Results 441 - 460 of 566
|
||||||
Results from: Notes Author: Norrie Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
441 | Prophet For This Age | Rom 3:4 | Norrie | 82527 | ||
Thanks, I know someone who needs that site, I'll pass it on. | ||||||
442 | Crime/punishment in Lev? | Rom 3:10 | Norrie | 37237 | ||
I'm trying to find a study on crime and punishment, I'm already saved. :) I'm on another forum w/homosexuals who think it is perfectly acceptable to be one, God condones it. Then they always throw the do you think we should be stoned thing at you. I was just wondering what all God commanded stoning for. So far I have got baby sacrifice and those who condone it and let that person get away w/it, cursing your parents, adultery, beastiality, homosexuality, mediums. I get kinda confused on where the line is drawn on incest tho, even a man w/dil is deathworthy but not brother and sister, aunts, sils. Those just said cut off from, I'm thinking like ostracised. I was just wondering if any indepth studies have been done. I just got to thinking about what is the worse things we do. Seems a rebellious child got stoneing too. What were all the stoneing offenses? | ||||||
443 | Opinions of J. Falwell on WTC attack. | Rom 3:23 | Norrie | 16691 | ||
DATE: September 17, 2001 FROM: Jerry Falwell WHY I SAID WHAT I SAID by Jerry Falwell Despite the impression some may have from news reports over the past several days, I hold no one other than the terrorists, and the people and nations who have enabled and harbored them, responsible for the September 11 attacks on this nation. I sincerely regret that comments I made during a theological discussion on a Christian television program were taken out of their context and reported, and that my thoughts - reduced to sound bites - have detracted from the spirit of this time of mourning. Like most Americans, I watched the September 11 tragedy unfold on television. I immediately called our Liberty University family of thousands together for prayer at 2 p.m. on the day of the attacks. On Wednesday, one day later, I led the Thomas Road Church in another call to prayer for America. On Friday, September 14th, President Bush invited me to join him, his family and administration and 3,000 others to the National Cathedral for a special Day of Prayer and Remembrance, where we asked God for His comfort, protection and wisdom. Since then, by television and radio, I have attempted to call together millions of people throughout this nation and around the world in remembering all those who died, and praying for our nation, the victims of this barbarism, and their loved ones. On Sunday, September 16, the Thomas Road Baptist Church, where I have served as pastor for 45 years, gathered thousands of dollars for the families of New York firefighters. Our members also gathered a huge collection of tools, clothing and other materials for the New York rescue and recovery efforts. My statements on the "700 Club" on Thursday, September 14th, were called divisive by some whom I mentioned by name. I had no intention of being divisive. I was sharing my burden for revival in America on a Christian TV program, intending to speak to a Christian audience from a theological perspective about the need for national repentance. In retrospect, I should have mentioned the national sins without mentioning the organizations and persons by name. I stated the deep concerns of millions of American evangelicals over America's sharp spiritual decline during the past generation. Over 40 million unborn babies have been aborted since Roe v. Wade. We have expelled God from the public square and the public schools. We have normalized an immoral lifestyle God has condemned. American families are falling apart. Because of our national moral and spiritual decline during the past 35 years, I expressed my personal belief that we have displeased the Lord and incurred his displeasure. I was asking a Christian audience on a Christian TV program to claim II Chronicles 7:14 and repent. I was calling upon the church to heed Proverbs 14:34, which says in paraphrase, "Living by God's principles promotes a nation to greatness; violating those principles brings a nation to shame." I was blaming no one but the terrorists for the terror, but I was chastising us, the Church, for a generation of departure from God. I was doing what I have done for nearly 50 years in the pulpit - confronting the culture and calling for national revival. ILL-TIMED COMMENTS My mistake on the "700 Club" was doing this at the time I did it, on television, where a secular media and audience were also listening. And as I enumerated the sins of an unbelieving culture, because of very limited time on the "700 Club," I failed to point the finger at a sleeping, prayerless and carnal church. We believers must also acknowledge our sins, repent, and fast and pray for national revival. We are all involved in a very sensitive period of national mourning. We are closing ranks and coming together in a time of great loss, as we are also facing the likelihood of imminent war. And if, in that crucial context, my statements seemed harsh and ill- timed, I truly regret this and apologize. But, I repeat, I blame no one but the hijackers and terrorists for the horrific happenings of September 11. But I do believe God's protection of us as individuals and as a nation is dependent upon our obedience to His laws. |
||||||
444 | Opinions of J. Falwell on WTC attack. | Rom 3:23 | Norrie | 16697 | ||
I would think that if the militant islamic groups' personal vendeta is against "christian america" not "secular america", they are sadly misinformed. Most of our churches are so watered down, they don't even know the gospel, much less preach it. They are trying so hard to be politically correct, they lost the meaning of the gospel. Maybe it was the Christians fault when they didn't protest over Roe vs Wade, or when they didn't protest when prayer was taken out of schools. Then they didn't protest when the gays pushed their agenda, now they all have a stronghold and won't let loose. Has anybody been on a secular, liberal forum and listened to what's being spouted there? It will turn your stomach! I was at this one for awhile after the terrorists to find out news, this is a very liberal, Godhating, alternate lifestyle promoting forum, but they were being good after the attack, seems to be coming together. Then somebody brought up the Pat and Jerry thing. Then it was back to business as usual. These people hate Christians, when Jesus talks of being persecuted, these are the persecutors. If anybody wants to see how down and dirty it really is, I'll be glad to give you the link, but be prepared to barf. These people are proud of what they are and they hate anybody that tells them different. To them, the namby pamby, feelgood churches are OK, but don't say they are any kind of sinner, why that makes you are hater, just as bad as a terrorist!!! Most Christians just hang w/other Christians, they have no idea how bad it really is out there, go take a look, it will surprise and sicken you! Oh, there was another forum I haven't checked in awhile too because it was so sickening, I just couldn't stomach it. It was called Christianity General. I doubt there were any Christians there at all, maybe one or two hanging in there, but you can't reach these people, they hate Christianity so bad, they just eventually run you off because you get so sick of listening to their drivel. They don't want to hear anything about the Word, they just want to put it down. Maybe that's where we should all go and bombard them. But then, Jesus said shake the dust off... |
||||||
445 | Opinions of J. Falwell on WTC attack. | Rom 3:23 | Norrie | 16990 | ||
I know where there are several forums these "fools" control, want some links? :) | ||||||
446 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10319 | ||
I have several articles for you to read, they are quite long so will have to be in parts, sorry! PETER AND ROME The common tradition that Peter founded the church in Rome is unverifiable. Paul could hardly have named so many Roman Christians in the last chapter of Romans if there had not been churches there long before any possible bisit of Peter. Danielour observes however: "Was Paul's the only mission to the West? The Acts tells us that in 43, after the death of James, Peter left Jerusalem 'for another place' (Acts 12:17). He is lost from sight until 49, when we find him at the Council of Jerusalem. No canonical text has anything to say about his missionary activity during this time. But Eusebius writes taht he came to Rome about 44, at the beginning of Claudius's reign (HE II, 14, 61). It seems certain taht Rome was evangelized during the period from 43 to 49. Suetonius says that Claudius expelled the Jews in 50, because they were growing agitated 'at the prompting of Chrestos.' This shows that discussions between Jews and Jedaeo-Christians were taking place, leading to conflicts which came to the ear of the emperor. In fact at Corinth in 51 Paul met some converted Jews driven from Rome by Claudius: Aquilla and Priscilla. In 57 Paul addressed the community of Rome, already considered important. In 60 he found communities established in Puteoli andin Rome." (The Christian Centuries, Jean Danielou, p. 28) However, as we have pointed out, St. Peter was probably in Babylon from A.D. 44 to 49 rather than in Rome. We cannot imagine the silence of the Acts if Peter had been in Rome during that time. In any case this period (A.D. 44-49) seems to be the only time which Peter could have been in Babylon (See Peter's letter from Babylon - 1Peter 5:13), which was located on the great Roman highway as the next great city to the east of Antioch. (Peter was bishop of Antioch for 7 years before leaving for Rome, but preaching for a while at Corinth and Jerusalem on his way.) There is no serious attempt by any reputable scholar to find the presence of Peter in Rome before Paul wrote the Book of Romans to the band of Christians that had already grown to some size in that capital city of the first century world. On the other hand Peter had to die and be buried somewhere and Christian tradition haas been in agreement from the earliest of times that it was actually in Rome that Peter died. No less a Protestant theologian and historian than Adolph Harnack wrote that, "to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice." The Protestant theologian H. Lietzmann, has come to the conclusion that the testimony fromt he year 170 A.D. concerning the graves of the two Apostles at Rome must be correct. That is, that the two Apostles (Peter and Paul) were actually buried in two places in Rome. Perhaps the lastest authoritative word which has been written is by Oscar Cullmann. In his book "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr", he presents an argument based upon First Clement 5:24, in which he inferred from this text that the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul took place in Rome. |
||||||
447 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10320 | ||
Part 2 RECENT EXCAVATIONS OF ST. PETER'S BASILICA IN ROME Since the end of the second world war great interest has been focused upon the excavations under the church of St. Peter in Rome. ... Scholars await full publication of all the results of the excavations before agreeing. Nevertheless, the general tendency of the scholarhsip today seems to be moving in the direction of accepting the Roman stay of Peter. ... Near the close of the gospel of John there is a hint given as to the manner of Peter's death. It agrees with the tradition which has been long with us that Nero had Peter crucified head-downward on the Vatican Hill. It says, "As long as you were young, you girded yourself and went wherever you chose, but when you have become old, you will stretch out your hands and another will gird you and carry you where you do not want to go." (Look this and the following verse up in your Bible. John 21:17-19) It is universally recognized that these words are intended as a prediction of the martyrdom of Peter for the following verses tell us that these words speak of the kind of death that Peter was going to die to glorify God. The phrase "stretching out of the hands" (John 21:18) may indicate the manner of execution, which is crucifixion. Finally, it would be well to note that in the entire scope of the very earliest Christian literature there is complete silence concerning the death of Peter. We certainly do not even have the slightest reference that points to any other place besides Rome which could be considered as the scene of his death. And in favor of Rome, there are two important traditions that he did actually die in Rome. In the second and third centuries when certain churches were in rivalry with those in Rome it never occurred to a single one of them to contest the claim of Rome that it was the scene of the martyrdom of Peter. Other writings (not official) concerning Peter's visit to Rome: "A certain Parun puts his house (aedes) at the disposal of Peter, as well as it's inner garden, which could hold 500 persons." "Maliciously condemned, Peter was cast into the horrible, fetid prison of the Mamertime. There, for 9 months, in absolute darkness, he endured monstrous torture manacled to a post." (This prison is also known as the 3,000 year old Tullian Keep.) "History also tells us the amazing fact that in spite of all the suffering Peter was subjected to, he converted his gaolers, Processus, Marinianus, and 47 others. Peter met his death at Rome by the hands of the murderous Romans, who crucified him, according to their fiendish manner. He refused to die in the same position as our Lord, declaring he was unworthy. Peter demanded to be crucified in the reverse position, with his head hanging downward. Ironically enough, this wish was gratified by the taunting Romans in Nero's circus A.D. 67." |
||||||
448 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10321 | ||
HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THE CHURCH FATHERS "Thus Nero publicly announcing himself as the chief enemy of God, was led on in his fury to slaughter the Apostles. Paul is therefore said to have been beheaded in Rome, and Peter to have been crucified under him. And this account is confirmed byt he fact that the names of Peter and Paul still remain in the cemeteries of that city even to this day. But likewise, a certain ecclesiastical writer, Caius by name, who was born about the time of Zephyrinus bishop of Rome, disputing with Proclus the leader of the Phrygian sect, gives the following statement respecting the places where the earthly tabernacles of the aforesaid Apostles are laid. 'But I can show,' says he, 'the trophies of those who have laid the foundation of this church. And that both suffered martyrdom about the same time, Dionysius bisho of Corinth bears the following testimony, in his discourse addressed to the Romans. "Thus, likewise you, by means of this admonition, have mingled the flourishing seed that thad been planted by Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of these having planted us at Corinth, likewise instructed us; and having in like manner taught in Italy, they suffered martyrdom about the same time."' Historical records show that Peter chose Mark as his secretary or amanuensis. Papias of Hierapolis recorded the fact that "Mark, the interpreter of Peter, wrote down carefully what he remembered, both the sayings and the deeds of Christ, but not in chronological order, for he did not hear the Lord and he did not accompany him. At a later time, however, he did accompany Peter, who adapted his instruction to the needs (of his hearers), but not with the object of making a connected series of discourses of our Lord. So Mark made no mistakes in writing the individual discourses in the order in which he recalled them." (Keep this in mind later.) "Peter was led to the top of the Vatican Mount near the TYBER and crucified with his head downwards. His body was embalmed by Marcellinus the Presbyter after the Jewish manner, then buried in the Vatican near the Triumphal Way. Over his body a small church was erected. It was destroyed by Heliogalachis." (Dorman Newman) "His (Peter's) body was removed to the cemetery in the Appian Way, 2 miles from Rome where it rested obscurely until the Reign of Constantine (who) rebuilt and enlarged the Vatican to the honor of St. Peter. "The appearance of Peter was a follows; His body was slender of a middle size inclining to tallness. His complexion pail (sic) and almost white. His beard curled and thick but short. His eyes black but flecked with red due to frequent weeping. Eye brows thin or none." The Roman history, Augustus to Constantine, contains an interesting insight regarding controversies about the propriety of the early Christians' veneration of Apostolic burial places. "The Montanist Proclus argued that the tombs of the four daughters of Philip, all prophetesses in New Testament times, were still to be seen at Hierapolis in Asia. Gaius replied that he could point out the "trophies" of the Apostles (Peter and Paul) who founded the Roman church; they were on the Vatican Hill and by the Ostian Way. This interest in tombs was fairly widespread among Asian Christians and was certainly present at Rome as early as the middle of the second century. It did not spring into existence at that time, for in the New Testament itself we read of the burial of John the Baptist andof the martyr of Stephen. Ignatius of Antioch expected wild beasts to be his tomb, but this was a special case. Polycarp of Smyrna was carefully buried, even though a reference to an annual commemoration in the late second century may be an interpolation in the story of his martyrdom. |
||||||
449 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10322 | ||
Part 4 MODERN ARCHAEOLOGICAL DISCOVERIES OF PETER'S RELICS/BONES The most recent story concerning the burial of Peter was given in the National Geographic (1971). This account, which we quote by permission, provides the CATHOLIC archeological and ecclesiastical conclusions regarding the burial place of Peter. This report is interesting not only because of its conclusions, but becasue it provides an authoritive description of the steps by which those conclusions were reached. "Tradition holds that he was crucified upside down in Nero's circus near Vatican Hill. His body was given to friends, and he was buried close by. ".... When Julius II pulled much of it down and began the church that is there today, the tomb of Peter was lost to view. Historians thought Peter's bones were gone, his tomb sacked long before by Saracens. ".... in 1939, while excavations were being made for Pius XI's tomb, Pius XII gave orders that the digging was to be extended in a search for the tomb of Peter. This 'village' was one of the great discoveries. The houses and simpler tombs under them dated fromt he first to the third centuries A.D. They proved beyond doubt that Constantine had built St. Peter's over a cemetery. "But an even more exciting discovery was involved. A Roman presbyter named Gaius, who lived in the second and third centuries, had seen a grave memorial to Peter, and had mentioned it in a letter, a fragment of which has come down to us. Right under the papal altar, early in the escavations, a small ruined monument was found. This could well be the memorial Gaius had seen. At it's foot was a slab like a gravestone let into the ground. The excavators raised it. They found a grave, but it was quite empty. Some bones were discovered nearby. For several years they were believed to be the bones of Peter, but anthropological study established that they were actually the bones of more than one person. INSCRIPTION LEADS TO A STARTLING FIND "That would have been that, except for one obstinate and learned woman, Margherita Guarducci. She is a professor at the University of Rome, and she deciphers ancient inscriptions. "She spent 6 years studying the scribblings made by Christian pilgrims on two old walls above the empty grave. One graffito on the older wall, when deciphered, delivered an electrifying message: 'Peter is within'. In th eother wall was a recess lined with marble. To her it was clearly an ossuary, a niche for someone's bones. Had any been found? "The professor got hold of a workman who seemed to remember that something had been found there years ago, but he thought it was a piece of wall with a graffito. Undaunted, she searched St. Peter's storage rooms. There in a box marked for graffito, she found bones. "The bones, she learned were indeed fromt he ossuary in the ancient wall. Ten years before, a monsignor, during his daily inspection of the excavations had put the bones in a plain wooden box and deposited it in storage. "Professor Guarducci had the bones examined by Professor Venerando Correnti, and anthropologist of the University of Rome, who as she puts it, "entirely bore out what could be expected for the bones found in the only niche built by Constantine in his monument to St. Peter. "It was plain to her what had happened. When Constantine had erected the first St. Peter, he had cautiously moved the bones of the saint from his grave to this hiding place, a few feet away, to protect them from deterioration and grave robbers. "The bones that were found are those of a man of 60 or 70 years old, and in abox witht hem were bits of earth and shreds of purple-and-gold cloth. The age tallies with Peter's traditional age at the time of his crucifixion. Tradition says that he was buried in plain earth. And when Constantine had the bones removed to the niche, it would have seemed only fitting to have had them wrapped in precious purple-and-gold cloth. "Scholars disputed these conclusions; some still do. The writer of the above was allowed to study and photograph the burial place of Peter, deep beneath the basilica of St. Peter's church. He says " Beyond any doubt this huge church was built upon a very extensive and well preserved 1st century Roman cemetery, and the photographs reveal the name of Peter clearly inscribed in ancient Latin in the place where the Apostle's bones were discovered." (Something to keep in mind. If we are to believe Mark's gospel, which was authenticated by church historians years ago... should we discard church historians when it comes to where Peter died and where he was buried? Were the church historians honest enough to give us "Mark" as a gospel, but still liars when it comes to what they knew of Peter's death and burial?) |
||||||
450 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10323 | ||
THE BONES OF PETER by Dr. W.A. Criswell Simon Peter is addressed by our Lord Jesus in the sixteenth chapter of Matthew in these words: "And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whosoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Because of this passage, there is a vast system of religion built upon Simon Peter. Three things in this ecclesiastical system are avowed about him. 1. That Peter ruled the church. 2. That Peter ruled the church in Rome. Jerome (d. 240 A.D.) declared that Peter, after being first bishop at Antioch, and after laboring in Pontus, Galatia, Asia, Cappadocia, and Bithynia, went to Rome in the second year of Claudius (about 42 A.D.) to oppose Simon Magus, and was bishop of that church for 25 years, finally being crucified head downward in the last year of Nero's reign (67 A.D.) and was buried on the Vatican hill. 3. That Peter's tomb and his bones are under the high altar of St. Peter's church in Rome. There is no intimation in the Scriptures that the words of our Savior addressed to Simon Peter made him ruler and head of the church. In the Greek there is a play upon his name --- "Thou art Petros (a stone) and upon thee petra (a stratum of stone) I will build my church." First Peter 2:5 says, "Ye also, as living stones, are built up a spiritual house." First Corinthians 3:11 says, "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid which is Jesus." The meaning is self-evident. The foundation, "the petra", upon which Christ will build His church is His deity, which Simon Peter has just confessed upon a revelation from the Father. The stones out of which Christ will erect His church are believing disciples, one of whom is Peter himself. The keys of the kingdom here given to Peter as a representative disciple, with the authority of binding and loosing, are given to all the disciples in Matthew 18:18 and in John 20:23. PETER IN THE EARLY CHURCH Was Peter ever the ruler of the church? Of any church any time, any place? Not that anybody knows of. The pastor and leader of the church at Jerusalem was James, the Lord's brother (Acts 12:17; 15:13-21; 21:18; Gal. 2:9) This Scriptural account of James is confirmed by Josephus in his Antiquities XX, 9,1, where James' martyrdom is described. Josephus never heard of Simon Peter, but the Jewish historian knows all about the faithful pastor and leader of the Christian church in Jerusalem. Notice in Acts 8:14 that Peter is "sent" by the apostles along with John to Samaria. Peter is not doing the sending; somebody else is. Notice in Acts 15:14-21 that at the Jerusalem conference, after Peter made his speech and Paul and Barnabas made their speeches, it is James who delivers the final verdict. WAS PETER EVER IN ROME? The second avowal of the Roman hierarchy concerning Peter is that he was bishop at Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., when he was crucified under Nero. If Peter was in Rome during those years, then the New Testament cannot be relied upon. There is not the faintest, slightest historical foundation for the fiction that Peter ever saw the city of Rome. 1. Paul was converted about 37 A.D. He says in the first chapter of Galatians (Gal. 1:13-18) that after his conversion he went into Arabia, "then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him 15 days." This takes us to 40 A.D., and Peter is still in Jerusalem. 2. Sometime during those days made his missionary journey through the western part of Judea, to Lydda, to Joppa, to Caesarea, and back to Jerusalem (Acts 9, 10, 11). Then came the imprisonment under Herod Agrippa I and the miraculous deliverance by the angel of the Lord (Acts 12). Peter then "went down from Judea to Caesarea and there abode" (Acts 12:19). Herod Agrippa died not long after these events (Acts 12:20-23). Josephus says that the death of Agrippa occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Claudius. This would be about 45 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine. |
||||||
451 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10324 | ||
Part 2 3. Paul writes in the second chapter of Galatians that fourteen years after his first visit to Jerusalem to visit Simon Peter he went again to see him. The first journey was 40 A.D.; fourteen years later brings us to 54 A.D., and Peter is still in Palestine. 4. Peter returns the visit and goes to Antioch where Paul is working. This occasioned the famous interview between the two recorded in Galatians 2:11-14. Peter is still in the Orient, not in Rome. 5. After 54 A.D., and after the Antioch visit, the Apostle Peter makes an extensive missionary journey or journeys throughout the Roman provinces of the East. On these missionary tours Peter takes his wife (1Cor. 9:5). They labor in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. So vast a work and so great a territory must have consumed several years. This would take us therefore, to at least 60 A.D., and Peter and his wife are still not in Rome but in the East. 6. In about 58 A.D. Paul wrote a letter to the church at Rome. In the last chapter of that epistle, Paul salutes twenty-seven persons, but he never mentions Simon Peter. If Peter were "governing" the church at Rome, it is most strange that Paul should never refer to him. Romans 1:13 shows that the church at Rome was a Gentile church. At the Jerusalem conference (Gal. 2:9), it was agreed that Peter should go to the Jews and Peter to the Gentiles. The gospel ministry of Paul was motivated by a great principle which he clearly repeats in Romans 15:20: "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man's foundation." A like avowal is made in 1Corinthians 10:15-16. Where no other apostle has been, there Paul wanted to go. Having written this plainly to the people at Rome, his desire to go to the Roman city would be inexplicable if Peter were already there, or had been there for years. 7. Paul's first Roman imprisonment took place about 60 A.D. to 64 A.D. From his prison the Apostle to the Gentiles wrote four letters --- Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon. In these letters he mentions many of his fellow Christians who are in the city, but he never once refers to Simon Peter. 8. Paul's second Roman imprisonment brought him martyrdom. This occurred about 67 A.D. Just before he died Paul wrote a letter to Timothy, our "2Timothy". In that final letter the apostle mentions many people but plainly says that "only Luke is with me." There is never a reference to Peter. We have gone throughout those years of 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., the years Peter is suppose to have been the prince and bishop and ruler of the church at Rome. There is not a suggestion anywhere that such a thing was true. Rather the New Testament clearly and plainly denies the fiction. |
||||||
452 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10325 | ||
Part 3 BABYLON AND ROME In 1Peter 5:13, Peter says, "The church that is at Babylon saluteth you." Some suppose "Babylon" is a cryptic word for Rome. There is no evidence that Rome was ever called "Babylon" until after the Book of the Revelation was written. The Revelation was written about 95 A.D., many years after the death of Simon Peter. If 1Peter 5:13 refers to Rome, then Simon Peter did not write the letter and we have a forgery in the Bible. Peter's method and manner of writing are in no sense apocalyptic. He is direct and matter-of-fact. That this man Peter, plain of speech almost to bluntness, should interject into the midst of his personal explanations and final salutations such a mystical epithet, with no hint of what he means by it, is beyond credulity. Peter says the elect in Babylon send greetings to the Jews of the Dispersion in Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. "Babylon" is no more cryptic than "Pontus", "Asia", or the rest. He means what he says. His "Babylon" is the Babylon on the Euphrates. It is a part of the eastern world where Peter lived his life and did his work. Babylon in the time of Simon Peter was no longer a great world capital, but it was still inhabited by a colony of people, mostly Jews. Among those Hebrew friends he won many to Christ, and those Jewish Christians sent greetings to their fellow - Jewish Christians in Asia Minor where Peter had previously done a blessed missionary work. Unbiased historians and the Scriptural records indicate that Peter died and was buried either in Mesopotamia or Asia Minor. The Pope of Rome will be able to find plenty of bones beneath the Vatican hills, where Christians by the thousands were murdered and buried by pagan and papal persecutors back when Rome ruled the world. But these bones prove nothing except that the Roman hierarchy is frantic in its efforts to find something that will give a semblance of justification to their false claims that Peter was connected with the papal system. Peter was never in Rome. Nor was he ruler over any church. Nor did he have any keys to give anybody else to hand down to others. He was a stone, one out of many with which God is building His spiritual house in earth and in heaven. |
||||||
453 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10354 | ||
I believe the key to the Kingdom is the revelation that Jesus is Lord. Peter realized that thru revelation knowledge, so do we. As far as papal infallibility, I was raised Catholic, went to Cath school, took religion religiously. :) Anyway, we were taught that the pope was infallible when he spoke from the chair of Peter, that maybe as a man, he might be thinking one thing but whenever he got up to speak in his papal capacity, that the Holy Spirit spoke thru him and that was why he was infallible. When they canonize saints, the pope speaks from the chair of Peter and therefore he's infallible. This about about the time Vatican II was taking place. Then they decided that St. Christopher was not a saint, that he never existed, was just a legend. After that, I got to wondering, some pope supposedly spoke from the chair but he was supposed to be infallible, not they are saying he was wrong, then the pope is not unfallible-they lied! Then I got to wondering what else they lied about. Then when I was in the 9th grade at a Cath Girls high school in religion class, we had a priest tell us that the Bible was just a book written to compete w/mythology, me and him got into it in class, continued it in the hall. I didn't actually ever read the Bible but I knew the Bible stories and he said they were just a fable. Thank God I started going to public school after that, but after a few years, I decided they were all hooey and left the church completely. Somebody said something about Chick being down on Catholics, after I finally got saved after years of complete rebellion, I read his stuff and believed every word he said about them because I was there, I had strict Cath. upbringing and I know what I was taught and Jesus Christ didn't have anything much to do with it. He was made to seem like some harsh guy who wouldn't listen to us mere mortals so you had to ask his mama to talk to him for you. Maybe there are some Cath churches that may actually teach salvation but I had no idea what it was but I knew church doctrine. I know there are some Catholics who are Christian but I believe the majority are not, mainly because they just haven't been told. They are still trying to get in by works and hoping not to die with a mortal sin, the big gamble. I know I tried talking to the old folks and parents in my family, tried to tell them the church is not the way, that Jesus is, but I really don't know if any of them really accepted that or not besides my Mama, the others are all gone and I have no idea whether I'll see any of them again. :( Daddy's first cousin is a priest and Mama had a great uncle in Czechoslavakia that was an archbishop so I'd say I had deep Catholic roots, we were in the church every time it opened, novenas, everything. On the days when we didn't have to go to school, I'd think oh boy, no mass today-Mama would wake us up and we'd go to early mass, this was an every day thing, rosaries at night-we were crammed! They all knew I was going to hell when I quit the church but I had enough, esp when I figured out the lies. |
||||||
454 | What separates Evangelicals, Catholics? | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10361 | ||
Oh yeah, I remember my grandmother constantly praying for me to come back to the church. Never mind that I got saved and was trying to talk her into accepting Jesus as her Savior. None of them would listen, just kept saying I should come back to the church. About 7 yrs ago, I joined a Baptist church here. Mama started going with me, she'd go to her RCC church, then come home in time to leave to go to mine. I think that's when she started seeing the difference. She saw that we preached on Jesus and the Bible, where her church just talked. She said the clincher was that she was in the seniors group and they were always either going to FL to buy lottery tickets or going to Biloxi to the casinos. She said she told father that they shouldn't always be going to gambling places and he said why not, we're gambling on getting to heaven too. She said she thought if you don't know where you're going, why should I stay here and she left, joined my church, got baptized. She was a die-hard Catholic too, the one that forced it all on us. Praise God I know she's saved anyway! My older brother and his family are too but not my sister or younger brother. I'm glad I found this forum, you seem to be a regular source of info here-good job! |
||||||
455 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10363 | ||
Great analogy! | ||||||
456 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 12432 | ||
I hate to tell you this, but my husband is not infallible and I doubt any husband here will say he is either. :) | ||||||
457 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 12544 | ||
That is called submission, not infallibility. I don't know what Cath. teach now. I had my main religion training before Vat. II, I went to Cath school and religion was a class every day. The nuns explained infallibility as whenever the pope gets up to make a decision from the Chair of Peter, that is when he is infallible. He may be planning on saying something completely different as a man, but when he gets on that chair, the Holy Spirit speaks thru him and whatever he says then is infallible. Of course when they canonize someone, that is when they are infallible. Then later they decided St. Christopher didn't even exist so how can they be infallible??? That's when I started questioning. |
||||||
458 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 12658 | ||
Well, somehow I lost a post, so I'll just put highlights. Check out definition of papal ingfallibility: Main Entry: papal infallibility Function: noun Date: 1831 : the Roman Catholic doctrine that the pope cannot err when speaking ex cathedra in defining a doctrine of Christian faith or morals Accd to this, there should be no errors in doctrine to correct, that is what I was taught too. Like I said, I don't know what they are teaching now but I know what I was taught before Vatican II and watched the changes made afterwards. Infallibility is not the same as trust, submission or humility, it is separate unto itself. |
||||||
459 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 12790 | ||
Brain, how many times are you going to post that? Enough already!!! I think all anybody is trying to say is get out of a church that corrupted and follow the Word, not these men. These men are/were/always will be corrupted and even when you're old enough to know better, if your parents are telling you something that goes against God, you can still say NO!!! Any churh that calls for blind alliegence is a cult-get out!!! |
||||||
460 | Gap and Pre-Adamic Man theories | Rom 5:12 | Norrie | 19884 | ||
Here's a few more sites to add to yours: http://www.drdino.com http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/ This site has an excellent article on the gap theory. Too bad this site does have "live" sites where you can just click the url. :) Are they studying these subjects showing them to be true or false? |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 ] Next > Last [29] >> |