Results 701 - 720 of 744
|
||||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Norrie Ordered by Date |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
701 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10443 | ||
OK, I believe that every individual has the free will to accept or reject the gospel, that God wants all to accept even tho this won't happen and is sad when someone rejects because Jesus died for all and God loves every one of us, even the sinner. I believe He tries to bring all to Him but basically, after a awhile, if someone rejects enough, then they are left to go their own way as selected by themselves. I also believe that a person can be stupid enough to throw away their salvation-why they would want to, who knows, but I have run across people who professed to do this, became pagan or whatever. Others said they weren't saved to begin with, they said yes they were, baptized in the Holy Spirit, the whole thing. So, if this was the case, they definately threw their salvation away. I guess it would be up to God whether or not they repented before they die but they would have to do that, for sure. I would imagine just like you can disown your earthly parents, you can do that with God too, as stupid as that may be. I guess I'm not a Calvinist or an Arminian, I'm just a Christian with no label. :) |
||||||
702 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Norrie | 10363 | ||
Great analogy! | ||||||
703 | 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! |
||||||
704 | 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. |
||||||
705 | 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. |
||||||
706 | 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. |
||||||
707 | 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. |
||||||
708 | 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?) |
||||||
709 | 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. |
||||||
710 | 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." |
||||||
711 | 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. |
||||||
712 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10283 | ||
Gee, I'm glad I'm just a simple Christian, makes life simpler. :) I guess this is like the fighting between Baptists and Methodists, Espistopalians and Presbyterians, etc.-more of an I'm right and you're wrong thing? Thanks! | ||||||
713 | What are Calvins and Arminians? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10273 | ||
What are Calvins and Arminians? | ||||||
714 | I DO NOT KNOW | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10272 | ||
I agree. There is also the Jewish wedding rituals from that day that has to be understood. When a man was to marry a woman, he went to his fathers house to prepare a room (bridal chamber) for her. Only when his father said the room was done, was he allowed to take the bride, then they would go whatever time of day or night to get the bride, that is why the bride was told to always be ready, that she didn't know when the groom was coming to get her. It was all up to the groom's father, which is Jesus' case, is God the Father, when the Father says go, get Your bride, He will come and not before then. Zola Levitt Ministries has some good info on this. | ||||||
715 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10270 | ||
That wouldn't seem like much of a miracle on Jesus' part then, would it? If that was the case, what did they need Him for? | ||||||
716 | did the wine from the water make you dr | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10269 | ||
The wine in them days did make you drunk. Look at the parties the pagans threw! Look at the verses in Proverbs telling you to beware of getting drunk. Having a drink is not the same as getting drunk tho, moderation is the key. | ||||||
717 | where do blacks come from? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10223 | ||
I think you're right. :) People do paint as they are and most artists were white. However, they seem to forget that Jesus was Jewish. | ||||||
718 | Is Hades Hell? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10216 | ||
I've had someone explain it like hell is where you go until you go to the Lake of Fire, like you go to jail before you go to prison. | ||||||
719 | Do humans become angels? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10215 | ||
No! This is a myth, propagated by cartoons and old wives tales. We are a spirit being, we have a soul (will, mind and emotions) and live in a body. One day our body will die but our spirit never dies, it is our spirit that will go on to either heaven or hell. One day we will get glorified bodies but never will we become angels. | ||||||
720 | Should a Christian be a Mason? | Bible general Archive 1 | Norrie | 10213 | ||
Since I was shown that Copeland and other televangelists were wrong, I have noticed the sensationalism in many of them and therefore quit listening to any of them. Every week I get my email from CRI too, I like their articles. I was just pointing out how Hovind had refutes that he couldn't even talk to them about tho so they aren't right all the time either, a lot tho. :) I guess why I liked Copeland so much was he always used to say don't take my word for it, go to the Word and read it yourself. But I have to admit that in the last decade, the televangelists seems to get awfully greedy, using God as a "gimme" factory, that turned me off on them. Maybe when Copeland started getting involved w/them people is when he slipped, who knows. I do know that God is not a magic formula to get what you want like some of them try to act like. Some of them are so ridiculous, you wonder how anybody listens to them. :) |
||||||
Result pages: << First < Prev [ 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 ] Next > Last [38] >> |