markomalley

Thanks, David!!!

White Dove, I was trying to figure out where you got that quote from -- I had to do a blasted search on it!!!! LOL There are so many divergent views around here...if we can state our views intelligently and then discuss politely, we'd all get along better I think. You make good points (once I figured out the context of the quote )

It's supposed to be one of the gnostic gospels, from what I understand.

LOL. I'm sure you have...I'm sure you have. After all, just ask Danny, Evan, LG, Garth, Templelady, or any number of other folks. Catholics like me just don't know jack sh1t about the Scriptures. You shouldn't. You should be afraid, very afraid. Nope, no prophet here. Just a happy member of what VP called the "Whore of Babylon" No, of course not. Only God will be able to do so. As an example, I'd cite Acts 9:3ff Thank you for the prayers. I can use all the prayer I can get. The last time I used the scriptures? On GSC, I have recently cited scripture. On this thread: a chronology of the Pauline letters was given to you on 2/21 On the "Does saying Jesus is not God..." thread, I quoted 2 Pe 3:15-17 on 2/21. See here. In fact, I wasn't too active yesterday, so no opportunity to do so. In fact, if you were to ask any number of folks on gsc, you'd find that I cite scripture quite often under a number of different circumstances. How many more threads would you like to see? (You can use the 'search' function if you'd like to see for yourself) Now, as to when the last time was that I prayed the scriptures, that was a little while ago. See I try to pray the Liturgy of the Hours every day. Today was a nice set of readings, as it was the memorial of Saint Polycarp, Bishop and Martyr (lived AD 69-155) During that, I prayed Psalm 95, as every morning. Also Psalms 87, 89, 90, 99, and 132. Readings included: Ecclesiastes 6:11-7:28, Isaiah 40, and Revelation 11. The Mass readings were Jas 5:1-6, Psalm 49:14-20, and Mark 9:41-50. You might want to check them out for yourself. A daily habit of praying and meditating on the Scriptures is a beneficial habit to get into.

Look, Evan, you're dealing with a 19 y/o kid who probably has never had his personal theology challenged using Scriptures as the reference. He's in my prayers that God will open his eyes...

A Kiss for Judas It could be a passion story as co-written by Mick (Sympathy for the Devil) Jagger and The Matrix's mess-with-your-metaphysics Wachowski brothers: Judas Iscariot, vilified in the Gospels as Jesus' great betrayer, was not merely an Apostle--he was perhaps Christ's closest confidant. Technically speaking, he did drop a dime on Jesus. But there were extenuating circumstances, some having to do with the belief that the God of the Old Testament was not the ultimate God, that this world is not what it seems and ... well, for a full explanation, you'll just have to see the movie. Er, rather, see the 31-page papyrus tractate. Provocatively titled The Gospel of Judas, the alleged Coptic Egyptian translation of a 2nd century manuscript promises to be a kind of Da Vinci Code--style everything-you-know-is-wrong thrill ride. According to its holders, the text will be unveiled this spring for the first time in at least 1,500 years. If your Coptic is rusty, there will be an official translation, and a National Geographic TV special in late April, they say. (Geographic declines comment.) You'll have eminent co-viewers: scholarly interest reaches up to the Vatican. (Remainder snipped) Some news of interest to our gnostic friends. It will be interesting to read the translation of this document when it comes out. I guess documents like this provides a tremendous amount of pleasure to those who still have some sort of spirituality but who have rejected orthodox Christianity as the method to fulfill their spiritual needs...as they tend to "prove" orthodox Christianity as being wrong. Personally I see these types of documents as evidence of the beliefs held by certain sects during those days.

Mike, Something I posted a while back on another thread: Gravity is a force. If there is an opposing force that is greater than the force of gravity, something moves away from the heavier object. If there is an opposing force that is the same as the force of gravity, something will stay the same distance away from the heavier object. If there is no opposing force or if the opposing force is less than the force of gravity, the lighter object will move toward the heavier object (and, the heavier object will move, very, very slightly closer to the lighter one). No contradictions No difficulties It involves developing an understanding of the basic Newtonian physics. Now here's an important point, Mike: Newton didn't invent gravity. He described it. Newton's formula is not gravity, it explains how gravity works. One can try to explain away Newtonian mechanics (including gravity), one can claim to have a new way of understanding Newtonian mechanics that hasn't been around since the 17th Century, but, you know, it's still Newtonian Physics. The physicist who attempts to do teach his students that he invented Newtonian mechanics may fool the students (if they only look at his works), but, regardless what the physicist says, it's still Newtonian mechanics. The physicist can say that the above formula IS gravity, but gravity was around before the formula and is not dependent upon the formula. The formula helps man UNDERSTAND gravity, but is not gravity...regardless of what this rogue physicist says. Something to consider.

I have seen this multiple times with ministries that were identified with a single person (unless, of course, that single person is Christ)...and that applies to Protestant, Catholic, cult, or whatever. It is a very great temptation if that ministry is associated with a single mortal person, that the ministry will develop into a cult of personality. And when that cult of personality happens, arrogance is not too far behind. Not all...but I've seen it too many times to discount it.

Or it could mean that Luther was wrong.

It should come as no shock, as Jesus is The Word

I think the relationship, if you really want to break it down, was that VP was the prophet of the most high god and his apostle. While he wasn't god, he spoke for god. The words coming out of his mouth were the same as the words coming out of the mouth of god. Therefore, while one didn't "worship" the mog, adhering to the mog's words were regarded as adhering to the words of god...and, conversely, disobedience to or disregarding the words of the mog, would be akin to disregarding the word of god. So maybe worship is not the correct word here...maybe venerate would be a better word.

By the way, just so you know I don't buy into EW Bullinger's Ultra-Dispensational view of Biblical interpretation either. So the point is rather moot to me anyway...

1 and 2 Thessalonians were written around 48-49 AD Galatians was written somewhere around 53-54 AD Romans was written somewhere around 56-57 (from Corinth) 1 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Ephesus) 2 Corinthians was written somewhere around 57 AD (from Macedonia) Ephesians, Philipeans, Colossians, and Philemon were written during Paul's captivity, around 61-63 AD 1 Timothy, Titus, and 2 Timothy were written from Macedonia 63-66 AD The Gospel According to St. Mark (St. Peter's historian) was written somewhere between 50-67 AD The Gospel According to St. Matthew was written somewhere between 64-67 AD (but likely after Mark) The Gospel According to St. Luke (St. Paul's travelling companion and historian) was written somewhere between 80-90 AD The Gospel According to St. John was written somewhere between 90-100 AD The Acts of the Apostles were written by St. Luke somewhere between 80-90 AD So, according to the thought process you just demonstrated, apparently 1, 2 Thessalonians and Galatians should not be considered "to us" (and can thus be disregarded at will), while all four Gospels and the Acts should be considered "to us" (and thus can only be disregarded with much more tapdancing). Interesting!

No problems. You're only able to preach what you've learned.

Thomas, Thanks , but I think his agenda is fairly obvious to everybody here...

A very good point, Oak, as always. Apparently St. Peter shared your views (all verses RSV): 2Pe 3:15 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 2Pe 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. 2Pe 3:17 You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.

In fact, I just tried adding two profiles to my Yahoo! ID. One was "Allah2005101010" the other one was "Callahan2003232323" -- both were rejected as containing I also tried entering "Pes hitta203423532" (remove the space) -- that one was rejected as well. So it sounds to me like their 'dirty word' filter is too tight. Also sounds like they've designated the word "allah" as a "dirty word" LOL

Rhino, I agree fully on the not labelling a person...because you don't know what a person has inside of him. Still, the words are effective for describing various systems of belief. So, if I was to reword, I guess I could say: I think sometimes that those who subscribe to an Arian-like belief system, like TWI and JW's, believe that Trinitarians are Monophysites. And nothing could be farther from the truth. In past threads, Cynic has called me an "ilcalcitrant Papist" and I've called him an "incorrigible heretick" -- good-natured banter on both sides -- I am "confident" that this was the spirit with which he was intending his words here.

Evan, Review the threads that he's started and you'll understand why I pulled it out...

I can't speak for Cynic, so don't assume that I am here. When I use the term Arian as regards a person, it means that their beliefs in regard to the Godhead line up with those of Arius (i.e., denying the Trinitarian nature of the Godhead and stating that Jesus was merely a man). When I use the term Marcionite, it means that they believe in a dualistic God (i.e., a Creator god and a Good god). Etc. When I use the term Trinitarian, it means that that person (e.g., me), subscribes to the creed of Constantinople-Nicea. It is never inteded as a slam (at least when I use it), but, as used above, is a label to describe the beliefs of a certain group of people to whom the label applies.

OK, so let's see if I understand... You want to call the game. You want to exclude most of the Bible, except the verses that VPW misused Have fun God Bless (there, no names were called and no profane language was used)

From: The Register (UK) Yahoo! is banning the use of allah in email names - even if the letters are included within another name. This was uncovered by Reg reader Ed Callahan whose mother Linda Callahan was trying to sign up for a Verizon email address. She could not get it to accept her surname. Enquiries to Verizon revealed that a partnership with Yahoo! was to blame. Yahoo! will not accept any identies which include the letters "allah". Nor will Yahoo! accept yahoo, osama or binladen. But it will accept god, messiah, jesus, jehova, buddah, satan and both priest and pedophile. Ed Callahan told us: "On one level this is just silliness. But we have a war on terrorism and it's migrating to be a war on Muslims - this just shows the confusion there is between the two and how pervasive this is." The Callahans are still waiting to hear back from Yahoo! Yahoo! UK were unable to respond by press time. If anybody doubts this, try posting something about the Pe$*@!ta (that's Pes hitta) text on this site! Strange but true...

LOL!!!!

No offense, but that is so classic (and so believable). He comes up with some flakey interpretation of a verse of scripture that supports what he wants to push off on us. Then he does all sorts of backflips and jumps through all sorts of hoops in order to justify it. Meanwhile, if there are any verses that disagree with what he says, he works to nullify those verses that disagree with the one (ahem) clear verse. Classic VPW.

It wasn't immediately that he gave up the ghost after this...he got some wine and then people said maybe he's shouting to Elijah (maybe Elijah will take him down)...So he could have shouted this one phrase aloud and then the rest to himself...Or maybe he shouted this through his pain so that people could look back to the prophecy contained in Ps 22...lots of maybes, but it is clear that it wasn't immediately that he died afterwards.