Query: Marchello, would you mind replying to what Imperial_Samurai has written?
Declaration: If Marchello has the Word on his side--and only his--then Marchello should be able to acknolwedge what Imperial_Samurai has written and demonstrate how Imperial_Samurai is erroneous.
Conjecture: Marchello refuses to respond to Imperial_Samurai because Imperial_Samurai is right.
Plausible Conclusion: Marchello's views are erroneous and not supported by the Word of God.
Declaration: FeceMan makes a double-post. Apologies.
Statement: FeceMan finds it ironic that, prior to reading the link that Imperial_Samurai posted, he was trying to devise a stereotype leftist considering that everyone knows the stereotypical conservative. FeceMan's creation of the stereotypical leftist aligns quite well with the views found on the link that Imperiaul_Samurai posted.
Plausible Conclusion: FeceMan's stereotype of leftists is correct.
Originally posted by FeceMan
Declaration: FeceMan makes a double-post. Apologies.Statement: FeceMan finds it ironic that, prior to reading the link that Imperial_Samurai posted, he was trying to devise a stereotype leftist considering that everyone knows the stereotypical conservative. FeceMan's creation of the stereotypical leftist aligns quite well with the views found on the link that Imperiaul_Samurai posted.
Plausible Conclusion: FeceMan's stereotype of leftists is correct.
I'm glad I could be of assistance.
Conjecture: Marchello refuses to respond to Imperial_Samurai because Imperial_Samurai is right.
That really does have a nice ring to it.
I still love Marchellos:
"***You and I can have no meaningful dialogue."
Simply classic.
Originally posted by MarchelloYour source is incorrect. Sel'a is a correct spelling. Cela' is also exceptable and is more common. Cela' is a HEBREW word that literally means "to be lofty". Craggy rock is a later use of the word. Thirdly, a craggy rock is a word used in the Hebrew language used to describe an unmoveable strongpoint such as a stronghold or fortress. It is often used to infer an imposing shadow. Also, the literal definition lofty is important and is almost exclusively used to denote a strongplace. Cela' is very rarely used to infer a rock. Fourthly, the translation is inconsequential to the status of Peter because Peter being the rock on which Jesus built His church takes nothing away from God. That idea is something you have formulated yourself or was given to you by ill-educated men. In fact, you have only proved that you know nothing more of the language than a Strong's dictionary can tell you. Which is far less than actually knowing the language. It is also why your doctrine on the matter did not emerge until recently. Ie. the interpretation of those who did not use language and have tried to study it over those that actually understood it. Those that understood it agree with me. Your emergent theology is quite simply false.
[B]*["...2 Samuel 22:2 does not say anything about a rock. I just read it. I'm going to assume you are referring to the word "sel'a" which means "a shadow or shelter". The verse does not apply in the manner you wish it to..."]***Au contrare...indeed, it DOES say "Rock." Your definition of the word "cela'" [i.e., your spelling 'sel'a"] is INCORRECT and does NOT mean "a shadow or shelter" as you allege. "Cela'" is an Aramaic word that means "craggy rock" according to [STRONGS EXPANDED DICTIONARY OF BIBLE WORDS, page 219, Strong #5553]. Too, the Jewish Publication Society in their 1917 Edition of the Hebrew Bible [i.e., the flagship edition of Jewish Orthodoxy] translates [2 Samuel 22:2-3] from the Hebrew into English as follows:
á åÇéÌÉàîÇø: éÀäåÈä
ñÇìÀòÄé åÌîÀöËãÈúÄé,
{ø} åÌîÀôÇìÀèÄé-ìÄé.(2) "and he said: The LORD is my ROCK,
and my fortress, and my deliverer;â àÁìÉäÅé öåÌøÄé,
àÆçÁñÆä-áÌåÉ; {ñ}
îÈâÄðÌÄé åÀ÷ÆøÆï
éÄùÑÀòÄé, {ø}
îÄùÒÀâÌÇáÌÄé åÌîÀðåÌñÄé,
{ñ} îÉùÑÄòÄé, îÅçÈîÈñ
úÌÉùÑÄòÅðÄé. {ø}(3) "The God who is my ROCK, in Him I take
refuge; my shield, and my horn of
salvation, my high tower, and my refuge;
my SAVIOUR, Thou savest me from
violence."The INSPIRED Word of God [in BOTH the OT and NT] has just PROVED you to be a DECEIVER and LIAR...who strives to ROB David's and my SAVIOUR [v.3] of His rightful TITLE [ROCK...1 Coreinthians 10:4] and appropriate it to someone else. There is NO DOUBT as to who the ROCK is in ALL of the passages in dispute [1 Samuel 2:2;2 Samuel 22:2;3:3;Psalms 28:1;18:2;89:26].
************************************************
*["Also, if you believe that Jesus was speaking Greek to Peter and not Aramaic you are stupid considering the evidence to the contrary. Sadly for you, in Aramaic there is no difference in the names."]
***Being the great Catholic apologist that you are it is understandable that you would take the Catholic position that says that the "rock" cannot refer to Jesus, "but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in the Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for 'Peter' and 'rock'."
The PROBLEM is that the TEXT is NOT in Aramaic, but GREEK. Since we do NOT have the Aramaic TEXT, it is NOT proper NOR scientific to refer to it as PROOF or EVIDENCE of you or your Catholic mentors' position.
Furthermore, in [John 1:42] it says, "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas," (which is translated Peter." The word "Peter" here is PETROS, not PETRA. It is used to elucidate the Aramaic KEPHAS, which is NOT a NAME in Aramaic. "Except in John 1:42, where it is used to elucidate Aramaic KEPHAS, PETROS is used in the NT ONLY as a NAME for Simon Peter...The translation supports the view that KEPHAS is NOT a proper NAME, since one DOES NOT usually translate proper NAMES" [SOURCE: Liddell, H. (1996). A lexicon: Abridged from Liddell and Scott's Greek-English Lexicon (636). Oak Harbor, WA. Logos Research Systems, Inc.].
The truth is that the ONLY foundation is Jesus. The ONLY rock of truth is Jesus Christ and that we, as His redeemed, need to keep our eyes ONLY on Him. We are to look to NO ONE else as the FOUNDATION, the SOURCE, ot the HOPE in which the Church is built. The Church is built upon Jesus, NOT Peter.
Marchello [/B]
I am saddened that you think the text of an apostle is superior to the true words of Jesus Christ. But that is another matter altogether. In fact, I'm willing to ignore that Jesus spoke Aramaic for the sake of not overstretching you to what science and scholarship actually says on the matter.
Lastly, calling me Catholic is false, childish, un-Christian, and delusional. I have never learned anything from a Catholic, I have no mentors and your allegations are lies and falsehoods which only show the status of your faith. Your emotional issues with the Catholics have no place here. Grow up and learn to control yourself please. Your lack of self-control merely shows the lack of spiritual growth in you.
I must laugh at your next argument. You have just helped prove an excellent point. Peter was called "rock" and his name was "rock". Yep, nice non-point there. So you have yet to refute the argument concerning Matthew 16:18 and the wonderful fact that it was written in Koine dialect which makes no distinction and those wonderful little pronouns "taute" and "kai" which beyond all doubt prove that Jesus was addressing Peter as the rock and it is also wonderfully apparent that Jesus gave Peter the keys of life and the right to bind things on earth and heaven as he did in Jerusalem. Your argument has no merit.
Now to clarify for you:
1) Jesus is way, the truth and the life and there is no way to Father except through Him.
2) Jesus founded the Church that contains all believers in death and resurrection as per John 3:16.
3) Jesus is our only hope and salvation and is the source of the Church.
4) Jesus charged Peter, as the first amongst the apostles, to lead the early Church and to build it up for His glory through the fellowship of saints and the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus.
5) According to Scripture, Peter's judgments were final and authoritative and that Peter's decrees were bound in heaven and earth as per Jesus's promise to Peter.
6)Peter succeeded in his charge and was martyred for his faith in the truth of salvation from Jesus Christ.
That is what Scripture holds.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Why the discrimination? Chick Tracts are very efficient and practical.
Instead of asking the same question over and over again like some sort of broken record oblivious to 22 pages of people saying exactly what is wrong with Chick Tracts you could, you know, maybe try to rebut the points they make?
Statement: Chick Tracts are efficient and practical if one's goal is to drive others away from Christianity.Statement, Colloquial: Zing.
Exactly.
I have never met a person converted with Chick Tracts, but I have met plenty who laugh a great deal at them and pretty much say "if that is Christianity then Chick can shove it up his tract."
Because face it JIA, Chick is neither a good role model for your religion nor a good ambassador. He is an insulting pamphleteer who would have been more suited to having poor hygiene and screaming at people on a street corner about how they are all going to hell.
Originally posted by debbiejo
They are in comic form to scare children.
Yeah, Jack Chick is like some sort of modern day Bogey Man used to scare children into obedience.
Parent: "Look Samantha if you don't do as your told there will be no Harry Potter for tonight's bedtime story, instead you'll be made read the Chick Tract were the devil makes the black kid watch his parents getting tossed into hell while tied up like a dog.
Samantha: "scared"
Parent: "Damn right."
And if anyone is wondering which Tract I am talking about it is this one:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1107/1107_01.asp?wpc=1107_01.asp&wpp=a
Chick Publications: Spreading the word through fear for over 40 years.
Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Yeah, Jack Chick is like some sort of modern day Bogey Man used to scare children into obedience.Parent: "Look Samantha if you don't do as your told there will be no Harry Potter for tonight's bedtime story, instead you'll be made read the Chick Tract were the devil makes the black kid watch his parents getting tossed into hell while tied up like a dog.
Samantha: "scared"
Parent: "Damn right."
And if anyone is wondering which Tract I am talking about it is this one:
http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1107/1107_01.asp?wpc=1107_01.asp&wpp=a
Chick Publications: Spreading the word through fear for over 40 years.
So, Chick Tracts are just another type of terrorism.
Originally posted by Imperial_SamuraMessage wise this is one of the best tracts and I agree with it. The comics don't really fit the message underneath it.
And if anyone is wondering which Tract I am talking about it is this one:http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/1107/1107_01.asp?wpc=1107_01.asp&wpp=a
Originally posted by Goddess KaliExcept that part because I do not believe that we are born condemned. I do believe we are condemned by our own sins and that we are naturally sinful which is attested to by our selfish nature. I was more referring to the message being hopeful in the latter half about being saved with no hellfire and brimstone message.
I find that strip offensive and disgusting. A child being born of sin and his parents being thrown in fire ?Wipe my ass
No.
Originally posted by Nellinator
Except that part because I do not believe that we are born condemned.
Me either
Originally posted by Nellinator
I do believe we are condemned by our own sins and that we are naturally sinful which is attested to by our selfish nature.
I beleive that we are fully responsible for our own wrong doings, unless we are schitzophrenic.
Yes, human beings happen to be selfish in general, but so are most animals. It's all about survival and dominance. Very unfortunate, but nature is cruel.
However, that doesn't mean we are incapable of love and compassion, we all are and show it by our unselfish natures.
Originally posted by Nellinator
I was more referring to the message being hopeful in the latter half about being saved with no hellfire and brimstone message.
There is no hellfire and brimstone, Hell is a myth based on Tarturus and Hades from Greek mythos.
Originally posted by Nellinator
No.
Oh Come on ! droolio