How would you respond -If you died 2nite where would you go?

Calvinist · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:24 pm

pax wrote:

Thanks. But no thanks. I want somebody who actually speaks Koine Greek as their first language. You know, like one of the Early Church Fathers.

Did they all speak koine Greek? How would you know? And why does it matter?

pax · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:29 pm

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

Thanks. But no thanks. I want somebody who actually speaks Koine Greek as their first language. You know, like one of the Early Church Fathers.

Did they all speak koine Greek? How would you know? And why does it matter?

Some of them spoke Koine Greek as their first language. Not all. And it matters for the same reason that I do not want a guy from, say, Japan, who has only studied Arabic for one year, telling me what a complex Arabic sentence means. I will just ask a guy who speaks Arabic as his first language.

Calvinist · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:35 pm

pax wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

Thanks. But no thanks. I want somebody who actually speaks Koine Greek as their first language. You know, like one of the Early Church Fathers.

Did they all speak koine Greek? How would you know? And why does it matter?

Some of them spoke Koine Greek as their first language. Not all. And it matters for the same reason that I do not want a guy from, say, Japan, who has only studied Arabic for one year, telling me what a complex Arabic sentence means. I will just ask a guy who speaks Arabic as his first language.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are many excellent Greek scholars today that have written commentaries that I have access to. And they use older manuscripts than perhaps what your ECFs might have had access to.

pax · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:43 pm

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

Thanks. But no thanks. I want somebody who actually speaks Koine Greek as their first language. You know, like one of the Early Church Fathers.

Did they all speak koine Greek? How would you know? And why does it matter?

Some of them spoke Koine Greek as their first language. Not all. And it matters for the same reason that I do not want a guy from, say, Japan, who has only studied Arabic for one year, telling me what a complex Arabic sentence means. I will just ask a guy who speaks Arabic as his first language.

I'm not really sure what your point is. There are many excellent Greek scholars today that have written commentaries that I have access to. And they use older manuscripts than perhaps what your ECFs might have had access to.

And you think this makes you an expert and puts your understaning on a par with the mind of the hagiographer.

I reject both.

There is a certain way verses of Scripture were always understood by Christians -- the first of them speaking Koine Greek in their everyday lives -- and this understanding has left an historical footprint, and no Greek expert showing up on the scene 2000 years after the fact can change that.

There are also writings left to us from Christians who still had the voices of the Apostles ringing in their ears -- who were actually taught by the Apostles in person! To discount how these most priveliged Christians understood the Scriptures is nothing short of spiritual madness!

Gracie2004 · **Posted:** Tue Feb 21, 2012 4:10 pm

Calvinist wrote:

Gracie2004 wrote:

How do you know Indulgences aren't Biblical? Can you give me proof instead of just throwing around your opinions? You aren't proving much for your side of the argument you know...what I'm seeing is opinion based, not Scripture based.

Because the concept of them flies directly against scripture? Your argument from silence is really not a reasonable argument.

Still, no references. Do you have some?

Quote:

Show me the Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church IS the true Church. Chfrist left it when he left the keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We believe the Holy Scriptures because they were written by the Apostles.

Quote:

By your standard, I would like for you to give me something from scripture that shows that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, then told him he was pope, and that future successors of his would be called "Pope". And that they are the only representative of Christianity on earth.

Or that, since scripture doesn't say a thing about all sorts of other stuff like the assumption of Mary....that it didn't happen.

I guess now, by your standard, my point is proven...since you have no scripture saying that.

I asked you first. Where are your proofs? I have Scripture to back me up. Do you?
Seriously, if you have a degree in theology, you should be able to provide your proof from Scripture, fairly easily it would seem to me. Then, when you have done so, I will provide you with Scripture readings also. But since I asked first, it's common courtesy to provide from your point of view first. And that's a good attempt at changing the subject, but to no avail. I have asked for references. Once you have been asked, it is your responsibility to provide them.

Calvinist · **Posted:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 11:34 am

Gracie2004 wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Gracie2004 wrote:

How do you know Indulgences aren't Biblical? Can you give me proof instead of just throwing around your opinions? You aren't proving much for your side of the argument you know...what I'm seeing is opinion based, not Scripture based.

Because the concept of them flies directly against scripture? Your argument from silence is really not a reasonable argument.

Still, no references. Do you have some?

Quote:

Show me the Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church IS the true Church. Chfrist left it when he left the keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We believe the Holy Scriptures because they were written by the Apostles.

Quote:

By your standard, I would like for you to give me something from scripture that shows that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, then told him he was pope, and that future successors of his would be called "Pope". And that they are the only representative of Christianity on earth.

Or that, since scripture doesn't say a thing about all sorts of other stuff like the assumption of Mary....that it didn't happen.

I guess now, by your standard, my point is proven...since you have no scripture saying that.

I asked you first. Where are your proofs? I have Scripture to back me up. Do you?
Seriously, if you have a degree in theology, you should be able to provide your proof from Scripture, fairly easily it would seem to me. Then, when you have done so, I will provide you with Scripture readings also. But since I asked first, it's common courtesy to provide from your point of view first. And that's a good attempt at changing the subject, but to no avail. I have asked for references. Once you have been asked, it is your responsibility to provide them.

Read the entire book of Romans in 1 sitting. Or at least the first 11 chapters. It lays it out. Then move over to Hebrews. I'm sorry....but we are justified by fully by Christ. He paid it in full. We don't need to rely on a coin to ring in the coffer.

Gracie2004 · **Posted:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:25 pm

Calvinist wrote:

Gracie2004 wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Gracie2004 wrote:

How do you know Indulgences aren't Biblical? Can you give me proof instead of just throwing around your opinions? You aren't proving much for your side of the argument you know...what I'm seeing is opinion based, not Scripture based.

Because the concept of them flies directly against scripture? Your argument from silence is really not a reasonable argument.

Still, no references. Do you have some?

Quote:

Show me the Scripture. The Holy Catholic Church IS the true Church. Chfrist left it when he left the keys to the Kingdom to Peter. We believe the Holy Scriptures because they were written by the Apostles.

Quote:

By your standard, I would like for you to give me something from scripture that shows that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, then told him he was pope, and that future successors of his would be called "Pope". And that they are the only representative of Christianity on earth.

Or that, since scripture doesn't say a thing about all sorts of other stuff like the assumption of Mary....that it didn't happen.

I guess now, by your standard, my point is proven...since you have no scripture saying that.

I asked you first. Where are your proofs? I have Scripture to back me up. Do you?
Seriously, if you have a degree in theology, you should be able to provide your proof from Scripture, fairly easily it would seem to me. Then, when you have done so, I will provide you with Scripture readings also. But since I asked first, it's common courtesy to provide from your point of view first. And that's a good attempt at changing the subject, but to no avail. I have asked for references. Once you have been asked, it is your responsibility to provide them.

Read the entire book of Romans in 1 sitting. Or at least the first 11 chapters. It lays it out. Then move over to Hebrews. I'm sorry....but we are justified by fully by Christ. He paid it in full. We don't need to rely on a coin to ring in the coffer.

I have asked nicely for Scriptural references, not for advice on how to read the Scriptures. I will ask again. Scripture please that backs up your point. And please do not change the subject again. We aren't talking about justification, we are talking about the Church. Please stay on topic.

Dionysius · **Posted:** Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:57 pm

Thessalonian wrote:

Thanks for the helpful replies. Trusting in God seems to not be enough for this guy and others like him. He seems to have to have an infallible knowledge himself while denying infallibility. :roll:

I think it is allowable to have a moral assurance that with would go to heaven as long as we understand that we could deceive ourselves. I love the St. Joan prayer:

If I am in a state of Grace, may God keep me there. If I am not, may God place me there. (St. Joan of Arc)

That's actually my favorite prayer. I try to say it everyday. So much faith and hope are in that prayer. It's also a prayer of complete death to oneself and abandonment to God's Mercy.

The demons were trying to make her despair, but she answered her tormentors as a child of her Heavenly Father.

Signum Crucis · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 8:35 am

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

Calvinist · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:16 am

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

Gracie2004 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:31 am

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

I can assure you I have read it, and can read it again at will. My point is that you made specific claims about the Holy Catholic Church, and I asked for Scriptural references to back that up. Now as someone who has said he has a Masters in Theology that shouldn't be very difficult for you. My request stands. Please give me the "specific" references that back up your claim, and explain why you think they do so. If you had read the rules for this forum, you would have seen that once you are asked for references, it is your responsibility to provide such references. Please do so, without any more excuses. And thank you for your time.

pax · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:34 am

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

Cal -- Perhaps a brief summary of how you understand those passages of Scripture is what is needed here. We should never presume that our understanding of Scripture is self-evident to another person the same way it is self evident to ourselves.

Calvinist · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:41 am

pax wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

Cal -- Perhaps a brief summary of how you understand those passages of Scripture is what is needed here. We should never presume that our understanding of Scripture is self-evident to another person the same way it is self evident to ourselves.

Let's take care of it on the indulgences thread. We're duplicating things here.

Calvinist · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 10:42 am

Gracie2004 wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

I can assure you I have read it, and can read it again at will. My point is that you made specific claims about the Holy Catholic Church, and I asked for Scriptural references to back that up. Now as someone who has said he has a Masters in Theology that shouldn't be very difficult for you. My request stands. Please give me the "specific" references that back up your claim, and explain why you think they do so. If you had read the rules for this forum, you would have seen that once you are asked for references, it is your responsibility to provide such references. Please do so, without any more excuses. And thank you for your time.

I've given you references. If you don't like it, I don't much care.

pax · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 11:04 am

Calvinist wrote:

pax wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

Cal -- Perhaps a brief summary of how you understand those passages of Scripture is what is needed here. We should never presume that our understanding of Scripture is self-evident to another person the same way it is self evident to ourselves.

Let's take care of it on the indulgences thread. We're duplicating things here.

If Siggy is in agreement, then by all means move the relevant posts over to there.

Gracie2004 · **Posted:** Thu Feb 23, 2012 3:10 pm

Calvinist wrote:

Gracie2004 wrote:

Calvinist wrote:

Signum Crucis wrote:

Calvinist, you are not complying with Gracie's request.

How so? I've referenced Romans, chapters 1-11. No prooftexting here, Maam. If Gracie can't be bothered to read it, she doesn't need to call in an enforcer.

I can assure you I have read it, and can read it again at will. My point is that you made specific claims about the Holy Catholic Church, and I asked for Scriptural references to back that up. Now as someone who has said he has a Masters in Theology that shouldn't be very difficult for you. My request stands. Please give me the "specific" references that back up your claim, and explain why you think they do so. If you had read the rules for this forum, you would have seen that once you are asked for references, it is your responsibility to provide such references. Please do so, without any more excuses. And thank you for your time.

I've given you references. If you don't like it, I don't much care.

Wow, this is what you come down to? Seriously? Kind of childish isn't it? One more time, I would like some specific references to prove your point that you assert is true because YOU (as a man) believe it to be. If you don't like the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Devoted2Mary · **Posted:** Fri Mar 16, 2012 2:14 am

what happened did the thread get moved

How would you respond -If you died 2nite where would you go?

Who is online