Earth Much Older Than Believed By Most Christians

[apothanein kerdos]

And you have read ALL the papal decrees?  What Rome does IN PRACTICE, states her positions whether she tries the Clintonian tactics and parsings you attempted, or not.  They bow before the pope, kiss statues of "saint peter" in rome to the point of wearing out his toe.  The little known secret is that statue is NOT of peter, but of Zues, who they renamed Peter when Pagan Rome became Papal Rome, and renamed all their gods, godesses, and pagan ritutals with Chritians terms and names.  Rome is the bloody whore of Rev 17, the Babylonian Harlot drunk with the blood of the martyrs and full of the names of Blasphemy, like Head of the church, Holy father, Pontifex Maximus, Mediatrix of all graces, queen of heaven, transubstantiation, etc.  She is full of idolatry, sexual immorality and lies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ah, a disciple of the "Two Babylons". I generally avoid debates with people ignorant to history, grace, and heavy on judgment, so I'll be bowing out of this discussion.

I suggest you actually study the Catholic faith. Oh, and btw, I've read a good majority (close to all) of the Papal decrees, and I'm not even Catholic.

Ann...don't worry, he's no Bible Scholar.

[Sola Scriptora]

Well, I dare say if I'm no Bible scholar, what are we to make of you, and your uninformed statements about me? I own over TWENTY church histories, how many do you have? I have read extensively, and even if I hadn't, the Holy Ghost is well able to reveal to me what he has revealed to TENS OF MILLIONS of other Christians--Rome is the whore of Babylon-Rev 17. You fly in the face of all those millions who believed the same thing. Perhaps you should read what the reformers said, or what Spurgeon had to say about Rome. The list of venerable Christians, scholar and non scholar alike, who believe as i do clearly shows it is you who is ignorant of church history, grace and heavy on judging people and pretending to divine what they know or don't know. This divining must come from that ungoldy music you are into. It is as false as your ability to divine anything factual.

[apothanein kerdos]

Well, I dare say if I'm no Bible scholar, what are we to make of you, and your uninformed statements about me?

[Sola Scriptora]

First Super J-Man exhorts me thusly:

Also, if you want to promote your arrogance I'm sure you can simply tell yourself how great you are in the mirror

But then he also said:

Also, I do fly in the face of those Christians who believe that the Roman church is the whore of Babylon and so do most biblical scholars. I'd rather be right with just 100 educated men then right with 100 million uneducated followers.

Ah, I see. You are part of the spiritual ELITE. The tiny little group that knows everything, while the rest know nothing. I see. You are the emanation of humility. What do you say when YOU look in the mirror? It must be what you suggested I should do, after all, where did you get the idea, if not from practice?

And as if this humility wasn't enough, Super man then tells me:

I don't need to spout off how many books I've read about church history and how many I own...however I will tell you that it is well above 20. It's been required of me to read them. I read the articles. I don't even remember all of the books because some of them I simply read in order to pass a test. Regardless, I know church history. Does this make me right or the better debator? Absolutely not. However, I'm just warning you, if you want to get into a quantity match, I will unfortunately beat you

That sounds quite humble, I must say! He also added:

just keep in mind, some of us on this board most likely have more of an education than you

I'm sure some have, but you have yet to demonstrate you do with anything other than big talk and assertion! To you, assertion is proof apparently. Try that in a court of law, you'll get a real education fast.

Imagine calling people like John Wesley, and Oxford graduate, part of the ignorant masses. Or Charles Spurgeon for that matter??? Or Charles Finney! What humility this! And Super Man is part of the 100 true scholars who know better than these men and thousands like them???

Let me educate you on a few things Super Man:

1- I have read much about the founding fathers and origin of this nation. The people in those days WERE WELL EDUCATED, as were their European counterparts. You couldn't shine their shoes.

2- Today's scholarly bunch is leavened with apostate ideas from the German rationalism of the nineteenth century. Their credentials are nowhere near what the scholars of days gone by were. Who are you kidding?

3- Many of our leading evangelists and church leaders of the last 400 years were WELL EDUCATED MEN, who also walked in the power and anointing of God. They would not be impressed with your education, or your puffed up, vaunted claims. Even Washington, Jefferson, Franklin or Adams could have run circles around you. I know, I've read their writings, and I've been reading yours--no contest.

4- And so, bring on your "beating". I think it is becoming plain you are all bluff. I find it quite amusing to listen to you talk the way you do to someone you don't know and sound so sure of yourself. You might meet your match Super J.

5- The only reason I told you about my church history collection was to simply refute your ignorant lie about me being ignorant about church history. It was a simple rebuttal to your foolish, slanderous statements. Instead of follwoing your own advice and realizing that perhaps someone might have read as much as you and come to a different conclusion, you continue with your puffed up talk. So on with it then. Beat me up. I know you think you can, but its becoming obvious who will end up tucking tail and running away.

6- Go ahead and prove that Rome IS NOT the whore of Babylon, and that the general consensus of the church of Jesus Christ and his precious martyrs was all wrong, and the elite, 100 arm chair bible scholars of the 20th century have got it right. Go ahead.

Edited October 30, 2004 by Sola Scriptora

[apothanein kerdos]

I played the arrogance card and obviously hit a nerve. That is all I needed to know

Also, just a point of clarification, I am simply saying that I would trust those 100 well studied and well educated people in the Lord than 100 million people who simply read the Bible and leave it at that. I think everyone holds to that belief. Anyway, carry on as you wish, I see the entire point behind your debating

[Sola Scriptora]

You've hit no nerve, you are simply running, as predicted. I called your bluff, and you have wasted no time engaging in retreat. Be honest, the truth is you see the handwriting on the wall. Now why don't you do as you said and "beat" me with your superior knowledge you claim to possess? Surely it must be an elementary task for someone of your stature and learning? Edited October 30, 2004 by Sola Scriptora

[apothanein kerdos]

*sigh*

I guess if it'll get you off my back, I'll respond to your original post.

Ah, I see. You are part of the spiritual ELITE. The tiny little group that knows everything, while the rest know nothing. I see. You are the emanation of humility. What do you say when YOU look in the mirror? It must be what you suggested I should do, after all, where did you get the idea, if not from practice?

I explained this in my last post.

QUOTE

I don't need to spout off how many books I've read about church history and how many I own...however I will tell you that it is well above 20. It's been required of me to read them. I read the articles. I don't even remember all of the books because some of them I simply read in order to pass a test. Regardless, I know church history. Does this make me right or the better debator? Absolutely not. However, I'm just warning you, if you want to get into a quantity match, I will unfortunately beat you

That sounds quite humble, I must say! He also added:

All I was asserting was that I've read more than 20 books on the issue of church history. It was required for many of my classes. What I was telling you (because you mentioned how you had 20 books) was that in a debate based soley off quanity (that means the ammount), I'd probably win. I'd beat you in a quantity match. I wasn't asserting I'd beat you in a knowledge match. That's just stupid for anyone to assert.

Imagine calling people like John Wesley, and Oxford graduate, part of the ignorant masses. Or Charles Spurgeon for that matter??? Or Charles Finney! What humility this! And Super Man is part of the 100 true scholars who know better than these men and thousands like them???

The thing is, all of these men are fallible and can be wrong. In their assertations about the Catholic church being the whore of bablyon (or the precurser) I must disagree with them. These are very Godly men who were well educated but who I also believe couldn't seperate their emotions from their theology at certain times. Thus we get this belief that the Catholic church is the whore of Babylon. I'll go into this later off of your #6.

1- I have read much about the founding fathers and origin of this nation. The people in those days WERE WELL EDUCATED, as were their European counterparts. You couldn't shine their shoes.

Okay What does that have to do with this topic?

2- Today's scholarly bunch is leavened with apostate ideas from the German rationalism of the nineteenth century. Their credentials are nowhere near what the scholars of days gone by were. Who are you kidding?

That's really a blanket statement. While some do hold to germanic principles of philosophy, not all of them do. We must remember too, the reformers were working off of a Roman paradigm so even their principles were known to be wrong. No one is going to have perfect theology.

3- Many of our leading evangelists and church leaders of the last 400 years were WELL EDUCATED MEN, who also walked in the power and anointing of God. They would not be impressed with your education, or your puffed up, vaunted claims. Even Washington, Jefferson, Franklin or Adams could have run circles around you. I know, I've read their writings, and I've been reading yours--no contest.

I agree. At the same time I must ask what relevance this holds. I'm not asserting that I'm a scholar or know everything. The only thing I said was that you were not a biblical scholar and that I've read more than 20 books about church history, which is more than you. So I fail to see where you're getting all of these accusations or even going with them.

4- And so, bring on your "beating". I think it is becoming plain you are all bluff. I find it quite amusing to listen to you talk the way you do to someone you don't know and sound so sure of yourself. You might meet your match Super J.

I've already met my match plenty of times and sometimes it's required a paradigm change.

5- The only reason I told you about my church history collection was to simply refute your ignorant lie about me being ignorant about church history. It was a simple rebuttal to your foolish, slanderous statements. Instead of follwoing your own advice and realizing that perhaps someone might have read as much as you and come to a different conclusion, you continue with your puffed up talk. So on with it then. Beat me up. I know you think you can, but its becoming obvious who will end up tucking tail and running away.

I was saying you were no biblical scholar, which, your actions have proven this assertation correct.

6- Go ahead and prove that Rome IS NOT the whore of Babylon, and that the general consensus of the church of Jesus Christ and his precious martyrs was all wrong, and the elite, 100 arm chair bible scholars of the 20th century have got it right. Go ahead.

If you want to make a seperate topic and state your claims as to why the Catholic church is the Whore of Babylon then go for it. I promise I will respond in there if you do. However, I do not want to side track the topic any more than it already is. So, balls in your court, if you want my responce simply open a new topic with your case.

[ayin jade]

The antagonism was not pleasant to read in the last page or so of posts.

[Khristeeanos]

Not sure what this has to do with the lack of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico to account for millions of years of erosion, but that is fine!

[apothanein kerdos]

Not sure what this has to do with the lack of sediment in the Gulf of Mexico to account for millions of years of erosion, but that is fine! 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't have anything to do with it. Sorry for side tracking the topic.