Movie rentals to US consumers by download in RealPlayer or Windows Media Player format. Search titles, genres, new releases or staff picks.

matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:

> In article <72AAB2A7-A938-DA89-8982-87C6944366BE@srcbs.org>, Bart
> Goddard says...

>>>>> But the free will is there, and obvious for all but the
>>>>> blind.
>>>
>>>>Really? Where does it say that the believer does so
>>>>because he made a choice to? It doesn't. In fact,
>>>>in Greek the phrase is indicative. It's not a cause/
>>>>effect phrase, but a "this is the state of things"
>>>>phrase.
>>>
>>> This is a glaring example of your ignorance of the way Scripture
>>> uses language. Grammatically, it is a "state of things" phrase, but
>>> this does NOT give you the right to jump to the conclusion you jump
>>> to.
>>
>>I'm not making conclusions here,
>
> Yes, you are. You are jumping to the conclusion that Mark 16:16 has
> nothing to do with free will.

At no point do I draw that conclusion above. Gary claims that
"free will" is in the passage. I assert that it is not. This
is far from tantamount to an assertion of the converse of Gary's
claim. It's funny that 1. you make such elementary errors in
logic and 2. you yourself supply the linguistic authority
that backs up my assertion.

Not just funny, but toooooo funny.


>>He's the one reading something into the passage which isn't there.
>
> No, he is not.

A typical Matthew argument. Please don't ever post a response
with actual content in it; I'd die of shock.

Bart


((( s.r.c.b-s is a moderated group. All posts are approved by a moderator. )))
((( Read http://srcbs.org for details about this group BEFORE you post. )))

In article <090.08.15.05.768863000@srcbs.org>, basicallyblues says...
>

[snip]
>So, what's your argument that the trinity existed prior to the 3rd
>Century (you will alos notice that I've never said "before Nicea"!!!!!.

And what is _your_ argument for ending a question with exclamation points!

>I've said the 3rd Century nobody has proven this assertion wrong.

That is not true. We have proved it wrong. You just refuse to take notice and
admit the truth.

>The fact that certain "early church fathers" spoke in language that
>"sounds" like the Father and Son are both "God" in the Trinitarian
>sense- and THAT IS THE ISSUE ALL ALONG- a further review shows that the
>so-called "ante-Nicene" fathers routinely CONTRADICT what later became
>the trinity doctrine!!!!

This is not even a sentence! And you claim to have proved _us_ wrong? Not with
malformations like that!

But whatever that gibberish was supposed to mean, it is simply FALSE that your
'furhter review' shows that they contradict the later Trinity doctrine. On the
contrary: the 'further review' shows, if it i