A community for singles, with a focus on meeting new people, making friends, and dating. Includes photo personals and provides chat rooms.

Matches people with others in their area into a personalized community of neighbors. After joining, communications can be via email or the website.

Discussion of politics, the media, organizations, corporations, society and information exchanges. Features statistics and help.

nnalyd@yahoo.com writes:
>Matthew wrote:
>
>>But there is a book you are forgetting about. And even if you reject
>its
>>canonicity, it would be _highly_ unreasonable for you to ignore its
>witness.
>
>Before we go on. Do all trinitarians accept this book as canonical?
>What Bibles contain it? Are you Catholic?

I'm not Matthew, but the answer is, catholic yes, Roman, no. The
books of the OT that Protestants call "Apocrypha" or "Deuterocanonical"
are accepted by the vast majority of Christians in the world, Roman
Catholic & Orthodox. The books were removed by the radical reformers.

Remember - the Protestant definition of the Scriptures is not the only
one, and it certainly is not the one agrred upon by the majority of
Christians world-wide.

-Stephen
--
Space Age Cybernomad Stephen Adams
malchus842SP@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)

((( 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 <72AAB2A7-A938-DA89-8982-87C6944366BE@srcbs.org>, Bart Goddard
says...
>
>matthew_member@newsguy.com wrote:
>
>
>>>> 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.

> but rather gainsaying Gary's.

And your not doing that very well either.

>He's the one reading something into the passage which isn't there.

No, he is not.

>You, inadvertantly, back me up by also saying that it isn't there.

No, I am not backing you up. That you should claim I have is truly amazing. It
was YOU, not Gary, who claimed that Mark 16:16 has nothing to do with free will,
and it was YOU, not Gary, who tried to claim that this follows from the use of
the indicative in Mark 16:16. But it does not follow.

>Gary should take note.

Practice what you preach. YOU take note.

[snip]


--
-------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haere