|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 3, 2009 20:51:49 GMT -5
Boy I feel stupid...what does "take up" mean.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 3, 2009 20:59:09 GMT -5
He was trying to defend you because of my pretrib statement.
''Take up for'' means defend.
|
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 3, 2009 21:03:48 GMT -5
Oh, I thought he meant what I said was uncalled for.
|
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 3, 2009 21:12:46 GMT -5
Nope, he was saying that what i said was uncalled for. I thought you knew everything I say is uncalled for....lol  |
|
|
|
Post by emily445455 on May 3, 2009 21:26:40 GMT -5
lol.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 8:39:28 GMT -5
All truths are true[/quote] See how I put "truths" in parenthesis? There's a reason for that.  So, do you feel that biased sources that conflict historical sources can be automatically trusted just because they say what you want to hear/read? Or would you agree that unbiased sources are best when discussing points that contradict each other? |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 8:41:02 GMT -5
Yep...that certainly was uncalled for. Not cool.  How so? This wasnt directed at you Em. His mentioning your personal faith in an exchange between himself and I. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 4, 2009 9:14:55 GMT -5
I do not deny that Peter may have went to Rome at some point in His life, but he did not found the Church in Rome. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome before Peter ever got involved at all. There is no historical evidence at all that Peter was ever the bishop in Rome much less the pope. But history said that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I already gave you the historical facts. Cepha posted an unbiased source as well. Many Protestant Scholars/Historians agree with this. This was an undisputed fact in the Early Church (1st-10th Century). Like you said, some truths are hard to swallow, and this is one of the truth that you can not swallow because your prejudice doesn't allow you to accept this fact. You can't use History to prove a point, but quickly reject History with it doesn't agree with your bias opinions...... In IC.XC, Ramon P.S, I am still waiting for Historical proof that said Catholicism started in the 4th century. Perhaps it is time to fully admit that this assertion is simply your biased opinion and can not be supported by any secular History books.......It's easy to make statements like that but to give a respected source that agree with it is a whole different matter all together! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 9:18:26 GMT -5
I do not deny that Peter may have went to Rome at some point in His life, but he did not found the Church in Rome. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome before Peter ever got involved at all. There is no historical evidence at all that Peter was ever the bishop in Rome much less the pope. But history said that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. I already gave you the historical facts. Many Protestant Scholars/Historians agree with this. This was an undisputed fact in the Early Church (1st-10th Century). Like you said, some truths are hard to swallow, and this is one of the truth that you can not swallow because your prejudice doesn't allow you to accept this fact. In IC.XC, Ramon Amen to that. For one to be Anti-Catholic, they have to completely abandon world history and start in the 1600's then never look back past that date (unless it is convenient in their personal work of discrediting The Church). One would have to believe that no Christians existed before the 16th Century (putting a man-made timeline on The Christian Church with no explanation as to why there was no Church in between 30AD and 1534AD). Pax Ramon. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 9:26:01 GMT -5
I think cepha was trying to take up for you em Not as in the rapture, right? LOL! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 9:30:47 GMT -5
Well, some "truths" are not true. See, you chose a non-nuetral source as your proof instead of a secular unbiased source. For every biased source you post, I could post a biased source discrediting it, so you can't prove anything like that. You need to produce unbiaced secular/non-religious evidence for you to prove your particular point. Do you have any unbiased/nuetral websites or references that can establish what you assert? All truths are true Do you have any unbiased/nuetral websites or references that can establish what you assert? |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 4, 2009 10:16:25 GMT -5
Amen to that. For one to be Anti-Catholic, they have to completely abandon world history and start in the 1600's then never look back past that date (unless it is convenient in their personal work of discrediting The Church). One would have to believe that no Christians existed before the 16th Century (putting a man-made timeline on The Christian Church with no explanation as to why there was no Church in between 30AD and 1534AD). Pax Ramon. Amen Cepha. Also, to be anti-Catholic one has to rewrite history. I am amazed of people like watchman who are willing to rewrite history because it doesn't agree with there personal bias opinions. Pax Cepha! |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on May 4, 2009 10:23:57 GMT -5
Amen to that. For one to be Anti-Catholic, they have to completely abandon world history and start in the 1600's then never look back past that date (unless it is convenient in their personal work of discrediting The Church). One would have to believe that no Christians existed before the 16th Century (putting a man-made timeline on The Christian Church with no explanation as to why there was no Church in between 30AD and 1534AD). Pax Ramon. Amen Cepha. Also, to be anti-Catholic one has to rewrite history. I am amazed of people like watchman who are willing to rewrite history because it doesn't agree with there personal bias opinions. Pax Cepha! One of the greatest Protestant Theologians once said: " To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant." John Newman...I mean now "CARDINAL" John Newman.  |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 4, 2009 11:48:22 GMT -5
Amen to that. For one to be Anti-Catholic, they have to completely abandon world history and start in the 1600's then never look back past that date (unless it is convenient in their personal work of discrediting The Church). One would have to believe that no Christians existed before the 16th Century (putting a man-made timeline on The Christian Church with no explanation as to why there was no Church in between 30AD and 1534AD). Pax Ramon. Amen Cepha. Also, to be anti-Catholic one has to rewrite history. I am amazed of people like watchman who are willing to rewrite history because it doesn't agree with there personal bias opinions. Pax Cepha! I do not re-write history, I simply do not believe what you assert to be history is true  |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 4, 2009 11:59:27 GMT -5
Watchman, may i ask you what is the true history that you have sourses for? That you believe to be correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 4, 2009 11:59:55 GMT -5
Amen Cepha. Also, to be anti-Catholic one has to rewrite history. I am amazed of people like watchman who are willing to rewrite history because it doesn't agree with there personal bias opinions. Pax Cepha! I do not re-write history, I simply do not believe what you assert to be history is true Even after all the historical facts that has been posted here? No, you simply do not accept history because the truth of it is hard to swallow. When your personal opinions disagree with what history said (through Scholars and Historians, etc) you believe your bias opinions above actual facts. Like you said, Some truths are hard to swallow when you have been told differently all your life. You can't accept this historical fact because you been told differently all your life...... In IC.XC, Ramon P.S, You still have not prove historically all your claims. Prove your claims using unbiased sources, if you can. |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 4, 2009 13:02:13 GMT -5
Just like cepha said anything I call history that i post he can find history to oppose it, and that goes both ways. anything you claim to be historical fact, I can find a historical fact to disprove it. You have post nothing and I have found nothing outside of pro catholic web sites that would cause me to believe that Peter was the first pope and that Catholicism started in the upper room. That is Catholic wise tells. The Bible tells me not to believe fables of man. The Bible do not confirms this belief matter of fact Paul seem to be extremely disrespectful if Peter was the Pope. He seemed to think of himself as an equal.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on May 4, 2009 13:06:23 GMT -5
Just like cepha said anything I call history that i post he can find history to oppose it, and that goes both ways. anything you claim to be historical fact, I can find a historical fact to disprove it. Then post something from a secular historical book that disagree what I said. What "historical" facts do you have watchman? The Entire Early Church (1st-10th Century), Ancient Historians/Scholars and many modern Protestant Scholars/Historians agree that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by watchman on May 4, 2009 13:16:04 GMT -5
Just like cepha said anything I call history that i post he can find history to oppose it, and that goes both ways. anything you claim to be historical fact, I can find a historical fact to disprove it. Then post something from a secular historical book that disagree what I said. What "historical" facts do you have watchman? The Entire Early Church (1st-10th Century), Ancient Historians/Scholars and many modern Protestant Scholars/Historians agree that Saint Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In IC.XC, Ramon I disagree with your statement that all agree that Peter was the pope. Should I also believe that all scientist agree that man is causing global warming even though many are standing up saying it is not so? |
|
|
|
Post by cradlecathlic27 on May 4, 2009 13:59:15 GMT -5
|
|
