|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 13, 2009 0:04:40 GMT -5
I didn't quit the debate I finished it, and I proved my point, I was voted the winner, lay it down, give it up, be a man not a child. Think of something else to talk "about you have to be tired of this dont ya? This sounds like quitting to me when someone insists on not continuing the exchange and wants to change the subject... "Now stop being a child and move on to the next topic please.
The only thing worse than a beaten man is a spoiled rotten beaten man acting like a child.
Your continuance to deny what you have been shown is the height of disrespect, just lay it down.
The DOS is scriptural, end of story."I told you...I could be her all year on this. The only thing that will make me quit is your posting the DOS you claim is "in" the Bible (not your personal complilation of teachings...anybody can combine scriptures and call it a doctrine, but unless that list is in the Bible, it's just your personal interpretation...The DOS according to Watchman). That was in this thread not during the debate. You may be able to go on and on and on over semantics, but not me. I won the debate the debate is over ,and now I am quitting (not the debate it is already over and I won) I am quitting this ridiculous conversation |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 0:06:52 GMT -5
This could go on forever, you didn't prove it , yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did, no you didn't, yes I did. It seems that everyone that reads the debate agrees with me. You should really move on. It could've ended with you simply posting your scriptural proof that the DOS (the collection of teaching formally organized into a body of doctrine) existed in The Bible instead of your personal compillation of scriptures that no Apostle ever taught and that Jesus never taught (that list, in that order, in that formal organization as you personally selected them).  How could people who didn't read the debate agree with you? First, the two that agreed with you didn't read the debate and the 3rd (CC), she just said that you proved your "points", but not that you proved that The DOS existed in The Bible. Again, not one of them actually could point to any of your posts for proof that the DOC exists in The Bible according to the standards that both you and I agreed to. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 13, 2009 0:09:40 GMT -5
There are only two people that I quit on...Teresa and CC and the reasons for that was that A) I didn't believe what I was saying and B) I was just stretching out their Apologetic muscles! I was playing rabbit. And they put a whoopin' on the fake beliefs I was telling them! But you? Never. They proved you wrong so you pulled out the old, I was just testing you spill huh? hahahahahaha, that is SOOO funny ;D Sorry but I do not have the patience to continue this conversation, but i am growing in that department  Think of something else to debate and I will whip you again.......like um are you an amillennialist? I can prove there is a millennium.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 0:12:23 GMT -5
This sounds like quitting to me when someone insists on not continuing the exchange and wants to change the subject... "Now stop being a child and move on to the next topic please.
The only thing worse than a beaten man is a spoiled rotten beaten man acting like a child.
Your continuance to deny what you have been shown is the height of disrespect, just lay it down.
The DOS is scriptural, end of story."I told you...I could be her all year on this. The only thing that will make me quit is your posting the DOS you claim is "in" the Bible (not your personal complilation of teachings...anybody can combine scriptures and call it a doctrine, but unless that list is in the Bible, it's just your personal interpretation...The DOS according to Watchman). That was in this thread not during the debate. You may be able to go on and on and on over semantics, but not me. I won the debate the debate is over ,and now I am quitting (not the debate it is already over and I won) I am quitting this ridiculous conversation I never said you were quitting the debate...I said you were quitting the exchange we were having. You'll notice that I took your words out of the exchange, not out of the debate. And I don't blame you for quitting. I would too if I couldn't put up. And even after I conceded to your belief, even after I allowed you to retract your definition of the word doctrine and change it to mine, even after I gave you many chances to post the DOS you claim exists in The Holy Bible, you still didn't. You only posted your personal compillation which doesn't meet the standard of the debate we were having. Right? You did compile those teachings yourself? Right? No such doctrine (collection of teachings) exist in The Bible (for example, Jesus or an Apostle stating exactly (literally) what you said with all those verses collectively organized into one teaching...or as we agreed to call it, one "doctrine"). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 0:17:48 GMT -5
They proved you wrong so you pulled out the old, I was just testing you spill huh? hahahahahaha, that is SOOO funny ;D Sorry but I do not have the patience to continue this conversation, but i am growing in that department Think of something else to debate and I will whip you again.......like um are you an amillennialist? I can prove there is a millennium. Did you read what I wrote? I was leading them on. First off all, Teresa misunderstood something I said and I ran with it...CC was talking about Tubal Ligation in an Abortion argument...tubal ligation is "not" abortion...it is a result of a neccesary medical precedure a woman would need which is allowable by The Church if the child would die anyway. Now "that" was common sense, but I just kept her going and she got stronger and stronger. She'll be the first one to tell you that she's learned a lot from me and Teresa? Well, what can I say about her? She's a star here. Sometimes, I just sit back and watch her work. Oh now...we're not going to get off of this. You can't claim victory without evidence. I'm sure you'd like to, but you won't. Not here...this isn't one of those boards that deletes Catholic threads. Nope...here, you will be heard and you will "have to" hear and respond to Catholics. (I wish it was like that on Anti-Catholic boards) So, still waiting... Chapter and Verse. Where is it? That the DOS is in The Bible (not your personal compillation of beliefs that were organized and chosen by you)? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 0:34:38 GMT -5
Isn't it amazing how somethings just never change?Typical traits you'll find on anti-Catholics:
Mean and nasty.
The sugar/salt statements like: "I tell you this with christ's love...repent or burn in hell you pagan!"
Racists.
Become enraged when asked for proof of their beliefs.
Have many "alones"...this alone or that alone...if something alone is required for salvation, which one is it? Isn't there only supposed to be one "alone" (hence, meaning no other thing needed)?
Break down scriptures into fragments, piece them together creating a new belief, then call it a Christian belief.
Knock tradition, yet, practice tradition.
Insist one only uses the Bible for debates, but then use denominational commentaries and tracts to debate.
Create a debate, then, go and pull every anti-Catholic dogma they can when you begin to answer their question trying to take the focus off of the discussion and introducing new points to a conversation that never were part of the debate in the first place.
Complain about everything. As long as they do it, it's no problem, but when you do it against them, then, it's a problem.
Run out of time. All of a sudden, they don't have time to be on a forum anymore.
Don't cite sources. Their notorious for copying & pasting, but not citing the source from where they got their information.
Take scriptural verses out of context. fideidefensor.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=mark9&action=display&thread=225&page=2
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 13, 2009 13:15:42 GMT -5
This debate is boring.
I have a question for Watchman--
Watchman, which "Scriptures" were the Bereans reading? What language were they in?
11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17)
peace
teresa
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 13, 2009 15:07:38 GMT -5
Isn't it amazing how somethings just never change?Typical traits you'll find on anti-Catholics:
Mean and nasty.
The sugar/salt statements like: "I tell you this with christ's love...repent or burn in hell you pagan!"
Racists.
Become enraged when asked for proof of their beliefs.
Have many "alones"...this alone or that alone...if something alone is required for salvation, which one is it? Isn't there only supposed to be one "alone" (hence, meaning no other thing needed)?
Break down scriptures into fragments, piece them together creating a new belief, then call it a Christian belief.
Knock tradition, yet, practice tradition.
Insist one only uses the Bible for debates, but then use denominational commentaries and tracts to debate.
Create a debate, then, go and pull every anti-Catholic dogma they can when you begin to answer their question trying to take the focus off of the discussion and introducing new points to a conversation that never were part of the debate in the first place.
Complain about everything. As long as they do it, it's no problem, but when you do it against them, then, it's a problem.
Run out of time. All of a sudden, they don't have time to be on a forum anymore.
Don't cite sources. Their notorious for copying & pasting, but not citing the source from where they got their information.
Take scriptural verses out of context. fideidefensor.proboards80.com/index.cgi?board=mark9&action=display&thread=225&page=2 Crazy anti catholics. I thought this is about me and you , I did not once do any of those things on your list. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 13, 2009 15:14:28 GMT -5
This debate is boring. I have a question for Watchman-- Watchman, which "Scriptures" were the Bereans reading? What language were they in? 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17) peace teresa Well my best guess is they were reading the Law and the prophets and that is was written in Hebrew. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 15:49:29 GMT -5
This debate is boring. I have a question for Watchman-- Watchman, which "Scriptures" were the Bereans reading? What language were they in? 11Now the Bereans were of more noble character than the Thessalonians, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. (Acts 17) peace teresa Well my best guess is they were reading the Law and the prophets and that is was written in Hebrew. You know how that topic leads to other questions? Which version of scriptures were they using? If they were Christians, then they were obviously using The Septuagint (which is in Koine Greek). If they were Jewish, they were more likely than not using The Septuagint, but there was a possibility that they could've been using The Palestinian version. |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Feb 13, 2009 19:20:15 GMT -5
Cepha, Watchman isn't a "typical anti-catholic". Yes, the "Law and the prophets" were among the scriptures. But there was more.... The Bible found in most synagogues of the Diaspora was the Septuagint, a Greek translation. This translation had become a standard for the many Jews dispersed throughout the Roman Empire, because they no longer spoke or read Hebrew. As a result of the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek had become the common language. For that reason, during the third century B.C., Jews in Alexandria, Egypt, translated their Holy Scripture into Greek. Later called the Septuagint, this translation was the Bible from which Paul read and preached at Thessalonica and Berea.www.wcg.org/lit/bible/berean.htmUse of the Septuagint
Jewish use
In the 3rd century BC, most Jewish communities were located in the Hellenistic world, where Greek was the lingua franca. It is believed that the LXX(an abbreviation for the Septuagint) was produced because many Jews outside of Judea needed a Greek version of the scripture for use during synagogue readings[15] [16] or for religious study.[17] Some theorise that Hellenistic Jews intended the septuagint as a contribution to Hellenistic culture.[4] Alexandria held the greatest diaspora Jewish community of the age and was also a great center of Greek letters. Alexandria is thus likely the site of LXX authorship, a notion supported by the legend of Ptolemy and the 72 scholars.[18] The Septuagint enjoyed widespread use in the Hellenistic Jewish diaspora and even in Jerusalem, which had become a rather cosmopolitan (and therefore Greek-speaking) town. Both Philo and Josephus show a reliance on the Septuagint in their citations of Jewish scripture.
Starting approximately in the 2nd century AD, several factors led most Jews to abandon use of the LXX. The earliest gentile Christians of necessity used the LXX, as it was at the time the only Greek version of the bible, and most, if not all, of these early non-Jewish Christians could not read Hebrew. The association of the LXX with a rival religion may have rendered it suspect in the eyes of the newer generation of Jews and Jewish scholars.[5] Perhaps more importantly, the Greek language—and therefore the Greek Bible—declined among Jews after most of them fled from the Greek-speaking eastern Roman Empire into the Aramaic-speaking Persian Empire when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. Instead, Jews used Hebrew/Aramaic Targum manuscripts later compiled by the Masoretes; and authoritative Aramaic translations, such as those of Onkelos and Rabbi Yonathan ben Uziel.[19]
What was perhaps most significant for the LXX, as distinct from other Greek versions, was that the LXX began to lose Jewish sanction after differences between it and contemporary Hebrew scriptures were discovered. Even Greek-speaking Jews — such as those remaining in Palestine — tended less to the LXX, preferring other Jewish versions in Greek, such as that of Aquila, which seemed to be more concordant with contemporary Hebrew texts.[5]
Christian use
The early Christian Church used the Greek texts since Greek was a lingua franca of the Roman Empire at the time, and the language of the Church. In addition the Church Fathers tended to accept Philo's account of the LXX's miraculous and inspired origin. Furthermore, the New Testament writers, when citing the Jewish scriptures or when quoting Jesus doing so, freely used the Greek translation, implying that the Apostles and their followers considered it reliable.[20](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint) Books of the Septuagint
All the books of western canons of the Old Testament are found in the Septuagint, although the order does not always coincide with the Western ordering of the books. The Septuagint order for the Old Testament is evident in the earliest Christian Bibles (5th century).[4]....
....The New Testament makes a number of allusions to and may quote the additional books (as Orthodox Christians aver). The books are Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Jesus Sirach, Baruch, Epistle of Jeremy (which later became chapter 6 of Baruch in the Vulgate), additions to Daniel (The Prayer of Azarias, the Song of the Three Children, Sosanna and Bel and the Dragon), additions to Esther, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, 3 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, 1 Esdras, Odes, including the Prayer of Manasses, and Psalm 151. The canonical acceptance of these books varies among different Christian traditions, and there are canonical books not derived from the Septuagint....Watchman, the Bereans were reading the Septuagint, as were most Jews of the Diaspora. The Septuagint contained all the books that were thrown out by the reformers, but that Catholics still "search diligently" as the Bereans did. peace teresa |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 19:46:17 GMT -5
Cepha, Watchman isn't a "typical anti-catholic". peace teresa You're right...he's been known to call us the "children of Satan".  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 13, 2009 19:58:32 GMT -5
Watchman, the Bereans were reading the Septuagint, as were most Jews of the Diaspora. The Septuagint contained all the books that were thrown out by the reformers, but that Catholics still "search diligently" as the Bereans did. peace teresa Well, The Protestants and The Pharisees. Anti-Catholics readily admit that they prefer The Pharisees Canon to The Christian Canon. They'd place their faith in the doctrines of those that rejected and crucified and persecuted Christ and His followers more than in Jesus' followers. Both groups threw out The Deuterocanonical Books. Granted, the original King James Bible had all the books in it, but as they kept seeing so much Catholic Theology based in them, they had to go (just like The Pharisees did because there was so much prophecy about Jesus in those same books, that they had to discard them in order to create their own canon at the end of the first century). By the time The Pharisees had decided on their Canon, The Christians already had been Evangelized and brought to Christ with The Septuagint. The Pharisees did what The Protestants did...they erased a part of The Holy Bible in order to justify their "not" believing in that which they were against. Is it just a coincidence that both groups threw out the exact same number of books and the exact same books? 7=God 3=Trinity 666=Beast Books in The Holy Bible? 73 Books taken "out" of The Holy Bible by The Pharisees and The Protestants? 7 Books left over in the Protestant "version" based on The Holy Bible? 66...or... 66(6)? The Holy Bible has two numbers that represent God and The Holy Trinity...God in His fullness. The Protestant "version" of The Holy Bible "only" has 66 books in it that are strikingly close to The Number of The Beast. They literally had to take "God" (7) and the completeness of God (3) out of The Holy Bible in order to arrive to their 10% lighter (which equals roughly 7) book. I don't understand how anybody could've trusted men to "edit" The Word of God and to whittle it down enough to get it to a point where they could justify their Anti-Catholic (and for the Pharisees, their Anti-Christian) beliefs. Although, I must say that more and more non-Catholic Christians are studying The Holy Bible and the books that were removed and are beginning to question their "version" which was authorized by a "king". By the way T...Watchman is an equal opportunity insulter...he accuses Protestants too of being corrupted in their faith. He refers to himself as a "non-denominational" Christian. |
|
|
|
Post by righteousone on Feb 14, 2009 11:29:11 GMT -5
Cepha you cannot debate and challenge everyone who votes to a debate of their own. I won plain and simple I gave 8 points to the doctrine of salvation, you said to use scripture to prove them and I did, simple as that. The Bible does contain the doctrine of salvation. Take your defeat gracefully. Justification according to Catholicism, is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of Grace, and a renewal of the inner man. The Catholic church holds that true faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works, without which spiritual growth is impossible. In this way, good works are necessary for salvation, and sanctification is not seperated from Justification. Rather, the two are intertwined, as with the Bible and Tradition. Judgment, according to St. Paul in his treatise on salvational theology, his letter to the Romans, is accordin to works, just as Christ taught. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 14, 2009 11:43:11 GMT -5
Cepha you cannot debate and challenge everyone who votes to a debate of their own. I won plain and simple I gave 8 points to the doctrine of salvation, you said to use scripture to prove them and I did, simple as that. The Bible does contain the doctrine of salvation. Take your defeat gracefully. Justification according to Catholicism, is a true eradication of sin, a supernatural infusion of Grace, and a renewal of the inner man. The Catholic church holds that true faith in Jesus Christ is not saving faith unless it bears fruit in good works, without which spiritual growth is impossible. In this way, good works are necessary for salvation, and sanctification is not seperated from Justification. Rather, the two are intertwined, as with the Bible and Tradition. Judgment, according to St. Paul in his treatise on salvational theology, his letter to the Romans, is accordin to works, just as Christ taught. I suggested that for "my" definition as well as the Universal Christian definition, but for the sake of argument (to get past that hurdle, I asked him to prove "his" version), the point of the debate was to prove that no "doctrine" exists in scripture on justification/salvation.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 14, 2009 19:58:34 GMT -5
Cepha, Watchman isn't a "typical anti-catholic". peace teresa You're right...he's been known to call us the "children of Satan". Just you cepha not all catholics. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 14, 2009 20:08:50 GMT -5
You're right...he's been known to call us the "children of Satan". Just you cepha not all catholics. Oh, so now it's just me? Not what you said before. You said Catholics were children of Satan. But, hey, that's how you feel? Fine. If you want to retract that statement now and just apply it to me, fine. That would be a great thing...Hagee did it too. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on Feb 14, 2009 20:25:11 GMT -5
Just you cepha not all catholics. Oh, so now it's just me? Not what you said before. You said Catholics were children of Satan. But, hey, that's how you feel? Fine. If you want to retract that statement now and just apply it to me, fine. That would be a great thing...Hagee did it too. How about if I say especially you....lol  By the way I am no fan of Hagee, he is much more the child of satan than most catholics I know. |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on Feb 14, 2009 21:09:29 GMT -5
Ok, now catholics are not children of saten, my maw maw is living proof.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Feb 14, 2009 22:06:41 GMT -5
Oh, so now it's just me? Not what you said before. You said Catholics were children of Satan. But, hey, that's how you feel? Fine. If you want to retract that statement now and just apply it to me, fine. That would be a great thing...Hagee did it too. How about if I say especially you....lol By the way I am no fan of Hagee, he is much more the child of satan than most catholics I know. I accept that...and, that doesn't say that generally, we were children of Satan (again, unless you are going to retract that statement right here?). Hagee did a good thing. God blesses the peacemakers. |
|
