s c wrote: Jeremy,I am surprised that,after all of the information available,Christians will still follow after the RC even to the extent that they use their blasphemous expression "christmas". Those who preach against RC doctrine and the mass have no qualms in using the word "mass" for "their devotion" to Christ. No wonder that many RCs don't get it. None seem exempt from following after the flesh even in the name of our Lord. We all,including myself,need to be careful when following after our "hearts" and emotions. Tradition is no excuse.
how many people you run into and start talking to them about how you understand Christmas, tell you, Oh I knew that? How many people make the association of the holiday with RC? How many RC do you talk to about Christmas so that you can tell that "many RC's don't get it"?
Reading through the general gist of most of the comments makes me wonder. Do those who post here go to churches where the majority of the congregation has no desire to live for and please God? Do you think that there are not groups of believers who want to live godly lives and serve the Lord? Does not the Bible teach that those who are genuinely born from above have the seal that they depart from iniquity? Maybe it is just those who post don't go to church for various reasons. Just curious.
pennnned wrote: y'll don't think they'd actually fund and support these guys and then fight against them at the same time? y'll don't think with the limitless coffers of bailouts and hidden budgets they don't have the ability to frame any argument? but be afraid of little boats coming in?? give me a break.... haven't they shown you enough? they'll get you waving those flags soon enough. if you all were sober minded you'd be calling your congressman to ask why they fund all this, instead they've got you so steaming hot angry, you'll send your kids and grandkids in to this meaningless quagmire for sure, thinking you've corrected the problem. Y'll should head over to the americanthinker article titled "Obama and the muslim gang sign" from yesterday. shows the finger salute to their religion coming from the grand leader and you can see the reactions from the African leaders, the moslems full of glee, leaders from areas where their people are being slaughtered -disgust.
have you called your congressman and Senators? or that advise only good for others to follow.
According to there is hope, we live in a country that is armed to hilt with guns owned by vigilantes. The Scriptures remind us to provide for our own (including their safety), seems like he has the biggest argument here to go out and buy a gun. But let us put the shoe on the other foot. He has sanctimoniously requested Bible verse support for owning a firearm. What Bible verse do you have saying that you are violating a command of God by owning one?
John UK wrote: You must be a remarkable man JC if you have no need of anyone else, and no-one needs you.
Ephesians 4:11-12 KJV 11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: #2 For example, did no-one teach you anything in your Christian walk? How did you know about the canon of scripture? Did you translate, print and bind your own Bible? Did you cure the cow hide yourself? How did you choose, and where did you get your mss from? Who taught you greek and hebrew? Or are you unteachable?
You are showing signs of desperation. I did not say what you are trying to impute to me. If you have to resort to misrepresentation, then it reflects badly on your case!
The canonicity of the books of the bible was an issue that has been settled by the church based on fact, not on any subjective judgement and even then some of the books viz. Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation were accepted with certain reservations.
John UK wrote: I am thinking of these verses bro, where the Spirit gifts men individually as he will, for the edification of the body. You cannot have sufficient on your own, we need one another. Yes? 1 Corinthians 12:7-12 KJV
John you are really stretching this verse. The gifts enumerated refer for the most part to extraordinary gifts which are no more, and in any case there is no mention of the sort of gift that you would need to make your point viz. discerning the true text from the false.
John UK wrote: #2 Briefly, although we ought to go into this in more depth: If you place no trust in man at all, do you believe there is such a thing as "the canon of scripture"? If yes, how did you arrive at that without "man"?
Not the same issue at all John. We have clear verses in the Bible which speak of men who were moved along by the Spirit of God and that these men wrote down the very word of God. Are you saying that the KJV committee members were inspired? If not, then you have failed to make your point.
John UK wrote: Excellent questions, JC. My answers are: #1 God has given within his body, those whose work it is to discern such and make known the results of their findings. I find that the Spirit testifies with my spirit whenever I read the true word.
Bible verses to back up your contention please.
John UK wrote: #2 Yes #3 No, and I don't need to know, for they were experts in that field.
John UK, we are still then in the hands of so called experts, whether we think of the KJV committees or modern day committees! I place no trust in men, no matter how expert they may be.
John UK wrote: #4 I know they didn't get it wrong by the fruit; truth always has its fruit, and the KJV has ample.
I understand what you are trying to say, but then this could equally be said of Tyndales Bible, the Bishop's Bible, the Geneva Bible, Luther's German Bible, Bibles in other languages etc. Are you saying that if there are differences between any of these bibles then the differences don't matter? Or that since they were owned by God to mightily bless that we should just ignore the differences?
Some questions for you, Sir. Let us set aside, for arguments sake, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts.
Then let is take all the other evidence that we have in terms of manuscripts, quotations from the early church fathers, lexicons etc. How do you suggest that we distinguish which variant reading is the true one where there are differences in the sources?
Also, are you aware that we have no idea of the exact textual sources used by the committee that was responsible for the KJV, and that there is no single manuscript in existence that actually underlies the KJV?
Even the KJV compilers had to choose between variant readings. Do you know what, if any, considerations led them to adopt one reading over another? And if not, how do you know they did not get it wrong?