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
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."
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
2017-01-17 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
2017-01-17 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
2017-01-17 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
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
2017-01-17 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
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
*****
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."
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
*****
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 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 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
2017-01-18 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 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 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
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...