesus half brother. Yes or No.
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:56:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
So you are claiming James was not Jesus half brother. Yes or No.
I am claiming that Mary had one child: Jesus Christ.
I claim nothing about James. He may be a son of Joseph. He may be a
cousin. He may be adopted. I don't really know... and quite frankly,
I probably never will know. James is merely a personality in the
Bible. Along with hundreds of other personalities described.
If you wish to believe that James is Jesus' brother, go for it.
It is not going to affect me or my faith at all. Just don't try to
force your belief on me.
Mattb.
2017-01-18 04:14:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
So you are claiming James was not Jesus half brother. Yes or No.
I am claiming that Mary had one child: Jesus Christ.
Do you have evidence that Mary did not have sexual relations with her
husband Joseph?
Post by Patrick
I claim nothing about James. He may be a son of Joseph. He may be a
cousin. He may be adopted. I don't really know... and quite frankly,
I probably never will know. James is merely a personality in the
Bible.
Is that what you RCC think about Paul?
Post by Patrick
Along with hundreds of other personalities described.
If you wish to believe that James is Jesus' brother, go for it.
It is not going to affect me or my faith at all. Just don't try to
force your belief on me.
Well you can believe what you want but to believe Mary never had
relations with her Husband is RCC bullshit.
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
So you are claiming James was not Jesus half brother. Yes or No.
I am claiming that Mary had one child: Jesus Christ.
Do you have evidence that Mary did not have sexual relations with her
husband Joseph?
Do you have any evidence that your mother had any children without
mental problems?
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
I claim nothing about James. He may be a son of Joseph. He may be a
cousin. He may be adopted. I don't really know... and quite frankly,
I probably never will know. James is merely a personality in the
Bible.
Is that what you RCC think about Paul?
Did I say that?
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Along with hundreds of other personalities described.
If you wish to believe that James is Jesus' brother, go for it.
It is not going to affect me or my faith at all. Just don't try to
force your belief on me.
Well you can believe what you want but to believe Mary never had
relations with her Husband is RCC bullshit.
And people wonder why I feel insulted when you open your pie hole.
Mattb.
2017-01-19 04:09:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
It is a fact that Jesus had a half brother.
That is what you say.
Again.
and Again.
1. The Meaning of Brother
The first thing to understand is that the term brother (Gk. adelphos)
has a broader meaning than uterine brothers. It can mean a biological
brother, but it can also mean an extended relative, or even a
spiritual brother.
Take Genesis 13:8 for example. Here the word brother is being used to
describe the relationship between Abraham and Lot, who were not
“So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and
me, or between your herdsmen and mine, for we are brothers” (Gen 13:8,
NIV; see also 14:12).
Because of the Bible’s broad semantic range of “brother,” we can rest
assured that although St. Paul writes, “[Jesus] appeared to more than
five hundred…brothers at the same time” (1 Cor. 15:6), we need not
infer from this verse that Mary gave birth to more than 500 children!
2. Children of Mary?
These “brothers” are never once called the children of Mary, although
Jesus himself is (John 2:1; Acts 1:14).
3. Other Women Named Mary
James and Joseph (also called Joses), who are called Jesus’ “brothers”
(Mark 6:3) are indeed the children of Mary—Just not Mary, the mother
of Jesus.
After St. Matthew’s account of the crucifixion and death of Jesus, he
“There were also many women there, looking on from afar, who had
followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering to him; among who were Mary
Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James and Joseph, and the mother of
the sons of Zebedee.” (Matt. 27:56; see also Mark 15:40).
4. Consensus of the Early Church
The earliest explanation of the “brothers” of the Lord is found in a
document known as the Protoevangelium of James, which was written
around A.D. 150. It speaks of Mary as a consecrated virgin since her
youth, and of St. Joseph as an elderly widower with children who was
chosen to be Mary’s spouse for the purposes of guarding and protecting
her while respecting her vow of virginity. Though this document is not
on the level of Sacred Scripture, it was written very early, and it
may contain accurate historical traditions.
https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/jesus-had-brothers
+ Note: If it bothers you that I am quoting from someone much smarter
than you... then Too Bad.
So you are claiming James was not Jesus half brother. Yes or No.
I am claiming that Mary had one child: Jesus Christ.
Do you have evidence that Mary did not have sexual relations with her
husband Joseph?
Do you have any evidence that your mother had any children without
mental problems?
Since Beverly was a whore do we know who your father even is? She
defiantly fits in with the California crowd off the strip.
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
I claim nothing about James. He may be a son of Joseph. He may be a
cousin. He may be adopted. I don't really know... and quite frankly,
I probably never will know. James is merely a personality in the
Bible.
Is that what you RCC think about Paul?
Did I say that?
Did you or have you?
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Along with hundreds of other personalities described.
If you wish to believe that James is Jesus' brother, go for it.
It is not going to affect me or my faith at all. Just don't try to
force your belief on me.
Well you can believe what you want but to believe Mary never had
relations with her Husband is RCC bullshit.
And people wonder why I feel insulted when you open your pie hole.
You can't prove she did not.
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:06:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
Since Beverly was a whore do we know who your father even is? She
defiantly fits in with the California crowd off the strip.
Nice insult about my mom.
Mattb.
2017-01-19 22:05:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
Since Beverly was a whore do we know who your father even is? She
defiantly fits in with the California crowd off the strip.
Nice insult about my mom.
Well you and I know Larry is not my family but your intent is plain.
Get used to being treated as you treat others. Not much you can do
about it.,
Patrick
2017-01-17 21:31:45 UTC
Permalink
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
Gabriel.
And in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city
of Galilee, named Nazareth, To a virgin espoused to a man whose name
was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary.
(Luk 1:26-27 KJV)
You say the NT was not written?
I said, "at that point it was not written"
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
You have no reading comprehension or love to troll by lying.
First of all, I don't agree that the New testament is considered a
"blood covenant."
Luk 22:20  And in like manner the cup, after having supped, saying,
This cup is the New Covenant in My blood, which is being poured out
for you. 
First of all, I don't agree that the New testament is considered a
"blood covenant." When Jesus said: "This cup is the New covenant..."
Jesus was speaking about "THIS CUP." He was not speaking about a
history that would be written later about this moment.
That cup was the discussion. That cup held something.
It was not a book. It was a CUP.
Paul teaches about it extensively.
+ This is where I demand you to prove it.
You have a habit of lying and not producing evidence for the crap that
you spew here.
For your knowledge, the disciples
did not drink a cup. And when the cup was passed from one to the other
at the end of the line the cup did not disappear, even though Jesus
said "Drink ye ALL of it." Just to show you the ludicrous nature of
your understanding. And to think this is what they taught you in
school. :(
Wow.
So... You feel Jesus is a Liar?
To me, a blood covenant is a promise made by God that He will choose a
people for Himself and bless them. The covenant was originally for
Abraham’s physical descendants but was later extended, spiritually, to
all those who, like Abraham, believe God.
That was the Old Covenant and it was an agreement between God and the
Israelites. Voted on and accepted.
Excellent. We agree.
You claim that covenant was an "agreement."
No, I didn't. You read something that was not there. A covenant is a
promise, guarantee. It can be one sided like many covenants in the old
testament. The rainbow is one example of a one sided covenant.
And what about the "CUP?"
+ However, ... it was not a cup.
Not only did Jesus tell the disciples at the "last supper" that it was
a Covenant of Blood, Jesus also repeated that to Paul who wrote about
the Covenant in more detail.
Prove it.
How can you agree with someone when you do not know what they meant or
even were talking about? More than once you read a little, assumed
something, and then posted it while learning later that it actually
disagreed with you. LOL.
That is a signature of mine.
I do it all the time.
When I get bored with someone's bull shit, I post some long and boring
statement that I want others to read and get back to me. You won't
believe how many people never get back to me.
And those that do... Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 21:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.

No wonder you cling to rituals.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:39:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
You are just mad that I kicked your ass.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 22:54:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation.

Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.

I realise that this isn't what /you/ believe, and I also realise that
you're not about to change your mind on my account; but I'm just
pointing it out to cover the miniscule possibility that anyone might
take your view as being somehow credible and will therefore benefit from
a contrary view.
Post by Patrick
You are just mad that I kicked your ass.
If you mean my donkey, I don't have one, so presumably you must have
kicked someone else's donkey by mistake.

If you mean that you mocked someone for being right and then couldn't
handle being corrected, well, yes, that's about the size of it.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation.
Yes, the only INPUTTED sin (an non-actual sin on our part) is original sin. It
is absolved in baptism. No sin can enter the kingdom of heaven. Rev 21:27.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.
Your odds are nil if you are not baptized.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I realise that this isn't what /you/ believe, and I also realise that
you're not about to change your mind on my account; but I'm just
pointing it out to cover the miniscule possibility that anyone might
take your view as being somehow credible and will therefore benefit from
a contrary view.
Post by Patrick
You are just mad that I kicked your ass.
If you mean my donkey, I don't have one, so presumably you must have
kicked someone else's donkey by mistake.
If you mean that you mocked someone for being right and then couldn't
handle being corrected, well, yes, that's about the size of it.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:43:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation.
Yes, the only INPUTTED sin (an non-actual sin on our part) is original sin. It
is absolved in baptism. No sin can enter the kingdom of heaven. Rev 21:27.
If by original sin you mean our innate tendency to do what we want
rather than what God wants, that is not in itself a sin. We sin only
when we yield to that tendency instead of resisting it.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.
Your odds are nil if you are not baptized.
God has never been one to worry about the odds. He is interested only in
restoring a right relationship with us. For Him, if not for you, it is
the person that counts, and that person's acceptance of Christ as
Saviour and Lord; He is not particularly interested in whether their
hair is wet.

When I was baptised, it wasn't because I thought I was getting a ticket
to heaven but because I wanted to give an outward sign of my inner
repentance.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 18:59:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation.
Yes, the only INPUTTED sin (an non-actual sin on our part) is original sin. It
is absolved in baptism. No sin can enter the kingdom of heaven. Rev 21:27.
If by original sin you mean our innate tendency to do what we want
rather than what God wants, that is not in itself a sin.
Nor is it original sin, which is the sin nature given by A&E to all humanity.
Post by Richard Heathfield
We sin only
when we yield to that tendency instead of resisting it.
It's not actual sin on our part.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.
Your odds are nil if you are not baptized.
God has never been one to worry about the odds. He is interested only in
restoring a right relationship with us.
Nope, no one is saved until we stand before God in judgment at the moment we
die.

You're been taught some really screwball ideas in your protest_ant church.
Post by Richard Heathfield
When I was baptised, it wasn't because I thought I was getting a ticket
to heaven but because I wanted to give an outward sign of my inner
repentance.
There is no inner repentance re original sin. It's the sin that ALL mankind
possesses just like we have 10 fingers and 10 toes compliments of A&E.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation.
Yes, the only INPUTTED sin (an non-actual sin on our part) is original sin. It
is absolved in baptism. No sin can enter the kingdom of heaven. Rev 21:27.
If by original sin you mean our innate tendency to do what we want
rather than what God wants, that is not in itself a sin.
Nor is it original sin, which is the sin nature given by A&E to all humanity.
When you talk about the "sin nature given by A&E to all humanity", do
you mean our innate tendency to do what we want rather than what God
wants? If not, what /do/ you mean? To call it "original sin" or "sin
nature" gives it a name but doesn't explain what it actually is.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
We sin only
when we yield to that tendency instead of resisting it.
It's not actual sin on our part.
Then we can hardly be held responsible for it.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.
Your odds are nil if you are not baptized.
God has never been one to worry about the odds. He is interested only in
restoring a right relationship with us.
Nope, no one is saved until we stand before God in judgment at the moment we
die.
Salvation is the restoration of our relationship with God.
Post by duke
You're been taught some really screwball ideas in your protest_ant church.
When you start using silly jibes like "protest_ant", it is an obvious
outward sign that you don't really know how to debate your point.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-18 19:04:31 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?

John. Chap 3


Jesus Teaches Nicodemus

1Now there was a Pharisee, a man named Nicodemus who was a member of
the Jewish ruling council. 2He came to Jesus at night and said,
“Rabbi, we know that you are a teacher who has come from God. For no
one could perform the signs you are doing if God were not with him.”

3Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of
God unless they are born again.a ”

4“How can someone be born when they are old?” Nicodemus asked. “Surely
they cannot enter a second time into their mother’s womb to be born!”

5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit. 7You should not
be surprised at my saying, ‘Youc must be born again.’ 8The wind blows
wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it
comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the
Spirit.”d

9“How can this be?” Nicodemus asked.

10“You are Israel’s teacher,” said Jesus, “and do you not understand
these things? 11Very truly I tell you, we speak of what we know, and
we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept
our testimony. 12I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not
believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things? 13No
one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the
Son of Man.e 14Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so
the Son of Man must be lifted up,f 15that everyone who believes may
have eternal life in him.”g

16For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that
whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism /follows/ salvation, as an outward sign of inward repentance. It
is not a box you have to tick to get into heaven.
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Post by Richard Heathfield
I realise that this isn't what /you/ believe, and I also realise that
you're not about to change your mind on my account; but I'm just
pointing it out to cover the miniscule possibility that anyone might
take your view as being somehow credible and will therefore benefit from
a contrary view.'
OK.
I understand the words of Jesus differently.
Along with a billion other people.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:35:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I realise that this isn't what /you/ believe, and I also realise that
you're not about to change your mind on my account; but I'm just
pointing it out to cover the miniscule possibility that anyone might
take your view as being somehow credible and will therefore benefit from
a contrary view.'
OK.
I understand the words of Jesus differently.
Quite so.
Post by Patrick
Along with a billion other people.
<shrug> If you're right, you're right even if you're the only one who
believes it. And if you're wrong, it wouldn't make any difference if the
whole world agreed with you.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:16:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
What does the following mean to you:
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:42:57 UTC
Permalink
On 19/01/17 01:16, Patrick wrote:
<snip>
Not a lot, since you didn't post anything.
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:17:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
What does the following mean to you:

5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:49:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Well, I think it means "born in the normal way AND born of the Spirit",
and this interpretation is borne out by the parallelism of verse 6.

But, whatever it means, "born of water" certainly doesn't mean Christian
baptism, since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted. If "born
of water" /does/ mean baptism, it could only have been the baptism of
repentance that John the Baptist gave. And since that form of baptism
has given way to Christian baptism and is no longer practised, that form
of baptism can't be necessary for salvation.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 19:04:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Well, I think it means "born in the normal way AND born of the Spirit",
and this interpretation is borne out by the parallelism of verse 6.
But, whatever it means, "born of water" certainly doesn't mean Christian
baptism, since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted.
Yet it's exactly what Jesus demonstrated in the Jordan at the begriming of his
ministry.
Post by Richard Heathfield
If "born
of water" /does/ mean baptism, it could only have been the baptism of
repentance that John the Baptist gave.
JtB's baptism is of repentance. And the Spirit of God on him as the next step.
You're in need of a rally good Catechism.
Post by Richard Heathfield
And since that form of baptism
has given way to Christian baptism and is no longer practised, that form
of baptism can't be necessary for salvation.
No Christian baptism, no heavenly kindgom for fake Christians.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Well, I think it means "born in the normal way AND born of the Spirit",
and this interpretation is borne out by the parallelism of verse 6.
But, whatever it means, "born of water" certainly doesn't mean Christian
baptism, since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted.
Yet it's exactly what Jesus demonstrated in the Jordan at the begriming of his
ministry.
"Begriming"? :-)

No, at the beginning of His ministry Jesus underwent John's baptism of
repentance (even though He didn't have to, because He had nothing to
repent). John's baptism of repentance has been superseded by Christian
baptism and is no longer practised.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:12:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:49:02 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:35:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:54:19 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:35:32 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals?
Such as, for example, an insistence on baptism as a prerequisite to
salvation
Why do you disregard the words of Jesus?
Well, of course I don't. Clearly we interpret those words differently,
you and I.
5Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom
of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit. 6Flesh gives
birth to flesh, but the Spiritb gives birth to spirit
Well, I think it means "born in the normal way AND born of the Spirit",
and this interpretation is borne out by the parallelism of verse 6.
But, whatever it means, "born of water" certainly doesn't mean Christian
baptism, since Christian baptism had not yet been instituted.
Have you ever heard of the cousin of Jesus: John the Baptist?
Would you like a lesson?

Other disciples were also known to baptised people.
Would you like another lesson?
duke
2017-01-18 17:21:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Well I have achieved my purpose. I have wasted
your time and have entertained myself at the same time.
What an unpleasant fellow you are.
No wonder you cling to rituals.
Rituals were given by Jesus Christ.

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.



the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 21:32:05 UTC
Permalink
On 17/01/17 23:08, Mattb. wrote:
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
I've never known anyone who is 100% correct all the time. Not sure I
could stand to be around such a person.
Then STAND CLEAR!

;-)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Mattb.
2017-01-17 22:39:02 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 21:32:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
I've never known anyone who is 100% correct all the time. Not sure I
could stand to be around such a person.
Then STAND CLEAR!
;-)
:=-))))))
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
I'll let Duke finish you off.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 22:50:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 11:45:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job. You're well versed in you own epithets
and exaggerations.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:06:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
Post by duke
You're well versed in you own epithets and exaggerations.
You make my point very well.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:41:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:06:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
And you did not comprehend my problem with robert's statement.
And I feel sorry for you because of this.
Robert claimed:
A. An angel informed Mary and Joseph about the birth of Jesus.....
and
B. this was written about many years after the fact.

+ Everyone knows that history is not written until the events take
place. That is a given. No one will argue about it.

+ However, one angel DID NOT speak with Mary and Joseph together.
We know that Gabriel spoke personally to Mary.

Luke 1:26-38GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)

The Angel Gabriel Comes to Mary
26 Six months after Elizabeth had become pregnant, God sent the angel
Gabriel to Nazareth, a city in Galilee. 27 The angel went to a virgin
promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The
virgin’s name was Mary.

28 When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, “You are
favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you.”

29 She was startled by what the angel said and tried to figure out
what this greeting meant.

30 The angel told her,

“Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor[a] with God.
31 You will become pregnant, give birth to a son,
and name him Jesus.
32 He will be a great man
and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him
the throne of his ancestor David.
33 Your son will be king of Jacob’s people forever,
and his kingdom will never end.”
34 Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’m a virgin.”

35 The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child
developing inside you will be called the Son of God.

36 “Elizabeth, your relative, is six months pregnant with a son in her
old age. People said she couldn’t have a child. 37 But nothing is
impossible for God.”

38 Mary answered, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you’ve said
happen to me.”

Then the angel left her.

------------\

Matthew 1

The Birth of Jesus
…19 Because Joseph her husband, a righteous man, was unwilling to
disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly. 20But after
he had pondered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in
a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
as your wife, for the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21She will give birth to a son, and you shall give Him the name Jesus,
because He will save His people from their sins.”…
LATER, at a different time,

Any more questions?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:20:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:06:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
And you did not comprehend my problem with robert's statement.
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement. That was
for you to sort out, not me. I was interested, though, in your poor
handling of that problem, when you resorted to mockery of a correct
statement. If you'd mocked an /incorrect/ statement, I'd either have let
it go or perhaps backed you up if I'd felt so inclined.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-18 23:38:20 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:20:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:06:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
And you did not comprehend my problem with robert's statement.
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement.
+ And yet you felt it necessary to get into the discussion.
Post by Richard Heathfield
That was
for you to sort out, not me. I was interested, though, in your poor
handling of that problem, when you resorted to mockery of a correct
statement.
You are being disingenuous.
Post by Richard Heathfield
If you'd mocked an /incorrect/ statement, I'd either have let
it go or perhaps backed you up if I'd felt so inclined.
<Yawn>
Keep digging.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:08:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 19:20:27 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:06:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
And you did not comprehend my problem with robert's statement.
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement.
+ And yet you felt it necessary to get into the discussion.
Yes. I /was/ interested in the way you mocked Robert not for saying
something that is strictly incorrect (he glossed over the fact that
Joseph's and Mary's angelic visitations were separate) but for saying
something /true/ - i.e. that the NT wasn't written at the time of those
visitations.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
That was
for you to sort out, not me. I was interested, though, in your poor
handling of that problem, when you resorted to mockery of a correct
statement.
You are being disingenuous.
No, I'm being truthful. There's a difference.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 19:48:18 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:08:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement.
+ And yet you felt it necessary to get into the discussion.
Yes. I /was/ interested in the way you mocked Robert not for saying
something that is strictly incorrect (he glossed over the fact that
Joseph's and Mary's angelic visitations were separate) but for saying
something /true/ - i.e. that the NT wasn't written at the time of those
visitations.
Stop it.
You will never get it.
"Even though you are a jerk-off, you may be a nice guy."

Now..................

Will you agree with me ........... or not.

You probably think you are a nice guy.

BUT..... the beginning premise might have been incorrect.

Or, maybe I just "glossed over it."
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
That was
for you to sort out, not me. I was interested, though, in your poor
handling of that problem, when you resorted to mockery of a correct
statement.
You are being disingenuous.
No, I'm being truthful. There's a difference.
And so am I.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:08:06 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I wasn't interested in your problem with Robert's statement.
+ And yet you felt it necessary to get into the discussion.
Yes. I /was/ interested in the way you mocked Robert not for saying
something that is strictly incorrect (he glossed over the fact that
Joseph's and Mary's angelic visitations were separate) but for saying
something /true/ - i.e. that the NT wasn't written at the time of those
visitations.
Will you agree with me ........... or not.
On the matter of Joseph and Mary receiving separate visitations, yes, of
course - that was never in question (despite your apparent belief that
it was).

On the matter of your mocking Robert for his correct claim that the NT
wasn't written at the time, no, I certainly don't agree with you.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Robert
2017-01-19 17:49:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 12:06:42 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
Post by Patrick
I tell you what. I don't have time to kick your ass and robert's ass.
Do you mean donkeys, or are you trying to be offensive? Because I don't
own any donkeys. I don't know whether Robert does. I suppose you could
ask him. But if he does have a donkey, he probably won't let you kick
it. And if you're trying to be offensive, that speaks volumes about your
inability to hold a debate.
Post by Patrick
I'll let Duke finish you off.
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
No, you're not doing a very good job.
Not doing a very good job of... what? Pointing out that Robert made a
correct statement that Patrick then went on to mock? I think I've made
that fact very, very clear.
And you did not comprehend my problem with robert's statement.
And I feel sorry for you because of this.
A. An angel informed Mary and Joseph about the birth of Jesus.....
and
B. this was written about many years after the fact.
+ Everyone knows that history is not written until the events take
place. That is a given. No one will argue about it.
+ However, one angel DID NOT speak with Mary and Joseph together.
We know that Gabriel spoke personally to Mary.
No one said, "One Angel" here except you, your retort was then well
what Angel, to which I showed you by scripture what you just
facetiously showed all of us. And from this scripture I said it was
Gabriel that spoke to Mary, Joseph was not included in that statement.

Had you reviewed the discussion you would have seen that, however,
your purpose is to attack, not understand.
Post by Patrick
Luke 1:26-38GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
The Angel Gabriel Comes to Mary
26 Six months after Elizabeth had become pregnant, God sent the angel
Gabriel to Nazareth, a city in Galilee. 27 The angel went to a virgin
promised in marriage to a descendant of David named Joseph. The
virgin’s name was Mary.
Because of the version you used here I saw that I had made a mistake,
I had assumed that "in the sixth month" was speaking to a calendar
year, and I was wrong. I went back to my bible and re read further and
saw that it actually was supposed to mean the 6th month of Elizabeth's
pregnancy.

Luk 1:36  And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a
son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was
called barren.

So I apologize to all who read my previously wrong conclusion.
Post by Patrick
28 When the angel entered her home, he greeted her and said, “You are
favored by the Lord! The Lord is with you.”
29 She was startled by what the angel said and tried to figure out
what this greeting meant.
30 The angel told her,
“Don’t be afraid, Mary. You have found favor[a] with God.
31 You will become pregnant, give birth to a son,
and name him Jesus.
32 He will be a great man
and will be called the Son of the Most High.
The Lord God will give him
the throne of his ancestor David.
33 Your son will be king of Jacob’s people forever,
and his kingdom will never end.”
34 Mary asked the angel, “How can this be? I’m a virgin.”
35 The angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come to you, and the
power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore, the holy child
developing inside you will be called the Son of God.
36 “Elizabeth, your relative, is six months pregnant with a son in her
old age. People said she couldn’t have a child. 37 But nothing is
impossible for God.”
38 Mary answered, “I am the Lord’s servant. Let everything you’ve said
happen to me.”
Then the angel left her.
------------\
Matthew 1
The Birth of Jesus
…19 Because Joseph her husband, a righteous man, was unwilling to
disgrace her publicly, he resolved to divorce her quietly. 20But after
he had pondered these things, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in
a dream and said, “Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary
as your wife, for the One conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit.
21She will give birth to a son, and you shall give Him the name Jesus,
because He will save His people from their sins.”…
LATER, at a different time,
Any more questions?
Why do you think that water washes away our sins when it says there
that "He will save His people from their sins"?
walksalone
2017-01-19 19:05:53 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:49:43 -0800, Robert

snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
unknown
2017-01-19 18:51:59 UTC
Permalink
Regarding scripture of the coming of Christ and His objective, robert was
Post by Robert
Why do you think that water washes away our sins when it says there
that "He will save His people from their sins"?
We see His followers directing and describing baptism for that purpose.

The many examples in Acts of baptism included one wherein Peter likewise
described its effect upon sin.

Paul was told to be baptised for the washing of his sin.

One of the last directives of Christ was the "great commission". Many
stress the missionary implication while not the part that follows; "go
into world - baptizing with name of ..." as. the events in Acts has ample
examples.

As Paul teaches in Romans, we rise from baptism as Christ from the tomb
unto renewal and eternal life. The baptism of purification related to
animal sacrifice became that baptism related to His sacrifice that once
again we might have union with God.

His mission to "save" is in that accomplished and we are after coming to
faith in His claims about who He is, we might be "born again" of water and
spirit..

Such is the unbroken teaching and practice these 2000 years starting with
"go into entire world - baptisig in name ...".
unknown
2017-01-19 20:48:26 UTC
Permalink
This is an evangelical fundimentalist protestant source:

Baptism: Optional or Essential - Let The Bible Speak

http://letthebiblespeak.com/baptismoptional.doc.

He has multiple points but the first two seem the most telling. Regarding
the "great commission" of Christ:

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"

"Jack Cottrell, Professor of Theology at Cincinnati Christian University
explains that this phrase "into the name of" in Greek, the original
language, "was a technical term used in the world of Greek business and
commerce...to indicate the entry of a sum of money or an item of property
into the account bearing the name of its owner.""

"Cottrell continues, "It's use in Matthew 28:19 indicates that the purpose
of baptism is to unite us with the Triune God in an ownership relation; we
become his property in a special, intimate way." So, since we are baptized
into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and in
this was become his children and citizens of His kingdom, it becomes
obvious that baptism is essential not optional."

"2. This truth is augmented by the words of Jesus in Mark 1615-16, "Go
into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes
and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be
condemned." Baptism is an integral part of the gospel."

""Did you catch that? Immediately after Jesus introduces the idea of
preaching the gospel, He presents the fundamental message of the gospel:
"he who believes AND is baptized will be saved." We need to recognize that
this cannot be harmonized with "he who believes and is NOT baptized will be
saved.""
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:35:09 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:50:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
You mean like when you assert that once you have been saved, you will
always be saved?
Post by Richard Heathfield
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
Changed my mind.

Do you have a question or comment for me or the Roman Catholic Church.
I am here to help you out.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:17:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:50:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
You mean like when you assert that once you have been saved, you will
always be saved?
Well, if you think I haven't provided evidence to support that position,
I beg to differ. I posted several passages recently that back it up.
Here's the Message-ID: <o5lphg$l5i$***@dont-email.me> posted in this
thread on Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:00:33 +0000

The passages I cited were:

Romans 8:28-30
Ephesians 1:13-14
Hebrews 6:16-20

and you can either look them up yourself or read them in the message
cited above. By the way, those passages aren't the only evidence of
"once saved, always saved" - they were just the first that sprang to mind.

Now, either you will find that line of argument convincing or you won't.
If you don't, *fair enough*! It's not my job to tell you what to
believe, and it's not your job to tell me what to believe. The best we
can reasonably hope for is for each of us to make their position clear,
seek clarification where appropriate, and then allow the other to reach
their own conclusion.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
I take it you mean that you don't know how to deal with someone who
argues calmly and dispassionately with you and doesn't resort to
childish epithets and exaggerations despite your own tendency to do so,
so you plan to hand over to someone else who doesn't know how to deal
with it either. Okay.
Changed my mind.
Fantastic!
Post by Patrick
Do you have a question or comment for me or the Roman Catholic Church.
I am here to help you out.
Indeed. But no, as it happens, I don't have any particular question
either for you or for the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I'm
concerned, a Christian is a Christian, whether or not he or she is a
Roman Catholic (or an Anglican, or a Methodist, or whatever), and a
non-Christian is a non-Christian, whether or not he or she is a Roman
Catholic (or an Anglican, or a Methodist, or whatever). Denominations
don't particularly interest me.

So what the heck am I doing in a Catholic newsgroup? Well, I'm not. I'm
reading this in alt.christnet.christianlife - but this thread happens to
be cross-posted to alt.bible and alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I didn't initiate that cross-post, but I have honoured it because
whoever /did/ initiate it presumably had a good reason for so doing.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 00:02:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:50:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
You mean like when you assert that once you have been saved, you will
always be saved?
Well, if you think I haven't provided evidence to support that position,
I beg to differ. I posted several passages recently that back it up.
thread on Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:00:33 +0000
Don't refer me to what you said yesterday without actually posting
your words.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Romans 8:28-30
Ephesians 1:13-14
Hebrews 6:16-20
and you can either look them up yourself or read them in the message
cited above. By the way, those passages aren't the only evidence of
"once saved, always saved" - they were just the first that sprang to mind.
So.... you expect me to do your homework for you here.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Now, either you will find that line of argument convincing or you won't.
If you don't, *fair enough*! It's not my job to tell you what to
believe, and it's not your job to tell me what to believe. The best we
can reasonably hope for is for each of us to make their position clear,
seek clarification where appropriate, and then allow the other to reach
their own conclusion.
Yet, here you are... referring to a past post

+ Let me show you how it is done:

Romans 8: 28-30
28 We know that all things work for good for those who love God, 6 who
are called according to his purpose.
29 For those he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the
image of his Son, so that he might be the firstborn among many
brothers.
30 And those he predestined he also called; and those he called he
also justified; and those he justified he also glorified.

++ I just don't see what you are talking about.




+++

Ephesians 1: 13-14
13 In him you also, who have heard the word of truth, the gospel of
your salvation, and have believed in him, were sealed with the
promised holy Spirit,
14 which is the first installment 8 of our inheritance toward
redemption as God's possession, to the praise of his glory.

++ I just don't see what you are talking about.






++++

Hebrews 6
16 Human beings swear by someone greater than themselves; for them an
oath serves as a guarantee and puts an end to all argument.
17 So when God wanted to give the heirs of his promise an even
clearer demonstration of the immutability of his purpose, he
intervened with an oath,
18 so that by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for
God to lie, we who have taken refuge might be strongly encouraged to
hold fast to the hope that lies before us.
19 This we have as an anchor of the soul, sure and firm, which
reaches into the interior behind the veil,
20 where Jesus has entered on our behalf as forerunner, becoming high
priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek.

++ I just don't see what you are talking about.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Do you have a question or comment for me or the Roman Catholic Church.
I am here to help you out.
Indeed. But no, as it happens, I don't have any particular question
either for you or for the Roman Catholic Church. As far as I'm
concerned, a Christian is a Christian, whether or not he or she is a
Roman Catholic (or an Anglican, or a Methodist, or whatever), and a
non-Christian is a non-Christian, whether or not he or she is a Roman
Catholic (or an Anglican, or a Methodist, or whatever). Denominations
don't particularly interest me.
So what the heck am I doing in a Catholic newsgroup? Well, I'm not. I'm
reading this in alt.christnet.christianlife - but this thread happens to
be cross-posted to alt.bible and alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
I didn't initiate that cross-post, but I have honoured it because
whoever /did/ initiate it presumably had a good reason for so doing.
OK.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:50:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
You mean like when you assert that once you have been saved, you will
always be saved?
Well, if you think I haven't provided evidence to support that position,
I beg to differ. I posted several passages recently that back it up.
thread on Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:00:33 +0000
Don't refer me to what you said yesterday without actually posting
your words.
I already posted them, in Message-ID <o5lphg$l5i$***@dont-email.me>

You can, if you wish, ask me to post those words /again/, but what's the
point? It's a complete waste of storage space. After all, it was only 30
or so hours ago, and you have a decent newsreader (Agent, isn't it?), so
if you want to know what I wrote, it's easy to find out. Or if you can't
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Romans 8:28-30
Ephesians 1:13-14
Hebrews 6:16-20
Or if you can't be bothered to open a Bible, I can give you some links:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+8%3A28-30&version=NIVUK
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+1%3A13-14&version=NIVUK
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hebrews+6%3A16-20&version=NIVUK

(For pity's sake...)
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
and you can either look them up yourself or read them in the message
cited above. By the way, those passages aren't the only evidence of
"once saved, always saved" - they were just the first that sprang to mind.
So.... you expect me to do your homework for you here.
No. Not only is it not my homework, but I don't expect you to do
anything. If you'd rather wash the dog, by all means go and wash the
dog. It's no skin off my nose.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Now, either you will find that line of argument convincing or you won't.
If you don't, *fair enough*! It's not my job to tell you what to
believe, and it's not your job to tell me what to believe. The best we
can reasonably hope for is for each of us to make their position clear,
seek clarification where appropriate, and then allow the other to reach
their own conclusion.
Yet, here you are... referring to a past post
Romans 8: 28-30
28 We know that all things work for good for those who love God, 6 who
are called according to his purpose.
(etc)

Yes. I already did that yesterday. You expect me to say everything
twice? What's the point?
Post by Patrick
++ I just don't see what you are talking about.
Evidently.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 19:50:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:24:48 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 22:50:15 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
It sounds like this might be your answer every time you are getting
your ass kicked.
No, it's an answer I sometimes give when people make an assertion
without plausible supporting evidence.
You mean like when you assert that once you have been saved, you will
always be saved?
Well, if you think I haven't provided evidence to support that position,
I beg to differ. I posted several passages recently that back it up.
thread on Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2017 19:00:33 +0000
Don't refer me to what you said yesterday without actually posting
your words.
Good for you.
I don't look back.
I don't try to find something you talked about earlier.
I live IN THE MINUTE.

You probably have never dealt with a person like me, but there it is.
Now... quote some Bible verse, and then interpret it as you wish.

Or go away.
Your choice.
Patrick
2017-01-17 22:38:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:53:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it.
He does that often. If he really is cornered he will edit the context
of a post and pretend he didn't.
; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
I've never known anyone who is 100% correct all the time. Not sure I
could stand to be around such a person.
That is why you don't like being around me.
TOO BAD!
Mattb.
2017-01-17 23:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Mattb.
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 20:53:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it.
He does that often. If he really is cornered he will edit the context
of a post and pretend he didn't.
; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
I've never known anyone who is 100% correct all the time. Not sure I
could stand to be around such a person.
That is why you don't like being around me.
TOO BAD!
I'll take that as a joke.
duke
2017-01-17 22:57:41 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:51:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 21:40:37 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
In practice, all Christians, including Catholic Christians, are forgiven
their sin by Christ's redeeming sacrifice on the cross, and there's no
need to keep going to see the local priest every so often to keep your
stamps up to date unless you really want to.
Why are you still here?
Why indeed?
John 20
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
…22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the
Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if
you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”
++ Why in the world would John write this in his Gospel?
Presumably because it happened. But the original disciples are all dead
now. Check out Hebrews 10 for a crash course in salvation theology.
And you believe this "secret handshake" dies with those disciples?
Clearly you believe it didn't. Fair enough. I disagree. <shrug>
I give serious, REALLY serious, consideration to Heb 10:26-27.
And rightly so. So do I. So?
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.

Or maybe you just don't understand what sin is. Simply put, if you don't walk
as Jesus walked, you're sinning.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-17 23:16:40 UTC
Permalink
On 17/01/17 22:57, duke wrote:
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 11:54:35 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.

Romans 5:8New International Version (NIV)
8 But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners,
Christ died for us.

Then we get SOME of the rest of the story:

Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.

OOPS, there's that "first covenant" part again.
Of course, we have to add the big picture:

Hebrews 10:26-27New International Version (NIV)
26 If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of
the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, 27 but only a fearful expectation of
judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:22:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 16:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
Which means you couldn't even understand the rest of my post.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 16:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
Which means you couldn't even understand the rest of my post.
No. It means that I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with
someone who doesn't understand the importance of tenses in conveying
meaning.

Or, if you prefer, it meant that I won't have seen any point in
continued a discussion with someone who didn't understood the importance
of tenses in conveying meaning.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 12:43:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
Which means you couldn't even understand the rest of my post.
No. It means that I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with
someone who doesn't understand the importance of tenses in conveying
meaning.
Well, you're right. With your attitude, discussion is not possible for the
following reasons:
1. Jesus didn't speak English. The bible is many steps removed from the
original language. Thus you are relying on what translator thought he read.
2. The bible is spiritual, not physical. You need to be real careful if you
hang your hat on adjectives and tenses.
3. The are many parallel verses of a supportive nature.

Thus you are free to run and avoid discussion which may strip you of your
mistaken ideas.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:44:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
You boyz, like Robert, don't worry about such verses. And neither do you but
you should because we are all sinners and in need of confession.
You might want to look at Romans 5:8, and to take particular note of St
Paul's choice of verb tense.
Paul didn't speak in verb tense.
I think we can leave it right there.
Which means you couldn't even understand the rest of my post.
No. It means that I don't see any point in continuing a discussion with
someone who doesn't understand the importance of tenses in conveying
meaning.
Well, you're right. With your attitude, discussion is not possible for the
1. Jesus didn't speak English. The bible is many steps removed from the
original language. Thus you are relying on what translator thought he read.
We were not talking about the words of Jesus, but the words of St Paul.
Of course, he didn't speak English either. He wrote:

συνίστησιν δὲ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἀγάπην εἰς ἡμᾶς ὁ Θεὸς ὅτι ἔτι ἁμαρτωλῶν ὄντων
ἡμῶν Χριστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἀπέθανεν.

Biblical scholars are well-versed in koine Greek, and are easily up to
the task of translating this passage correctly. Here's what some of them
have made of it over the centuries:

Douay-Reims: "But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as
yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us;"

NIV(UK): "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us."

KJV: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us."

New Living Translation: "But God showed his great love for us by sending
Christ to die for us while we were still sinners."

Wycliffe: "But God commendeth his charity in us; for if when we were yet
sinners, after the time Christ was dead for us,"

(Wycliffe introduces an "if", so we need the next bit too: "then much
more now we justified in his blood, shall be safe from wrath by him.")

Holman: "But God proves His own love for us in that while we were still
sinners, Christ died for us!"

I'm spotting a common theme here. All of these translators agree that
the best way to render the koine Greek meaning into English is to use
the English "past continuous" tense.

In the Vulgate, by the way, it's "commendat autem suam caritatem Deus in
nos quoniam cum adhuc peccatores essemus" - the relevant verb here (by
which I mean the verb on which this discussion hinges) is "essemus",
which is the first person plural imperfect active subjunctive of the the
verb "sum" ("I am").

So the translators are not only correctly translating the Greek but also
agreeing with the Vulgate, which (if I am not very much mistaken)
remains the official Bible in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church.
Post by duke
2. The bible is spiritual, not physical. You need to be real careful if you
hang your hat on adjectives and tenses.
You need to be even more careful if you pretend they aren't there.
Post by duke
3. The are many parallel verses of a supportive nature.
Bring 'em on.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:13:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
We were not talking about the words of Jesus, but the words of St Paul.
?????????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?????
???? ??????? ???? ???? ????????.
Biblical scholars are well-versed in koine Greek, and are easily up to
the task of translating this passage correctly. Here's what some of them
Douay-Reims: "But God commendeth his charity towards us; because when as
yet we were sinners, according to the time, Christ died for us;"
NIV(UK): "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we
were still sinners, Christ died for us."
KJV: "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
sinners, Christ died for us."
New Living Translation: "But God showed his great love for us by sending
Christ to die for us while we were still sinners."
You are starting to remind me of the JW's.
Robert
2017-01-18 01:13:30 UTC
Permalink
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 01:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
I can't let that pass. None of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met
personally (and there have been many) have ever made threatening
comments to me. Quite the reverse, in fact.

A few years ago, I was approached by a Catholic friend who was helping
to organise a fairly large day-long meeting for Catholic Christians to
which a well-known speaker (Ros Powell, a Catholic Christian evangelist)
had been invited. My friend had arranged for a musician to lead worship,
but the musician had fallen ill. Would I step in?

I said I'd be delighted, and I was. I made many friends that day, and I
was inspired by the evident sincerity and love of everyone there. The
worship was, frankly, awe-inspiring, and I'm sure this had very little
to do with my playing!

On another occasion, some Catholic Christians who had written a few
songs asked me to record their music and produce a CD to raise money to
send people to Lourdes. I was delighted to oblige, and again I made
several good friends that way. These were charming people, most
welcoming, most friendly, most loving, and utterly without the kind of
chip on their shoulder that you are attributing to them.

Please don't tar all Catholics with the brush that you quite
understandably wield when dealing with Patrick and Duke.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 11:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
I can't let that pass. None of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met
personally (and there have been many) have ever made threatening
comments to me. Quite the reverse, in fact.
No body is threatening you. All I see is that you're figuring out you're on the
short end of scripture knowledge.
Post by Richard Heathfield
A few years ago, I was approached by a Catholic friend who was helping
to organise a fairly large day-long meeting for Catholic Christians to
which a well-known speaker (Ros Powell, a Catholic Christian evangelist)
had been invited. My friend had arranged for a musician to lead worship,
but the musician had fallen ill. Would I step in?
I said I'd be delighted, and I was. I made many friends that day, and I
was inspired by the evident sincerity and love of everyone there. The
worship was, frankly, awe-inspiring, and I'm sure this had very little
to do with my playing!
Well, that's wonderful.
Post by Richard Heathfield
On another occasion, some Catholic Christians who had written a few
songs asked me to record their music and produce a CD to raise money to
send people to Lourdes. I was delighted to oblige, and again I made
several good friends that way. These were charming people, most
welcoming, most friendly, most loving, and utterly without the kind of
chip on their shoulder that you are attributing to them.
Please don't tar all Catholics with the brush that you quite
understandably wield when dealing with Patrick and Duke.
We're waiting on some good discussion from you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:50:33 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:32:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
I can't let that pass. None of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met
personally (and there have been many) have ever made threatening
comments to me. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Do you actually feel threatened?

Let me explain something to you.

You and robt come into a Catholic newsgroup and you question and
insult some of the beliefs that Catholics hold to be true.
And... you throw out a silly verse that you CLAIM backs you up.

Those Catholics here wonder why you have come here.
We wonder if you enjoy being a bully.
We wonder why you wish to insult us.


++ ANd now you are claiming to be threatened?
++ What up with that?
Post by Richard Heathfield
A few years ago, I was approached by a Catholic friend who was helping
to organise a fairly large day-long meeting for Catholic Christians to
which a well-known speaker (Ros Powell, a Catholic Christian evangelist)
had been invited. My friend had arranged for a musician to lead worship,
but the musician had fallen ill. Would I step in?
I said I'd be delighted, and I was. I made many friends that day, and I
was inspired by the evident sincerity and love of everyone there. The
worship was, frankly, awe-inspiring, and I'm sure this had very little
to do with my playing!
Nice story.
Thanks for sharing.
I agree that Christians with slightly different beliefs should be able
to get along nicely. My best friend here is a Baptist. And many
Chritian Churches get together to stand outside the abortion clinic a
few times a year.
We have many beliefs in common.
But don't insult the Eucharist or the Crucifix, our prayers, etc.
Post by Richard Heathfield
On another occasion, some Catholic Christians who had written a few
songs asked me to record their music and produce a CD to raise money to
send people to Lourdes. I was delighted to oblige, and again I made
several good friends that way. These were charming people, most
welcoming, most friendly, most loving, and utterly without the kind of
chip on their shoulder that you are attributing to them.
Please don't tar all Catholics with the brush that you quite
understandably wield when dealing with Patrick and Duke.
I appreciate your thoughts.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 19:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:32:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
I can't let that pass. None of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met
personally (and there have been many) have ever made threatening
comments to me. Quite the reverse, in fact.
Do you actually feel threatened?
No, of course not. That's one of the reasons I spoke up.
Post by Patrick
Let me explain something to you.
You and robt come into a Catholic newsgroup
Let me explain something to *you*. This is *NOT* just a Catholic
newsgroup. It is *ALSO* two *NON*-Catholic newsgroups,
alt.christnet.christianlife and alt.bible.

I didn't choose those cross-posts. Presumably the OP did, and presumably
he had good reason.

I think the non-Catholics in this discussion have been remarkably
patient with the Catholics who constantly insist on a Catholic context
for these discussions, even though two-thirds of the included groups are
non-Catholic. And we'd like a little patience in return, please.
Post by Patrick
and you question and
insult some of the beliefs that Catholics hold to be true.
Questioning is fine. It's part of what Usenet is about. As for insults,
well, no, I try hard not to insult people's beliefs, although I do
sometimes call them into question if they seem to me to be particularly
illogical.
Post by Patrick
And... you throw out a silly verse that you CLAIM backs you up.
Well, I would be reluctant to call any Bible verse "silly".
Post by Patrick
Those Catholics here wonder why you have come here.
You mean, why do I subscribe to alt.christnet.christianlife? Because I
want to, that's why. Why do /you/ come to alt.christnet.christianlife?
Post by Patrick
We wonder if you enjoy being a bully.
No, but I do think it's important to stand up to bullies, which is why I
attacked your incorrect mockery of Robert's correct statement.
Post by Patrick
We wonder why you wish to insult us.
I don't. If you're a Christian, why would I want to insult you? And if
you're not a Christian, why would I want to discourage you from becoming
one by behaving badly towards you?
Post by Patrick
++ ANd now you are claiming to be threatened?
Am I? I don't recall claiming that! It was Robert who used the word
"threatening". If you have a problem with that, you should take it up
with him, AS I DID!!

<snip>
Post by Patrick
I agree that Christians with slightly different beliefs should be able
to get along nicely. My best friend here is a Baptist. And many
Chritian Churches get together to stand outside the abortion clinic a
few times a year.
We have many beliefs in common.
100% agreed.
Post by Patrick
But don't insult the Eucharist or the Crucifix, our prayers, etc.
I have not done so.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Robert
2017-01-19 21:34:38 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 01:32:20 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
I can't let that pass. None of the Roman Catholic Christians I have met
personally (and there have been many) have ever made threatening
comments to me. Quite the reverse, in fact.
I am sure if either of those two were to bump into me on the street
that they wouldn't behave as they do here, especially Patrick who has
a fondness for physical threats and taking things real life from the
net where ever possible.

I also have run into all kinds of RC's, but those who are RC first and
foremost inwardly believe as those two behave here, they minus the
threats and name calling.

I also have helped some break free from their works based
understandings to the grace and mercy of God.

I have worked with their local leaders, all of whom knew I was not a
RC with no issue's.

But when I mention being Born Again I generally get a blank stare, no
critical, but an unknowing or uncertain look.

There is a certain level of comfort for those who follows a rules
based religion as the feel like they are doing something for
themselves along with God, but then these types of people also
believes God punishes men on this earth for poor behaviors and total
freedom with Love (the gospel message) is hard for them to believe.

They are not used to operating out of the new heart, with the new law
written on it. Few even understand what that means.

But all that aside, most are genuinely nice people like the Mormons
etc. as you say.
Post by Richard Heathfield
A few years ago, I was approached by a Catholic friend who was helping
to organise a fairly large day-long meeting for Catholic Christians to
which a well-known speaker (Ros Powell, a Catholic Christian evangelist)
had been invited. My friend had arranged for a musician to lead worship,
but the musician had fallen ill. Would I step in?
I said I'd be delighted, and I was. I made many friends that day, and I
was inspired by the evident sincerity and love of everyone there. The
worship was, frankly, awe-inspiring, and I'm sure this had very little
to do with my playing!
On another occasion, some Catholic Christians who had written a few
songs asked me to record their music and produce a CD to raise money to
send people to Lourdes. I was delighted to oblige, and again I made
several good friends that way. These were charming people, most
welcoming, most friendly, most loving, and utterly without the kind of
chip on their shoulder that you are attributing to them.
Please don't tar all Catholics with the brush that you quite
understandably wield when dealing with Patrick and Duke.
I don't. I even don't wield it much with them either, probably only
25% of what they dish out, but my focus is more on the false doctrines
rather than on the person. At one time duke had a sense of humor and
was far more personable.
asherah
2017-01-20 00:05:37 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:34:38 -0800, Robert snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
ea
2017-01-18 03:51:40 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:13:30 -0800, Robert nip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:44:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
Typical robert.
Refuses to admit to what he believes.
And th4en changes the subject when cornered.
Robert
2017-01-19 21:46:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Robert
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Would you care to share with us what you do believe?
Or why you have decided to post here?
I will understand if you are afraid to comment.
Typical RC threatening comments. Never got over the loss of world
power for their church.
Typical robert.
Refuses to admit to what he believes.
And th4en changes the subject when cornered.
You know that isn't true, I recently went to great lengths answering
your question about OSAS, as you put it, only to have you snip it all
out because it was too long and didn't conform to some pattern you
wanted to see, also did so on another subject, which I really didn't
care to do, knowing how you ask a question as if you really cared, but
don't. Even at the times I did it recently it was against my better
judgment knowing your questions were basically farce's.

And yes, I have said this same thing to you countless times over the
years.

Hopefully one day you will open your ears to the Lord, and through
that your eyesight.
asherah
2017-01-20 00:05:06 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 13:46:44 -0800, Robert snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Robert
2017-01-18 01:30:53 UTC
Permalink
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
Always the liar, I rejected your unscriptural concepts and teachings.
ea
2017-01-18 03:50:49 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 17:30:53 -0800, Robert nip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set

Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.


Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-18 12:10:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
Always the liar, I rejected your unscriptural concepts and teachings.
That's why I support my statements with scripture. RH will start to figure you
out shortly.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-18 18:52:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robert
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
Always the liar, I rejected your unscriptural concepts and teachings.
And you cannot explain why.....
That is the sad story we walk away with.
duke
2017-01-18 11:43:04 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
You don't see the rest of scripture
that declares our joining with Jesus in the cross in our own baptism.
Assertions without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
That's why the big picture is so much more complete than a single verse.
Oh, and btw, the thief had no idea who he was hanging with
Clearly not true.
Clearly true. Who do you suppose the thief thought he was dealing with?
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Thus he was saved under the old
covenant.
Clearly not, since he was self-confessedly a law-breaker.
Yet Jesus told him that "this day you will be with me in paradise".


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:02:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
Post by duke
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Did he tell you he didn't accept Christ as Lord and Saviour? But to
answer your question more directly: no, but we can deduce it from the
fact that, for him to have believed Jesus to be a warrior-king Messiah,
he would also have had to ignore the fact that Jesus was dying on the
cross, since that was certainly /not/ the fate of a warrior-king Messiah.
Post by duke
Thus he was saved under the old
covenant.
Clearly not, since he was self-confessedly a law-breaker.
Yet Jesus told him that "this day you will be with me in paradise".
Precisely. Since, as a sinner, he could not possibly have entered Heaven
under the Old Covenant, if he entered Heaven at all (for which we can
surely take Jesus's word) he either entered it under the New Covenant
(by virtue of having elected to follow Christ) or he entered it in some
other way. As far as I'm aware, there /is/ no other way. So, unless I've
missed something, he entered Heaven under the New Covenant, /without/
having been baptised.

Baptism matters. It's an important symbol. But it's still only a symbol.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 16:58:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
On Tue, 17 Jan 2017 01:45:01 +0000, Richard Heathfield
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
I don't know.
Which Baptism do you follow?
Baptisms aren't something you follow. They're symbolic dunkings.
You think so?
Hebrews 9:15New International Version (NIV)
15 For this reason Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are
called may receive the promised eternal inheritance—now that he has died as a
ransom to set them free from the sins committed under the first covenant.
I don't even see the word "baptism" in that citation. "Those who are
called" is one way in which the New Testament describes Christians, but
there is no requirement on Christians to be baptised (cf the thief on
the cross). So what's your point?
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.

Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Did he tell you he didn't accept Christ as Lord and Saviour?
There was not yet the cross which we turn to in baptism. The thief was saved
under the old covenant. And no man knew the new covenant was about to arrive.
The Jews have always and still expect the Messiah, a warrior king, that would
deliver them back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile. This
was the one the thief was expecting and asking to be included in his kingdom.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But to
answer your question more directly: no, but we can deduce it from the
fact that, for him to have believed Jesus to be a warrior-king Messiah,
he would also have had to ignore the fact that Jesus was dying on the
cross, since that was certainly /not/ the fate of a warrior-king Messiah.
You're playing with the wrong concept. Jesus knew he was the Messiah as he
admitted it. But the Jews didn't - they expected a warrior king and instead
they got a man of love. The prosperity is here, but not in exile form
expectation.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Thus he was saved under the old
covenant.
Clearly not, since he was self-confessedly a law-breaker.
Yet Jesus told him that "this day you will be with me in paradise".
Precisely. Since, as a sinner, he could not possibly have entered Heaven
under the Old Covenant, if he entered Heaven at all (for which we can
surely take Jesus's word) he either entered it under the New Covenant
(by virtue of having elected to follow Christ) or he entered it in some
other way.
We don't know. But I fully agree with you that he did. The thief turned to
Jesus as warrior but instead received the heavenly kingdom in "SURPRISE".

As far as I'm aware, there /is/ no other way. So, unless I've
Post by Richard Heathfield
missed something, he entered Heaven under the New Covenant, /without/
having been baptised.
Without baptism is assured.

There's an ancient story about a man killed in a car wreck on his way to his
baptism. Is he saved? Yes. Even though he never made it, he was trying to get
there. Or so we believe.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism matters. It's an important symbol. But it's still only a symbol.
No, it's not a symbol.

Romans 6:3-4New International Version (NIV)
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Mark 16:15-16New International Version (NIV)
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all
creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
not believe will be condemned.

Remember, it's belief followed by baptism. No man submits to baptism that does
not believe.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:10:42 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.
Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
So you're arguing that this thief had lived a righteous life? Was he
lying when he said 'We are punished justly, for we are getting what our
deeds deserve'?
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Did he tell you he didn't accept Christ as Lord and Saviour?
There was not yet the cross
Tell that to the thief. He was hanging on it!
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 11:59:42 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.
Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
So you're arguing that this thief had lived a righteous life? Was he
lying when he said 'We are punished justly, for we are getting what our
deeds deserve'?
Here's a word of advice. Jesus thought so.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Did he tell you he didn't accept Christ as Lord and Saviour?
There was not yet the cross
Tell that to the thief. He was hanging on it!
I think you missed the point.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:13:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.
Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
So you're arguing that this thief had lived a righteous life? Was he
lying when he said 'We are punished justly, for we are getting what our
deeds deserve'?
Here's a word of advice. Jesus thought so.
Your meaning is unclear. Do you think Jesus thought the thief was lying
by claiming that he'd lived an unrighteous life? (If so, why allow a
liar into heaven?) Or do you think Jesus thought the thief was telling
the truth by claiming that he'd lived an unrighteous life? (If so, why
allow an unrighteous man into heaven?)

No. Jesus recognised the thief's repentance of sin and acknowledgement
of Christ's Lordship. And that is all that is required for salvation.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 19:55:08 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 16:13:44 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
That's because all you see in one verse.
You only quoted one verse, so what did you expect?
The thief on the cross wasn't a Christian.
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.
Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
So you're arguing that this thief had lived a righteous life? Was he
lying when he said 'We are punished justly, for we are getting what our
deeds deserve'?
Here's a word of advice. Jesus thought so.
Your meaning is unclear.
What do you think your meaning is?
Post by Richard Heathfield
Do you think Jesus thought the thief was lying
by claiming that he'd lived an unrighteous life?
Why would He?
Jesus is the Son of God, who knows more than you.
Post by Richard Heathfield
(If so, why allow a
liar into heaven?)
Do you feel that is a logical question?
Or is it a troll question.
Please make up MY mind.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Or do you think Jesus thought the thief was telling
the truth by claiming that he'd lived an unrighteous life? (If so, why
allow an unrighteous man into heaven?)
I think I will allow Jesus to make this decision.
He certainly doesn't need you or me to determine this.

And we will never be smart enough to understand God fully.

At least I know I will not.
Post by Richard Heathfield
No. Jesus recognised the thief's repentance of sin and acknowledgement
of Christ's Lordship. And that is all that is required for salvation.
Good enough for you, huh....?
I'm happy you have figured out what Jesus thinks and wants.
Robert
2017-01-19 18:12:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
That's a bit desperate, isn't it? It smacks of the "no true Scotsman"
fallacy.
NOt at all. That's the answer. The deceased Jews were saved for living
righteous in God's eyes in life. This is reflected in the OT where the dried
bones rose form the grave to be reanimated at the moment of the future cross.
Thus resurrection is not "limited' to Christians
No, and I just recently explained to you from scripture that it was
the sacrificial blood that cleansed their sins and atoned them for the
following yearly sacrifice. It was that sacrifice that made them
appear as righteous before God.

The dried bones scenario you wrote about is NOT RELATED to salvation,
it is the restoration of a nation of people.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
except the messiah that the Jews were expecting - a warrior king.
A warrior-king messiah wouldn't have ended up on a cross, and the thief
would have known that.
Did the thief tell you that?
Did he tell you he didn't accept Christ as Lord and Saviour?
There was not yet the cross which we turn to in baptism. The thief was saved
under the old covenant. And no man knew the new covenant was about to arrive.
The Jews have always and still expect the Messiah, a warrior king, that would
deliver them back to the prosperity they had before the Babylonian exile. This
was the one the thief was expecting and asking to be included in his kingdom.
The thief was saved by Faith. And as you just wrote, all of Judaism
was looking for the warrior king, and misunderstood the prophecies of
the prophets. Daniel spoke clearly about him being "cut off".
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
But to
answer your question more directly: no, but we can deduce it from the
fact that, for him to have believed Jesus to be a warrior-king Messiah,
he would also have had to ignore the fact that Jesus was dying on the
cross, since that was certainly /not/ the fate of a warrior-king Messiah.
You're playing with the wrong concept. Jesus knew he was the Messiah as he
admitted it. But the Jews didn't - they expected a warrior king and instead
they got a man of love. The prosperity is here, but not in exile form
expectation.
I showed you verses that proclaimed your statement as false. One of
which was the Samaritan woman by the well. The Jews were expecting
their Messiah per Daniel's prophecies, one of the reason when He rode
the small donkey into the city they proclaimed HOSANA to the King,
throwing down palm branches and stuff. But Jesus was coming as Saviour
where he was and did write a new law on the hearts of those that
followed him. But they wanted the warrior king, not the savior and in
that part of your understanding you are correct.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Thus he was saved under the old
covenant.
Clearly not, since he was self-confessedly a law-breaker.
Yet Jesus told him that "this day you will be with me in paradise".
Precisely. Since, as a sinner, he could not possibly have entered Heaven
under the Old Covenant, if he entered Heaven at all (for which we can
surely take Jesus's word) he either entered it under the New Covenant
(by virtue of having elected to follow Christ) or he entered it in some
other way.
We don't know. But I fully agree with you that he did. The thief turned to
Jesus as warrior but instead received the heavenly kingdom in "SURPRISE".
The thief turned to him as Savior and asked Him to remember Him.
Before that, they were saying save yourself and us.
Post by duke
As far as I'm aware, there /is/ no other way. So, unless I've
Post by Richard Heathfield
missed something, he entered Heaven under the New Covenant, /without/
having been baptised.
Without baptism is assured.
There's an ancient story about a man killed in a car wreck on his way to his
baptism. Is he saved? Yes. Even though he never made it, he was trying to get
there. Or so we believe.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Baptism matters. It's an important symbol. But it's still only a symbol.
No, it's not a symbol.
It is a symbol.
Post by duke
Romans 6:3-4New International Version (NIV)
3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were
baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism
into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the
glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.
Are you dead? Ceased breathing?
Post by duke
Mark 16:15-16New International Version (NIV)
15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all
creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does
not believe will be condemned.
Here again the key is Believing, faith believing, believe and be
saved, don't believe and you won't be saved.
Post by duke
Remember, it's belief followed by baptism. No man submits to baptism that does
not believe.
RC's do it all the time. First time is as a baby who cannot believe.
The second time is the normal routine for any RC, it is "part of the
process". It makes you a RC.
Post by duke
the dukester, American-American
nefushtan
2017-01-19 19:05:22 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 10:12:43 -0800, Robert
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-18 12:05:37 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.

Matthew 24:12-13New International Version (NIV)
12 Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
13 but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.

1 John 3:2-3New International Version (NIV)
2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been
made known. But we know that when Christ appears,[a] we shall be like him, for
we shall see him as he is. 3 All who have this hope in him purify themselves,
just as he is pure.

Welcome to the Sacrament of Confession. I don't see anything there that implies
that if you're not RCatholic, these scriptures don't apply to you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:36:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.
That's a non sequitur, and wrong to boot. I don't refuse to follow Jesus.

BUT to be fair to you, on re-reading the above I can see that you might
misinterpret me as arguing that confession of sins is unnecessary. So
let me straighten that out.

I'm not arguing against confession of sin. I'm not even arguing against
confession to a priest. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the
Catholic sacrament of confession (although it is easy to see how it
could be abused by a manipulative priest).

But neither do I know of any Biblical injunction that requires me to
confess in a confessional, or indeed to confess to a Roman Catholic
priest. There is nothing wrong with confessing directly to God, which is
how Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists (etc) tend to do it.

On the point about dying at some other point than just after walking out
of a confessional: I simply don't accept, and for good reason, that
Jesus is going to turn away a life-long Christian who gets run over by a
bus half-way between one confession and the next. What's the good
reason? Character. It simply doesn't square with Jesus's character of
love, forgiveness and anti-legalism.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 16:38:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.
That's a non sequitur, and wrong to boot. I don't refuse to follow Jesus.
But you do.

An Invitation:

Jesus frequently encountered people with spiritual questions. They wanted to
know how to live life more fully. They wanted to connect with God. They wanted
to love others more deeply and authentically. They wanted to know about death
and eternal life. They wanted to experience God’s forgiveness for their failures
and sin. They wanted to understand how to pray, how to worship, how to
understand the words of Scripture. 

To such people Jesus frequently offered a simple invitation: “Follow me.”

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.
Post by Richard Heathfield
BUT to be fair to you, on re-reading the above I can see that you might
misinterpret me as arguing that confession of sins is unnecessary. So
let me straighten that out.
Good, because you sure put your foot in your mouth if you meant it.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I'm not arguing against confession of sin. I'm not even arguing against
confession to a priest. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the
Catholic sacrament of confession (although it is easy to see how it
could be abused by a manipulative priest).
Difficult to find one like that.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But neither do I know of any Biblical injunction that requires me to
confess in a confessional, or indeed to confess to a Roman Catholic
priest. There is nothing wrong with confessing directly to God, which is
how Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists (etc) tend to do it.
Then why did Jesus SPECIFY John 20:22-23?

Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest?
Confession is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ providing a means for those
who fall into sin after Baptism to be restored into God's grace. It involves the
admission of one's sins made to a duly approved Priest **IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
ABSOLUTION.**

Confession is called the "sacrament of Penance" as:
1. the recipient must be truly repentant of his sins,
2. be determined to try to avoid this sin in the future, and
3. be willing to make reparations as appropriate with any/all injured parties
Post by Richard Heathfield
On the point about dying at some other point than just after walking out
of a confessional: I simply don't accept, and for good reason, that
Jesus is going to turn away a life-long Christian who gets run over by a
bus half-way between one confession and the next.
It all depends on the degree of sinfulness one pursues between confessions. You
can't confess sins that have not taken place.
Post by Richard Heathfield
What's the good
reason? Character. It simply doesn't square with Jesus's character of
love, forgiveness and anti-legalism.
But it does square with what Jesus considers condemnation-level sinning. If you
walk past a hungry bum on the sidewalk and ignore him, have you sinned. Yes,
the only thing up for grabs is how great is your sin. Does it rise to the level
of condemnation to the fires of hell?

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:02:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.
That's a non sequitur, and wrong to boot. I don't refuse to follow Jesus.
But you do.
Well, no. And the stuff you posted presumably in support of that claim
did not appear to me to support it at all.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
I'm not arguing against confession of sin. I'm not even arguing against
confession to a priest. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the
Catholic sacrament of confession (although it is easy to see how it
could be abused by a manipulative priest).
Difficult to find one like that.
Really? Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
But neither do I know of any Biblical injunction that requires me to
confess in a confessional, or indeed to confess to a Roman Catholic
priest. There is nothing wrong with confessing directly to God, which is
how Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists (etc) tend to do it.
Then why did Jesus SPECIFY John 20:22-23?
I don't know. You'd better ask Him. But one thing is for sure: if ever I
bump into one of those disciples, and if he can demonstrate to my entire
satisfaction that he is indeed one of the original disciples to which
Jesus conferred this authority, nothing would please me more than to
confess to him and seek his forgiveness, which he would undoubtedly
bestow. But until that happy day arrives, I'll cut out the middle man
and continue to confess directly to God. That's (part of) what prayer is
/for/.
Post by duke
Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest?
Excellent question.
Post by duke
Confession is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ providing a means for those
who fall into sin after Baptism to be restored into God's grace. It involves the
admission of one's sins made to a duly approved Priest **IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
ABSOLUTION.**
Jesus never appointed or approved any specific individual to be a
priest. As far as I can establish, He didn't even /mention/ the word
'priest' in the context of his followers. Nor did He institute a
sacrament of confession as far as I can tell. Your John 20 quote is
clearly not the institution of a sacrament; you're just clutching at straws.

St Paul, however, called us a "royal priesthood". So, the way I see it,
either all Christians are priests or none are.

Either way, I don't need to go to a "duly approved priest" to confess my
sins. God is perfectly content to be my confessor, and anyone else's
confessor.
Is it really? Where does /that/ phrase occur in the Bible, I wonder?
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
On the point about dying at some other point than just after walking out
of a confessional: I simply don't accept, and for good reason, that
Jesus is going to turn away a life-long Christian who gets run over by a
bus half-way between one confession and the next.
It all depends on the degree of sinfulness one pursues between confessions.
Citation required. The Bible makes no mention of this!
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
What's the good
reason? Character. It simply doesn't square with Jesus's character of
love, forgiveness and anti-legalism.
But it does square with what Jesus considers condemnation-level sinning.
/All/ sin is condemnation-level. Don't you know your Romans?
Post by duke
If you
walk past a hungry bum on the sidewalk and ignore him, have you sinned. Yes,
the only thing up for grabs is how great is your sin. Does it rise to the level
of condemnation to the fires of hell?
You have misunderstood the nature of sin. /All/ have sinned, and /all/
fall short of the glory of God. So /any/ sin, even if it's the sin of
carelessly dropping a piece of litter, is enough to bar us from Heaven.
And that is /precisely/ why Jesus died on the cross - to absolve us,
once for all time, from our sin. Yes, as honest Christians we continue
to confess to God what we've done wrong, but no, He's not going to
condemn us to eternity without Him just because it was twenty minutes
since we last did so.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:19:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
It must be very convenient to be a monday morning quarterback who can
shine and insult others who actually belong to something they are
proud of.
Mattb.
2017-01-19 04:11:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
It must be very convenient to be a monday morning quarterback who can
shine and insult others who actually belong to something they are
proud of.
Patrick Barker is proud to belong to the ranks of the Pedophiles. Why
am I not surprised.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:55:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
It must be very convenient to be a monday morning quarterback who can
shine and insult others who actually belong to something they are
proud of.
Patrick Barker is proud to belong to the ranks of the Pedophiles. Why
am I not surprised.
Despite the bad press the Roman Catholics have been getting in recent
decades, I think it's very unfair to mischaracterise the whole
denomination as "the ranks of the Pedophiles" as you do here. Your
exaggerations do more harm than good.

Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Mattb.
2017-01-19 05:45:55 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:55:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Mattb.
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
It must be very convenient to be a monday morning quarterback who can
shine and insult others who actually belong to something they are
proud of.
Patrick Barker is proud to belong to the ranks of the Pedophiles. Why
am I not surprised.
Despite the bad press the Roman Catholics have been getting in recent
decades, I think it's very unfair to mischaracterise the whole
denomination as "the ranks of the Pedophiles" as you do here. Your
exaggerations do more harm than good.
Maybe. Didn't really mean all Catholics but did Patrick Barker.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
I've tried that apologized even and he believed that meant I was
subservient to him.

After someone threatens to visit my kids after trying to tell me he is
a expert with guns. Rather hard to make friends. Wouldn't have taken
it seriously at all but his daughter works at a school just across the
river.

Said I would try again only after he admits all this crap about Matthu
and Larry were lies as they are.

He did say he was going to visit me and it hurt when I didn't get to
post him trying to climb the gate.

I even posted a article directly out of the Catholic encyclopedia and
he went ballistic and that was within a week. No Patrick is a troll
and there is no being friends with his kind..
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 03:39:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:55:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
I've tried that apologized even and he believed that meant I was
subservient to him.
Well, it would be wrong of me to make an observation about that specific
exchange because I haven't read it, but in general for someone to take
an apology as some kind of admission of subservience is just silly. A
sincere apology for a mistake is a strength, not a weakness.
Post by Mattb.
After someone threatens to visit my kids after trying to tell me he is
a expert with guns. Rather hard to make friends. Wouldn't have taken
it seriously at all but his daughter works at a school just across the
river.
Again, I haven't witnessed the exchange so I can't comment on the
specific case, but if I were in that position I would certainly be
concerned.
Post by Mattb.
Said I would try again only after he admits all this crap about Matthu
and Larry were lies as they are.
Well, going on current form, he'll never do that.
Post by Mattb.
He did say he was going to visit me and it hurt when I didn't get to
post him trying to climb the gate.
I even posted a article directly out of the Catholic encyclopedia and
he went ballistic and that was within a week. No Patrick is a troll
and there is no being friends with his kind..
Well, I can but try. If nothing else, we are at last getting some real
discussion about real issues that face Christians - the sin-confess
cycle, forgiving each other, and so on. So some good is coming out of it
all.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Mattb.
2017-01-19 04:01:11 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:39:16 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:55:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
I've tried that apologized even and he believed that meant I was
subservient to him.
Well, it would be wrong of me to make an observation about that specific
exchange because I haven't read it, but in general for someone to take
an apology as some kind of admission of subservience is just silly. A
sincere apology for a mistake is a strength, not a weakness.
I agree.
Post by Mattb.
After someone threatens to visit my kids after trying to tell me he is
a expert with guns. Rather hard to make friends. Wouldn't have taken
it seriously at all but his daughter works at a school just across the
river.
Again, I haven't witnessed the exchange so I can't comment on the
specific case, but if I were in that position I would certainly be
concerned.
Was enough to have a threat assessment done.
Post by Mattb.
Said I would try again only after he admits all this crap about Matthu
and Larry were lies as they are.
Well, going on current form, he'll never do that.
For Patrick to admit he lied would not be in his character. Though
his latest is the most funny he claims to have seen where I went to
school but did not graduate and yet can't name the school.
Post by Mattb.
He did say he was going to visit me and it hurt when I didn't get to
post him trying to climb the gate.
I even posted a article directly out of the Catholic encyclopedia and
he went ballistic and that was within a week. No Patrick is a troll
and there is no being friends with his kind..
Well, I can but try. If nothing else, we are at last getting some real
discussion about real issues that face Christians - the sin-confess
cycle, forgiving each other, and so on. So some good is coming out of it
all.
I read more threads than I post in learn more that way. I wish you
luck and you no doubt have more patience than I do.

Be well
Matt
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:16:21 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:39:16 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:55:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
I've tried that apologized even and he believed that meant I was
subservient to him.
Well, it would be wrong of me to make an observation about that specific
exchange because I haven't read it, but in general for someone to take
an apology as some kind of admission of subservience is just silly. A
sincere apology for a mistake is a strength, not a weakness.
Post by Mattb.
After someone threatens to visit my kids after trying to tell me he is
a expert with guns. Rather hard to make friends. Wouldn't have taken
it seriously at all but his daughter works at a school just across the
river.
Again, I haven't witnessed the exchange so I can't comment on the
specific case, but if I were in that position I would certainly be
concerned.
Post by Mattb.
Said I would try again only after he admits all this crap about Matthu
and Larry were lies as they are.
Well, going on current form, he'll never do that.
Post by Mattb.
He did say he was going to visit me and it hurt when I didn't get to
post him trying to climb the gate.
I even posted a article directly out of the Catholic encyclopedia and
he went ballistic and that was within a week. No Patrick is a troll
and there is no being friends with his kind..
Well, I can but try. If nothing else, we are at last getting some real
discussion about real issues that face Christians - the sin-confess
cycle, forgiving each other, and so on. So some good is coming out of it
all.
Don't put any credence in anything matt says.
He lies, he insults and he believes in the Catholic Basher creed:

Catholic Basher (cb) CREED: "Life sucks and then you die."

cb Rule # 1: If you can't dispute the facts, insult the fact finder

cb Rule # 2: It is permitted for any
cb'er to insult a person in order to elicit insults back from him,
justifying the original insult.

cb Rule # 3: Find any article critical of the Catholic Church
no matter how old it is.... and post it as if it were NEW news......

cb Rule # 4: .. If you can't argue the REAL
facts, interpret the other persons words incorrectly and
dishonestly, ... and then debate these new made-up words.

cb Rule #5 : If you can't fight the facts, then make up new ones.

cb Rule #6 : When an basher comes up with
a particularly good insult against the RCC or any Catholic, it
is advisable for other bashers to chime in with "me too's."
Mattb.
2017-01-19 22:10:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 03:39:16 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Mattb.
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:55:05 +0000, Richard Heathfield
<snip>
Post by Mattb.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Here's a challenge for you - make friends with Patrick. It's really hard
work, and you might not succeed, but the attempt will do you a power of
good.
I've tried that apologized even and he believed that meant I was
subservient to him.
Well, it would be wrong of me to make an observation about that specific
exchange because I haven't read it, but in general for someone to take
an apology as some kind of admission of subservience is just silly. A
sincere apology for a mistake is a strength, not a weakness.
Post by Mattb.
After someone threatens to visit my kids after trying to tell me he is
a expert with guns. Rather hard to make friends. Wouldn't have taken
it seriously at all but his daughter works at a school just across the
river.
Again, I haven't witnessed the exchange so I can't comment on the
specific case, but if I were in that position I would certainly be
concerned.
Post by Mattb.
Said I would try again only after he admits all this crap about Matthu
and Larry were lies as they are.
Well, going on current form, he'll never do that.
Post by Mattb.
He did say he was going to visit me and it hurt when I didn't get to
post him trying to climb the gate.
I even posted a article directly out of the Catholic encyclopedia and
he went ballistic and that was within a week. No Patrick is a troll
and there is no being friends with his kind..
Well, I can but try. If nothing else, we are at last getting some real
discussion about real issues that face Christians - the sin-confess
cycle, forgiving each other, and so on. So some good is coming out of it
all.
Don't put any credence in anything matt says.
Catholic Basher (cb) CREED: "Life sucks and then you die."
cb Rule # 1: If you can't dispute the facts, insult the fact finder
cb Rule # 2: It is permitted for any
cb'er to insult a person in order to elicit insults back from him,
justifying the original insult.
cb Rule # 3: Find any article critical of the Catholic Church
no matter how old it is.... and post it as if it were NEW news......
cb Rule # 4: .. If you can't argue the REAL
facts, interpret the other persons words incorrectly and
dishonestly, ... and then debate these new made-up words.
cb Rule #5 : If you can't fight the facts, then make up new ones.
cb Rule #6 : When an basher comes up with
a particularly good insult against the RCC or any Catholic, it
is advisable for other bashers to chime in with "me too's."
To disagree with Patrick makes one a 'Catholic Basher' all I did was
ask what parts of the old Testament Christian had to follow and how do
we know? That was a "Catholic Basher" question.

I don't like Pedophiles of any faith and those claiming to represent
God I really dislike. I also see no evidence purgatory is real. Also
Idol worship in any form I find wrong. Have Catholic friends and
they are good people guess Patrick is the first Hardline Catholic I
have known.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:51:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
It must be very convenient to be a monday morning quarterback who can
shine and insult others who actually belong to something they are
proud of.
Well, I belong to something I'm proud of - the Church! But I'm not blind
to its faults.

As for insulting others, I can do it when I try but most of the time I
prefer not to try.

(I don't know what a Monday morning quarterback is.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 12:55:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.
That's a non sequitur, and wrong to boot. I don't refuse to follow Jesus.
But you do.
Well, no. And the stuff you posted presumably in support of that claim
did not appear to me to support it at all.
Well, there you go. You're shutting down your brain for the sake of not being
shown to be in error. I don't have your problem.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
I'm not arguing against confession of sin. I'm not even arguing against
confession to a priest. I see nothing intrinsically wrong with the
Catholic sacrament of confession (although it is easy to see how it
could be abused by a manipulative priest).
Difficult to find one like that.
Really? Perhaps you're genuinely not aware of the bad press the Roman
Catholics have been getting in recent decades, or perhaps you're being
facetious.
As far as I can tell, none in my entire lifetime. I can't speak for you brits.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
But neither do I know of any Biblical injunction that requires me to
confess in a confessional, or indeed to confess to a Roman Catholic
priest. There is nothing wrong with confessing directly to God, which is
how Anglicans, Baptists, Methodists (etc) tend to do it.
Then why did Jesus SPECIFY John 20:22-23?
I don't know. You'd better ask Him.
I already know. He said that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit mandates use of
John 20. But you wouldn't understand that.
Post by Richard Heathfield
But one thing is for sure: if ever I
bump into one of those disciples, and if he can demonstrate to my entire
satisfaction that he is indeed one of the original disciples to which
Jesus conferred this authority, nothing would please me more than to
confess to him and seek his forgiveness, which he would undoubtedly
bestow. But until that happy day arrives, I'll cut out the middle man
and continue to confess directly to God. That's (part of) what prayer is
/for/.
You can't be forgiven for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. You falsely refuse
to accept what Jesus said. And Rev 21:27 says the door is closed to those.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Why do Catholics confess their sins to a priest?
Excellent question.
Well, today you're making it clear you don't care. So I'll leave it there.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Confession is a sacrament instituted by Jesus Christ providing a means for those
who fall into sin after Baptism to be restored into God's grace. It involves the
admission of one's sins made to a duly approved Priest **IN ORDER TO OBTAIN
ABSOLUTION.**
Jesus never appointed or approved any specific individual to be a
priest.
John 20:22-23 says you're wrong.
Post by Richard Heathfield
As far as I can establish, He didn't even /mention/ the word
'priest' in the context of his followers. Nor did He institute a
sacrament of confession as far as I can tell. Your John 20 quote is
clearly not the institution of a sacrament; you're just clutching at straws.
No, you are, and you're going to lose.
Post by Richard Heathfield
St Paul, however, called us a "royal priesthood". So, the way I see it,
either all Christians are priests or none are.
Holy Orders given by Jesus moves the real priest up another level.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Either way, I don't need to go to a "duly approved priest" to confess my
sins. God is perfectly content to be my confessor, and anyone else's
confessor.
Then why did Jesus give us John 20:22-23.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Is it really? Where does /that/ phrase occur in the Bible, I wonder?
Wow, you really are a literalist in each and every word in scripture.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
On the point about dying at some other point than just after walking out
of a confessional: I simply don't accept, and for good reason, that
Jesus is going to turn away a life-long Christian who gets run over by a
bus half-way between one confession and the next.
It all depends on the degree of sinfulness one pursues between confessions.
Citation required. The Bible makes no mention of this!
I gather you don't understand that the RCC is the church given by Jesus 2000
years ago. He taught men who taught men who taught men.

Out of all this, a relative few books were assembled and published to be called
"bible". So much of what Jesus taught was never written down. John 21:25.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:50:06 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
The sacrament of confession, John 20:22-23, is given to all mankind.
I see no evidence for your claim in the text you cite. Making stuff up
doesn't help anyone.
Yet you refuse to follow Jesus.
That's a non sequitur, and wrong to boot. I don't refuse to follow Jesus.
But you do.
Well, no. And the stuff you posted presumably in support of that claim
did not appear to me to support it at all.
Well, there you go. You're shutting down your brain for the sake of not being
shown to be in error.
You have not demonstrated this. In fact, you haven't actually engaged
with anything I've been saying. You're just repeating dogma.

And the rest of your article (which I've snipped because it's worthless)
is in the same vein as the above. It seems you prefer personal attacks
to debate. No doubt you will repeat this behaviour in future. If so,
I'll just snip and mark such attacks without any further comment.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 12:08:15 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Because Jesus revealed that NO sin, and that includes the propensity to sin, can
enter the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, of course. Hence Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". Note the past tense. I am not, of course, claiming that we
no longer sin, only that when we become Christians it ceases to be our
defining characteristic -- what you call a "propensity to sin".
No sin can enter the kindgom of God. Nor can the propensity to sin.
John 20
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
…22When He had said this, He breathed on them and said, “Receive the
Holy Spirit. 23If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if
you withhold forgiveness from anyone, it is withheld.”
++ Why in the world would John write this in his Gospel?
Presumably because it happened. But the original disciples are all dead
now. Check out Hebrews 10 for a crash course in salvation theology.
Does Hebrews negate the Word of Jesus in John.
No, but the Word of Jesus in John doesn't say what you seem to think it
says.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:37:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
Because Jesus revealed that NO sin, and that includes the propensity to sin, can
enter the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, of course. Hence Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". Note the past tense. I am not, of course, claiming that we
no longer sin, only that when we become Christians it ceases to be our
defining characteristic -- what you call a "propensity to sin".
No sin can enter the kindgom of God. Nor can the propensity to sin.
Agreed, and I haven't claimed otherwise. So your response seems utterly
pointless. What point were you trying to make?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 16:22:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Because Jesus revealed that NO sin, and that includes the propensity to sin, can
enter the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, of course. Hence Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". Note the past tense. I am not, of course, claiming that we
no longer sin, only that when we become Christians it ceases to be our
defining characteristic -- what you call a "propensity to sin".
No sin can enter the kindgom of God. Nor can the propensity to sin.
Agreed, and I haven't claimed otherwise. So your response seems utterly
pointless. What point were you trying to make?
If you had read the rest of my previous post, you would have understood the
drama of continued sin swill that our daily lives encounter.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 16:34:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Because Jesus revealed that NO sin, and that includes the propensity to sin, can
enter the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, of course. Hence Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". Note the past tense. I am not, of course, claiming that we
no longer sin, only that when we become Christians it ceases to be our
defining characteristic -- what you call a "propensity to sin".
No sin can enter the kindgom of God. Nor can the propensity to sin.
Agreed, and I haven't claimed otherwise. So your response seems utterly
pointless. What point were you trying to make?
If you had read the rest of my previous post
If you want me to read all the way to the end, you have to hold my
interest. And to hold my interest, you have to make sense. I often (not
always, but often) stop reading an article as soon as it stops making
sense. In this case, you started off with a non sequitur, and that's
never a good way to begin a reply.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 12:58:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
Because Jesus revealed that NO sin, and that includes the propensity to sin, can
enter the heavenly kingdom.
Yes, of course. Hence Romans 5:8: "While we were yet sinners, Christ
died for us". Note the past tense. I am not, of course, claiming that we
no longer sin, only that when we become Christians it ceases to be our
defining characteristic -- what you call a "propensity to sin".
No sin can enter the kindgom of God. Nor can the propensity to sin.
Agreed, and I haven't claimed otherwise. So your response seems utterly
pointless. What point were you trying to make?
If you had read the rest of my previous post
If you want me to read all the way to the end, you have to hold my
interest.
If you want to learn, read on. If you are only interested in people who hold
your views, you're no value to discussion. And you're making that very plain by
saying: support my views or go away.

And to hold my interest, you have to make sense. I often (not
Post by Richard Heathfield
always, but often) stop reading an article as soon as it stops making
sense. In this case, you started off with a non sequitur, and that's
never a good way to begin a reply.
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:52:30 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
If you want me to read all the way to the end, you have to hold my
interest.
If you want to learn, read on.
Of course I want to learn, but you haven't demonstrated that you have
anything of value to teach. If you want to teach, have something worth
teaching, something that stands up in debate.
Post by duke
If you are only interested in people who hold
your views, you're no value to discussion.
I have made it abundantly clear that I am willing to debate. But mere
repeating of dogma does not constitute debate.
Post by duke
And you're making that very plain by
saying: support my views or go away.
No, I have never said that.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 12:09:29 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
You think he's some kind of special friend of mine just because we don't
insult each other? My, what a sad life you must lead.
You do tend to falsely project daily, don't you.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
You think he's some kind of special friend of mine just because we don't
insult each other? My, what a sad life you must lead.
You do tend to falsely project daily, don't you.
Do you mean you think you don't behave in an insulting way? Interesting.
Thanks.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:03:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
You think he's some kind of special friend of mine just because we don't
insult each other? My, what a sad life you must lead.
You do tend to falsely project daily, don't you.
Do you mean you think you don't behave in an insulting way? Interesting.
Thanks.
What works for you works for me. It's an old saying. I pride myself is giving
back what I received first. It's the nature of the internet. But niceness
begats niceness.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:18:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
You think he's some kind of special friend of mine just because we don't
insult each other? My, what a sad life you must lead.
You do tend to falsely project daily, don't you.
Do you mean you think you don't behave in an insulting way? Interesting.
Thanks.
What works for you works for me.
Take a long hard look at your posting history, and all the childish
names you use for people who disagree with you - such as when you called
Rudy Canoza a "skinny, pimply-little girly-boy".

You think that isn't insulting?
Post by duke
It's an old saying. I pride myself is giving
back what I received first.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Post by duke
It's the nature of the internet.
The world, in fact. But God has a better way.
Post by duke
But niceness begats niceness.
Then think what would happen if you started being nice. Praying for your
enemies. Blessing people who attack you. You know, doing what Jesus says
we should do. Got to be worth a try, right?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 13:00:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
On Mon, 16 Jan 2017 20:32:59 +0000, Richard Heathfield
[...] I told you also that I was
never baptized as a RC nor will ever be.
It is perfectly possible to be baptised as a Christian without being a
Catholic. I was.
There is no question about that.
However, you must be baptised in the name of the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit.
That's pretty standard, isn't it? Are there churches that have some
other formula for baptism?
Your buddy Robert totally rejects this.
You think he's some kind of special friend of mine just because we don't
insult each other? My, what a sad life you must lead.
You do tend to falsely project daily, don't you.
Do you mean you think you don't behave in an insulting way? Interesting.
Thanks.
What works for you works for me.
Take a long hard look at your posting history,
It's my history. I know what I said.
Post by Richard Heathfield
and all the childish
names you use for people who disagree with you - such as when you called
Rudy Canoza a "skinny, pimply-little girly-boy".
You think that isn't insulting?
Now with what he has been saying. Oh, does this mean that you don't now he says
I have syphilis. I wonder how he knows.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
It's an old saying. I pride myself is giving
back what I received first.
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.
Post by duke
It's the nature of the internet.
The world, in fact. But God has a better way.
Post by duke
But niceness begats niceness.
Then think what would happen if you started being nice. Praying for your
enemies. Blessing people who attack you. You know, doing what Jesus says
we should do. Got to be worth a try, right?
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-18 12:17:49 UTC
Permalink
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
Well, we all have our problems, don't we. You're pretty big into thinking you
can erroneously psycho-analyze others you don't know. Little do you realize,
you're building your own resume also.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:46:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
Well, we all have our problems, don't we.
That's a truism. Of course we do.
Post by duke
You're pretty big into thinking you
can erroneously psycho-analyze others you don't know.
Well, no. I was very careful to make it clear that I could be mistaken
in my assessment of Patrick's use of "whining", and in any case it's not
something I do very often, so "pretty big into" is a bit of an exaggeration.
Post by duke
Little do you realize,
you're building your own resume also.
I realise it very well, and I'm comfortable with it. That's because I
stick to the facts, I fess up when I realise I've made a mistake, and I
don't consider abuse to be a sensible way to take a debate forward.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:20:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
Well, we all have our problems, don't we.
That's a truism. Of course we do.
Post by duke
You're pretty big into thinking you
can erroneously psycho-analyze others you don't know.
Well, no.
Well, yes. That's the picture of yourself you've already painted. That's why I
said it. But the desired lesson is to engage in discussion and not belittle the
other.
Post by Richard Heathfield
I was very careful to make it clear that I could be mistaken
in my assessment of Patrick's use of "whining", and in any case it's not
something I do very often, so "pretty big into" is a bit of an exaggeration.
It doesn't matter. Rest assured the matt's, robert's, et al of the ng well
deserve, IN RETURN, what they've dished out.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Little do you realize,
you're building your own resume also.
I realise it very well, and I'm comfortable with it. That's because I
stick to the facts, I fess up when I realise I've made a mistake, and I
don't consider abuse to be a sensible way to take a debate forward.
What you see as facts in assessment may be far from the truth to others.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:26:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
Well, we all have our problems, don't we.
That's a truism. Of course we do.
Post by duke
You're pretty big into thinking you
can erroneously psycho-analyze others you don't know.
Well, no.
Well, yes. That's the picture of yourself you've already painted.
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
Post by duke
That's why I
said it. But the desired lesson is to engage in discussion and not belittle the
other.
You mean you chose "whining" out of an earnest desire to engage in
discussion rather than belittling your interlocutor? Wow.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
I was very careful to make it clear that I could be mistaken
in my assessment of Patrick's use of "whining", and in any case it's not
something I do very often, so "pretty big into" is a bit of an exaggeration.
It doesn't matter. Rest assured the matt's, robert's, et al of the ng well
deserve, IN RETURN, what they've dished out.
"If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give
him water to drink." - Proverbs 25:21.

"But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute
you," - Matthew 5:44.
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Little do you realize,
you're building your own resume also.
I realise it very well, and I'm comfortable with it. That's because I
stick to the facts, I fess up when I realise I've made a mistake, and I
don't consider abuse to be a sensible way to take a debate forward.
What you see as facts in assessment may be far from the truth to others.
Oh, I'm well aware of that. Are you?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:14:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
You can tap dance all you want... but "guff" is what you said.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:42:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
I believe you're right. You see? I can do it if I try. But I don't try
very often.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 18:54:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
I believe you're right. You see? I can do it if I try. But I don't try
very often.
And you clearly don't succeed very often either.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:09:24 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:42:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
I believe you're right. You see? I can do it if I try. But I don't try
very often.
So.... where is the apology?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 11:06:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:42:09 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
I believe you're right. You see? I can do it if I try. But I don't try
very often.
So.... where is the apology?
When it becomes evident to me that I have said something incorrect, I
will apologise immediately. Until then, no.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 15:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I believe that was an insult.
You can tap dance all you want... but "guff" is what you said.
What points all he is - see his address - ie - .uk.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-19 15:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
Why are you whining?
You use that line on me. You really need new material Patrick.
If I understand him correctly, "why are you whining?" is what Patrick
says when he realises he's painted himself into a corner and has no idea
of how to get out of it; as far as I can tell, he seems to think it's
better to attack people (even without any defensible grounds) in an
attempt to distract them than to accept that he might not be 100%
correct. (And if he /does/ think that, he is mistaken.)
Well, we all have our problems, don't we.
That's a truism. Of course we do.
Post by duke
You're pretty big into thinking you
can erroneously psycho-analyze others you don't know.
Well, no.
Well, yes. That's the picture of yourself you've already painted.
Given the amount of guff you claim to believe, I can see why you might
believe that too, but it isn't actually true.
I say it is, and you're wrong.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
That's why I
said it. But the desired lesson is to engage in discussion and not belittle the
other.
You mean you chose "whining" out of an earnest desire to engage in
discussion rather than belittling your interlocutor? Wow.
No, you're not about discussion, but whining.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-18 12:23:08 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..." Shouldn't you be a bit more careful with our words. Keep
in mind that the life of Jesus spans 33 years, although nothing is known from
age 12 to age 30. Few if any Hebrews living in a small community next to a
Roman garrison in the desert could "read and write". Communication was by word
of mouth. Gospel of James was never selected as canon scripture.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 12:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.

Details, details...
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:11:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine. We know in that time there was little writing. It was by word
retold night after night around the campfire. Jesus himself is knows to only
have written some mysterious comment in the dirt and one time only.

Eventually the written word appeared from a few that could write. The
magnificence is not in the wording but the spiritual message. Jesus didn't
speak English. He spoke Aramaic.

I seen many a silly person on these ng's that try to make a point that if Jesus
was real, why wasn't he news. And the answer is that he was an unknown
carpenter boy that got under the skin of the Jews and the Romans until he was
executed. But his message was carried forth in a huge way.

That's why I questioned the "no books" statement.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Details, details...
the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-18 17:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.

Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 01:12:13 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Or what?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 01:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Or what?
That's between you and God.

I have pointed out that what you wrote was wrong. You can deal with it
as a grown-up by apologising, or you can deal with it like a child by
trying to squirm out of it or distract attention away from it. Which you
choose is entirely up to you. I am offering you the opportunity to
behave properly, and that's all I'm required to do.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 15:28:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Or what?
That's between you and God.
I have pointed out that what you wrote was wrong. You can deal with it
as a grown-up by apologising, or you can deal with it like a child by
trying to squirm out of it or distract attention away from it. Which you
choose is entirely up to you. I am offering you the opportunity to
behave properly, and that's all I'm required to do.
like I said, you are more interested in controlling the ng your preferred way,
rather than engaging in debate.


the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:08:00 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 01:41:14 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Or what?
That's between you and God.
God isn't posting here.
And who are you to speak for God?
Post by Richard Heathfield
I have pointed out that what you wrote was wrong.
You feel he made a correct statement based on a false premise.
Perhaps you actually feel that way.
I don't care. It matters not what you feel.
However, since you are unable to see that a false premise and a
correct analysis after -- is incorrect, I feel for you.
It was a total lie.
I pity you.
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 11:00:43 UTC
Permalink
On 19/01/17 20:08, Patrick wrote:

<snip>
Post by Patrick
God isn't posting here.
That's true.
Post by Patrick
And who are you to speak for God?
You think I speak for God? Interesting. What makes you think so?
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-19 15:27:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
On Wed, 18 Jan 2017 17:20:58 +0000, Richard Heathfield
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Or what?
RH is totally losing it.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
duke
2017-01-19 15:26:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Sure it's fine, unless you feel guilty. "Not my words" is soooooooooo simple to
offer.
Post by Richard Heathfield
Either you did so carelessly, in which case it's customary to apologise,
or you did so deliberately. At the very least, I think I have the right
to know which of those it was.
Your propensity to demand that only you know how to act in a discussion group is
not good for you. If you can't give and take, go away. But your constant belly
aching about lecturing others like you know better is getting old, real old.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-19 16:54:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
Post by Richard Heathfield
Post by duke
<snip>
https://www.gty.org/resources/questions/QA176/When-were-the-Bible-books-written
I find it interesting no books were written while Jesus was alive
earliest one was written by Jesus half brother James.
And the list was wrong too.
Details, details.
You said "NO books..."
Well, no, I didn't, actually. I /quoted/ someone else saying "no books",
but I didn't bring those words into the discussion myself.
That's fine.
No, it isn't fine at all. You incorrectly attributed to me a statement
that I did not make.
Sure it's fine,
You think it's okay to make stuff up? Duly noted. (But if you /don't/
think it's okay to make stuff up, I leave the door open for you to
apologise for so doing.)
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Patrick
2017-01-19 20:08:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Heathfield
You think it's okay to make stuff up? Duly noted. (But if you /don't/
think it's okay to make stuff up, I leave the door open for you to
apologise for so doing.)
You seem to be big in the apology business.
When will you start?
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 11:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick
Post by Richard Heathfield
You think it's okay to make stuff up? Duly noted. (But if you /don't/
think it's okay to make stuff up, I leave the door open for you to
apologise for so doing.)
You seem to be big in the apology business.
I think apologies are important. They are a good tool for helping to
mend broken relationships.
Post by Patrick
When will you start?
On Usenet? Oh, almost twenty years ago. I always apologise when it
becomes evident to me that I've got something badly wrong. For example,
if I were to mock someone for making a correct statement, I would
apologise the moment I realised I had done so.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
duke
2017-01-18 17:15:23 UTC
Permalink
The new testament is the blood covenant, the New Testament bible are
the words of God, by his holy spirit. Those the angel certified, if
you want to use that term, who Jesus is to Mary and Joseph. The NT was
not written, nor was it given by Jesus at that point.
Which angel certified it?
You say the NT was not written?
Did it show up on some Gold plates, buried in New York?
Patrick, Robert is quite right in his statement that, at the time of the
events of Luke 1 and Matthew 1, the New Testament had not yet been written.
And it's better to be right.
This is true, by definition. ALL of the NT documents were formerly written
after the events took place - anywhere from 10 years to maybe 100 years.
Which would make some authors older than Moses when He died and was
buried according to those terms you accept.
I said NT.
The events are real - the formal record was prepared later - from individuals,
from witnesses, from the massive changes in religious development in society
after the cross..
Yes, you are correct, since there was no religion under Christ save
that mentioned in James.
Jesus was a Jew that brought the new way to the people.
Religious development RCC, Orthodox, etc.
It's so sad how lost you are.

the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Robert
2017-01-19 17:16:15 UTC
Permalink
any pagan would laugh at your usage of "veneration", they
recognize it as worship, just like when they venerate their gods.
You really need to stop hanging with your pagan friends.
They obviously are as stupid as you are.
You have 100 million Pagan Indians mocking you and your religious
"venerations".
Prove it, idiot.
I already did, a year or so ago.
Do it again.
Especially if you claim to make the same stupid claim from a year ago.
You can't keep up with what is said today.
When we Roman Catholics talk about worship, we talk about God
When we Roman Catholics talk about venerate, we talk about a person of high
esteem but no worship.
If you're going to try to bs us, at least keep in mind why you're going to get
your chops busted.
Only if you can get the power of an inquisition.
That comes right after your judgment before Jesus.
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
Not more than a few weeks ago we went all through this and the fact
that it is as if we were in the Lords washing machine as we are living
in an ongoing forgiveness for our sins if we walk by faith.
Yes, of course. But is it our version of faith or God's version. Minor sin is
called venial and can be forgiven in the next life (purgatory) but not serious
sin, which stands in violation of God's 10 commandments and called blasphemy
against the Holy Spirit (mortal sin).
This is partially why I say you follow a false god. Your religion is
not God's version.
I also
showed you that God no longer sees sin in us, as well as without the
law there is no sin.
God's 10 commandments lives forever.
The difference between the Jew and the Believer is that the Jew
follows those laws religiously, he knows he has too, but the believer
is freed from all of that and they live with the desire to do right by
the Lord and instinctively they do what is right by the law. They are
not followers of the law but followers of Christ.
Along with that was the simple statement that he no longer writes sin
to our accounts, for those in Christ Jesus.
Rom 4:8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.
And the only **INPUT** sin is original sin. It's not an actual committed sin.
All other sin is inputted.
You haven't a clue, you cannot even spell the proper word. Nor do you
even understand based on what you just wrote.
Please read Romans 4 for a refresher.
You've got a lot of reading up to do.
retort?
the dukester, American-American
walksalone
2017-01-19 19:06:13 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 09:16:15 -0800, Robert snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
duke
2017-01-19 18:52:54 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
So did Jesus. You're looking for verses rather than paying attention to what
Jesus was giving us.
In practice, all Christians, including Catholic Christians, are forgiven
their sin by Christ's redeeming sacrifice on the cross,
PAST sins, not future which is not a sin. A sin is an act the one did, not one
that someone may about to do.
and there's no
need to keep going to see the local priest every so often to keep your
stamps up to date unless you really want to.
You use green stamps in the confessional in the UK>
If you're going to promote Catholic theology, that's fine, but please do
try to keep it in the Catholic groups. If you post in non-Catholic
groups, you're going to see a lot of non-Catholic theology.
No, it's the Church founded by Jesus Christ - the Roman Catholic Church.

MASS:
Do this in memory of me - Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).

SACRAMENTS:
1. Baptism - John 3:5-6, Mat 28:19, Hebrew 2:14-15
2. Holy Eucharist -Mat 26:26-29, Mark 14:22-26, Luke 22:14-20,
1Cor 11:23-25 (11-34).
3. Confession - John 20:22-23, 2 Cor 5:18-19, Mat 9:2-8
4. Matrimony - Mat 19:4-6, Mark 10:5-9, Ephesians 5:31
5. Confirmation - Ephesians 1:13-14, Acts 8:14-17, Acts 19:5-6,
6. Holy Orders - Acts 13:3 & 14:23, John 20:22, 1 & 2 Tim
7. Anointing of the Sick - Mark 6:12-13, John 5:14

PAPACY:
Mat 16:13-19 (Pope), Mat 28:16-20 (Teaching), Eph 2:19-20 (Base)

PURGATORY:
1 Cor 3:10-15

FAITH (without deeds is dead faith):
Mat 25:31-46, James 2:26
Feed the hungry.
Clothe the naked.
Give drink to the thirsty.
Visit the imprisoned.

Heal the sick.
Cast out demons.



the dukester, American-American

*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Richard Heathfield
2017-01-20 10:12:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by duke
<snip>
There is no judgment for me, I have been totally forgiven.
Not unless you just walked out of the confessional in the last second.
That only applies to Catholics, I think? And then only because they
think it does.
So did Jesus.
So did Jesus what?
Post by duke
You're looking for verses rather than paying attention to what
Jesus was giving us.
Well, what Jesus gave us was redemption, freedom, and responsibility to
love God and to love each other. The Bible supports this view, so the
verses are there to be found if we go looking. What the Bible doesn't
support is the idea that a Christian will be condemned to Hell if, on
the way home from Confession, he has an unkind thought about a neighbour
and is then run over by a bus.
Post by duke
In practice, all Christians, including Catholic Christians, are forgiven
their sin by Christ's redeeming sacrifice on the cross,
PAST sins, not future which is not a sin. A sin is an act the one did, not one
that someone may about to do.
Are you saying that Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross only applies
to sins that had been committed at the time of that sacrifice? Or are
you saying that it only applies to sins that had been committed before
the moment when one becomes a Christian? Or what /are/ you saying? Do
you believe that, if you commit a sin tomorrow or the next day or next
week, Christ cannot take the burden of that sin from you?
Post by duke
and there's no
need to keep going to see the local priest every so often to keep your
stamps up to date unless you really want to.
You use green stamps in the confessional in the UK>
It was a metaphor. A word picture. Don't you do those?
Post by duke
If you're going to promote Catholic theology, that's fine, but please do
try to keep it in the Catholic groups. If you post in non-Catholic
groups, you're going to see a lot of non-Catholic theology.
No, it's the Church founded by Jesus Christ - the Roman Catholic Church.
Well, I agree that there's only one Church, but I don't agree with you
about its precise composition.

Are there Roman Catholics who are Christians? YES.
Are there non-Catholics who are Christians? YES.
Are there Roman Catholics who are not Christians? YES.
Are there non-Catholics who are not Christians? YES.

Being a Catholic is not the same as being a Christian.
--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within
Robert
2017-01-19 22:02:28 UTC
Permalink
I am not a RC Christian, for sure. I am a believer in Jesus Christ and
am a Christian under the guidelines of the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles. You know that full well, since I have told you many, many,
times. Duke also has been told.
And once again.
I ask for these guidelines that you claim to follow.
You know what I believe.
It is stated in the Nicene Creed.
Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed.
You do not.
Therefore, I do not consider you to be a Christian.
And I have told you this many times.
Then specify that. State that I am not a RC whatever.
Christian by definition or slur, means A follower of Christ who acts
just like him. Christ Like.
Creeds are for religions.
You believe in "Once saved, always saved."
You disregard every Biblical reference or quote that does not teach
your silly belief. You snatch and grab ONE verse and built your
religion around it. And I pity you. That is not what Jesus expected
of His followers. Now, I don't really care what you believe, but I do
care when you try to pass your lies and deceit here among Catholics
and lurkers who wish to learn. Your false teaching needs to be
addressed and commented on.
First, you have shown nothing to the contrary.
I have hundreds of words that Jesus said.
Anyone can carry the Bible, and Satan knows for more words that Jesus
spoke then you ever could.
Secondly you lie a lot, in your own living room ng, and all others
that you post in.
Another accusation that you have never been able to back up.
At least I back up everything I say.
Sorry, you don't. Fortunately, since you haven't at least shot at Matt
with your pistol. You were going to visit him on your vacation, with
your son and do harm. Never happened. Plus assorted other travesties.
You believe in a Queen in Heaven.
I do?
The Nicene Creed
I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
There are errors of doctrine in that, that conflict with the bible
Doctrines.

I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, as my Saviour and soon coming
king.
The only Queen in Heaven was a Babylonian Queen that the Jews followed
for a time. One that God detested, and he gave the Jews over to that
queen for a time and lifted his grace from them.
Do you actually believe there was a Babylonian Queen in heaven?
Would you care to provide any evidence on this?
Of course not.
Since you lied once again.
I've posted this all before, here is an abbreviated form for you.
Jer_7:18  The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire,
and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven,
and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke
me to anger.
Jer_44:17  But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out
of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to
pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our
fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in
the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were
well, and saw no evil.
Jer_44:18  But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of
heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all
things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine.
Jer_44:19  And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and
poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship
her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?
Jer_44:25  Thus saith the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, saying; Ye
and your wives have both spoken with your mouths, and fulfilled with
your hand, saying, We will surely perform our vows that we have vowed,
to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink
offerings unto her: ye will surely accomplish your vows, and surely
perform your vows.

Verse 25 God gave them over to their "Queen" for her to take care of
them, not him.
asherah
2017-01-20 00:04:42 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:02:28 -0800, Robert snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Robert
2017-01-19 22:15:04 UTC
Permalink
I am not a RC Christian, for sure. I am a believer in Jesus Christ and
am a Christian under the guidelines of the Book of the Acts of the
Apostles. You know that full well, since I have told you many, many,
times. Duke also has been told.
And once again.
I ask for these guidelines that you claim to follow.
You know what I believe.
It is stated in the Nicene Creed.
Most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed.
You do not.
Therefore, I do not consider you to be a Christian.
And I have told you this many times.
Then specify that. State that I am not a RC whatever.
You're not a Christian unless you are baptized in the name of the Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit.
Baptized is immersed. As in a ship sunk to the bottom of the ocean
totally covered with water.
Christian by definition or slur, means A follower of Christ who acts
just like him. Christ Like.
I go by Mat 28 myself.
And the evidence of that?
the dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
walksalone
2017-01-20 00:03:07 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 19 Jan 2017 14:15:04 -0800, Robert

snip
Cross posted to:
alt.bible,alt.christnet.christianlife,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic.
Follow up set
Are you going to answer walksalone's question. You know, this one.

Now, where is that message ID where you claim I called you a liar?

"Aristotle was once asked what those who tell lies gain by it. Said he,
"That when they speak truth they are not believed."
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...