Soweit internet gewinn spiele juegos poker share jugar video poker linea tornei di poker on line juegos poli poker…

Das poker online texas holdem gratis online texas holdem regelwerk jouer au poker gratuit jugar tragaperras internet…

Why not stick with scripture and understand your misconceptions. The Trinity is non-scriptural and trinity based. If you really want to understand the Godhead, then re-read the OT and NT. Who did Stephen see at his martyrdom? What did John the Baptist witness at Christ’s baptism? Did your trinitarian version of a god have a body before Christ’s birth? Your version flies in the face of reason. God had a body. Christ came to earth to receive His and then to die. He was then resurrected, receiving His perfect body. As He was resurrected, Who gave Whose body up to unite in your Trinity? Try and make sense with that. It flies in the face of logic. Sense Christ is truth and light, rely on Him instead of manmade political interpretations of His nature and divinity. If you’re all about the KJV, then solely rely on it like you purport to.

Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

SkinnerVic on April 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM

Skinner, believers can debate nonessentials without dividing over them, but there has to be unity when it comes to essential Christian doctrine. The importance of essential Christian doctrine simply can’t be overstated. These are the doctrines that make the distinction between Christianity and the world of cults. The essential doctrines are,

1. Jesus is both God and man (John 1:1,14; 8:24; Col. 2:9; 1 John 4:1-4).
2. Jesus rose from the dead physically (John 2:19-21; 1 Cor. 15:14).
3. Salvation is by grace through faith (Rom. 5:1; Eph. 2:8-9; Gal. 3:1-2; 5:1-4).
4. The gospel is the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus (1 Cor. 15:1-4; Gal. 1:8-9).
5. There is only one God (Exodus 20:3; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6,8)
6. God exists as a Trinity of persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. (See Trinity)

Because these central doctrines define the character of Christianity, one cannot be saved and deny these. Oh, and you have a seventh doctrine that strikes me as a functional necessity, that is the ultimate authority of Scripture without which none of the other truths can be affirmed or asserted with confidence. As long as a person believes in these essential doctrines, it’s pretty safe to say they are Christian. Note: All Christian denominations agree on the essential core. And as I said, central doctrines should not be confused with peripheral issues, about which Christians may legitimately disagree.

Watch: The Essentials Of The Christian Faith

… he did a splendid job in making a non-refuted point (of which you *still* haven’t answered, nor have any intention of doing because it demonstrates the err of your pious ways).

SkinnerVic on April 9, 2008 at 11:24 AM

The question you are referring to is a crooked one, and I adressed it in part here.

Namely, Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

Do you know what your doing or even saying for that matter? Look Skinner, this logic is so stupid! You’re arguing there is no truth or correct interpretation of Biblical Scripture because everyone has an opinion and so because everyone has an opinion nobody is right! Do you know how crazy that is? And dangerous!! Whatever they view Scripture as saying is valid irregardless of it’s true meaning. Yep! Line right up everybody. Get yer popcorn. Get yer popcorn. Pick and choose your own Jesus! You heard right. Pick your own Jesus! You’re all Christian’s!! EVERY ONE OF YOU!!!!!!! This guy must have heard about the deal. Listen to his interpretation:

666 This preacher says he’s Jesus. Now he’s the Antichrist

apacalyps on April 8, 2008 at 6:12 PM

Like I said way earlier, you’re a legend in your own mind. I was saying great work to Tzetzes, not for his interpretation of scripture or otherwise, but for the sheer reason he did a splendid job in making a non-refuted point (of which you *still* haven’t answered, nor have any intention of doing because it demonstrates the err of your pious ways). You therefore are trying to so desperately change the subject to anything else, be it homosexuality and the term Christian, seer stones, some Mormon rant-de-jour, ANYTHING else than answering the question that would catch you in a blatant contradiction… Namely, Many different sects, using the same canonical reference, call themselves “Christian” but have widely varying interpretations.

Some checkmate, heh. Keep those hands over your ears, singing la-la-la, “I can’t hear you, you’re all accursed, I have the only right interpretation of the Lord, etc.”

Best regards,
apacalyps

Here’s a quick recap:

Tzetzes said, “I consider him a Christian who considers himself a Christian, and take him at his word.”

So I asked him: Can a practicing homosexual… an openly gay person… someonewho is proud to be gay who will say, “I am gay and a Christian”. Do you believe that person to be a Christian?

Tzetzes didn’t answer. He left.

Why? Well, no one can say for sure, but I think he knew he was getting cornered as he was contradicting Scripture which tells us:

“Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21

The above passage points out, not all who profess to be followers of Jesus Christ are actually following Him. Tragically the above passage points out that one may even be deceiving self into believing they are right, when they are in reality following a false way.

Checkmate Tzetzes.

I’m outta here. Ciao.

Tzetzes wrote on April 6, 2008 at 5:50 AM:

Now, I don’t claim to know much about Christology: I think it’s quite literally a mystery (as in, something that one has to be initiated into) … Plus, except when something exciting happens, like monks and bishops at fisticuffs, it always makes my eyes glaze over when I hear about it … my specialty is the much more interesting secular, classical tradition.

Tzetzes’ own admission here is quite telling in that the subject of Christianity bores him… his eyes glaze upon hearing of it, unless of course something exciting stupid happens like people start fighting over it… this debate has also shown he has a “secret antipathy towards Christians who take the Bible literally.”

I point this out because I wanted to show the Mormons reaction to Mr. Tzetzes, the man who believes Christianity remains a “mystery” who’s eyes glaze over at the mention of it:

SkinnerVic, “Great work Tzetzes!”

Cold Steel, “You do an excellent job on reminding us to keep an open and receptive mind to truth. ”

Bambi says, “Tzetzes: Thanks for your kind words, I know I want to belong to your fan club.”

Now I have nothing personal against Tzetzes. Many here believe he is a nice man and remains calm in the face of criticism. Based on my brief experience with him I would agree, and these are great qualities to have, however, I would like to point out that being a nice man has nothing to do with having correct doctrine. Many “nice people” have founded cults and were reported to be humble, considerate and intelligent yet they had wrong doctrine. Many mean spirited people such as Elijah who slew the prophets of Baal had right doctrine. It is important to constantly keep in mind, “thus sayeth the Lord” in this debate and not be swayed by a person being “nice” or sounding “intellectual”.

You’ve sided with a person who’s doctrine does not match the Scriptures. Ring a bell??

Jump to Joseph Smith’s time. He investigated several different Christian religions as a young boy. He went to a secluded grove of trees and began to pray.

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 9:52 AM

You then go on to describe Joseph Smith’s, the founding prophet of the LDS Church, first vision in which he claimed that as a 14-year-old boy he had a vision of God the Father and Jesus Christ. With that vision began the Mormon faith. The official account of this first vision is found in Mormon Scripture (Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:14-20). However, for years before this, Joseph, and his friends talked about his visionary experiences and his story changed. The links below show these different accounts in chronological order.

Joseph Smith’s Changing First Vision Accounts

1827 — Account of Joseph Smith, Sr., and Joseph Smith, Jr., given to Willard Chase, as related in his 1833 affidavit.

1827 — Account by Martin Harris given to Rev. John Clark, as published in his book Gleanings by the Way, printed in 1842, pp. 222-229.

1830 — Interview of Joseph Smith by Peter Bauder, recounted by Bauder in his book The Kingdom and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, printed in 1834, pp. 36-38.

1832 — Earliest known attempt at an ‘official’ recounting of the ‘First Vision, from History, 1832, Joseph Smith Letterbook 1, pp.2,3, in the handwriting of Joseph Smith.

1834-35 — Oliver Cowdery, with Joseph Smith’s help, published the first history of Mormonism in the LDS periodical Messenger and Advocate, Kirtland, Ohio, Dec. 1834, vol.1, no.3

1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Joshua the Jewish minister, Joseph Smith Diary, Nov. 9, 1835.

1835 — Account given by Joseph Smith to Erastus Holmes on November 14, 1835, originally published in the Deseret News of Saturday May 29, 1852.

1838 — This account became the official version, now part of Mormon Scripture in the Pearl of Great Price, Joseph Smith — History, 1:7-20. Though written in 1838, it was not published until 1842 in Times and Season, March 15, 1842, vol. 3, no. 10, pp. 727-728, 748-749, 753.

1844 — Account in An Original History of the Religious Denominations at Present Existing in the United States, edited by Daniel Rupp. Joseph Smith wrote the chapter on Mormonism.

1859 — Interview with Martin Harris, Tiffany’s Monthly, 1859, New York: Published by Joel Tiffany, vol. v.—12, pp. 163-170.

Conclusion: One thing is clear, you’re not being told the whole story about his first vision as the only version of these events.

If, as the Mormons often claim, the Bible and the Book of Mormon are completely compatible there should be no contradictions. Let us see if such is true.

Complete or Not?

* The Bible claims to be the complete (Jude 3) and all sufficient (2 Timothy 3:16,17; 2 Peter 1:3) Word of God. Paul even states that those who would dare to teach “another gospel” “pervert the gospel of Christ” and will be “accursed” (Galatians 1:6-9). For example:

Jude writes, “Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.” Jude 3

earnestly contend. Used only once in the New Testament, “earnestly contend” is from the Greek epagonizomai. It was a term used of athletes intensely aganizing in the gruelling training for a coming contest. Jude thus graphically stresses the urgency of defending the faith. Note also Philipians 1:7 and 17; 1 Timothy 6:19-20; 2 Timothy 4:1-4; Titus 1:9; 1 Peter 3:15.

once delivered. That is, the faith that was delivered once and for all to the saints (that is, to all tru believers) for guarding and keeping safe. As Paul wrote Timothy, “Keep (that is, guard) that which is commited to thy trust” 1 Timothy 6:20.

Note 1 Timothy 6:19-20, “Laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life. O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

keep. the connotation of “keep” is guard. The Christian faith has been commited to us in all it’s purity and saving power. We must guard it against all attempts to distort it, dilute, or deny it, for these would destroy it.

2 Timothy 4:1-4 tells us: “I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ… Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.”

Preach the word. The charge is to “preach the Word,” not just preach.

be instant. simply means to “be there” when needed, to be “on call” when God calls.

turn away there ears. They cannot know the truth because they resist the truth and finally even turn away their “itching ears” from the truth.

from the truth. “The truth” clearly refers to the whole body of doctrine contained in the Scriptures and centered in the Lord Jesus Christ.

unto fables. They prefer fables over truth.

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.” Titus 1:9

Holding fast. See also 2 Timothy 1:13. It is vital that pastors and teachers guard both the word and it’s owrds against opponents.

gainsayers. It is important to exhort those who believe the Word to act on it, and also to convince those who reject it, being ready always to give an appropriate answers to problems and objections (1 Peter 3:15).

* The Book of Mormon ridicules one who would make such a claim (2 Nephi 29:3) and denies that it contains all of God’s written revelation to man (2 Nephi 29:6,10).

2 Nephi 29:3: And because my words shall hiss forth—many of the Gentiles shall say: A Bible! A Bible! We have got a Bible, and there cannot be any more Bible.

2 Nephi 29:6,10: Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my awords; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

More could be said about how the Book of Mormon does not agree with the Bible, but this is sufficient to show that one cannot take both as being the Word of God.

You’re not refuting the actual text of the Book of Mormon as discussed. Where does the Book of Mormon contradict the Bible?

Cold Steel on April 6, 2008 at 7:00 PM

This is just for you Cold Steel. So I don’t have to hear you whining anymore that I didn’t answer your question (which I actually did here but whatever)

Read the next post underneath this for the answer:

Congratulations on your engagement and your intellectual blessings. It is a wonderful blessing to find one’s helpmeet and to make covenants with her. I wish you nothing but the best. I’m in a hurry now, so I will look at your provided links later.

P.P.S (since we’ve been discussing religion). I just finished watching–I keep terrible hours–a lovely film, God Is Great, And I’m Not (Dieu est grand, je suis toute petite), a comedy (but not an entirely frivolous one) about a young woman looking for religion, who starts dating a non-observant Jew and becomes (though will it be permanent?) more Jewish than he. (It stars the extremely sympathetic Audrey Tautou, and is quite different from that other charming, more well-known work she’s in.)

P.P.P.S. (The other night I saw The Kite Runner. What a beautiful film; I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The final scene, and the final six words, had me bawling the most cathartic weeping I’ve had in years.)

Indulge me for a minute, please, to sing of my dear one’s virtues. I had despaired of ever finding a right girl for me, let alone the right girl. And I certainly never imagined that my friendship (which was instant and sincere) with this gorgeous Dutch girl (two inches taller than me, eight years younger and a hundred times better looking) would ever become romantic; but somehow Lachesis smiled upon me and brought us together. She (my girl, not Lachesis) is kind to every person; gentle and humorous; tremendously intelligent, but wears it lightly and is friend to all. She lights a room up (to use a trite, but apt, image) with her smile and eyes. Every old Greek woman who’s met her has praised her for her virtues and me for being wise enough not to let her go. She’s been speaking English since she was four, and speaks it more naturally and fluently than I do, plus German, French and Greek.

This Summer we’ll spend in Columbus, and then in the Fall we start our doctoral programs: she at Harvard in Mediæval Greek, concentrating on hagiography and editing; I at Ohio State, with MA in Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) and PhD in Hellenic Studies (Ancient-Mediæval-Modern Greek), with my dissertation on how the stories of Troy were read at Byzantium (especially in the twelfth century). We’ll have Summers together, and weekends here and there, and then in half a decade from now will take whatever academic jobs are available (in America, England, Europe or Australia), write and teach, and start producing beautiful bilingual children (English-Dutch, of course). (If we’re in America, we will under no circumstances, by the way, send them to a government school, like the awful ones I went to.) Please wish us luck, as we will need it, and I wish the same to you.

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I can’t bear to say a single thing more to these silly Puritans (who I fear, in their thumping of their Bibles and their keyboards, are in danger of bursting a blood-vessel). I was going to pass over the fact that, when I’d said “you and the LDS both have the KJV and yet interpret it differently” Apocalypse responded with “that’s wrong, because we both have the KJV, but they interpret it differently”. (As I said before, neither he nor his partner in all this–whom he perhaps should admonish for the latter’s making use of books from the Ethiopian canon–is an Aquinas or Maimonides.) But I’ll return for just a moment to answer your friendly question on my favorite topic… me!

Bambi on April 7, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I can’t bear to say a single thing more to these silly Puritans (who I fear, in their thumping of their Bibles and their keyboards, are in danger of bursting a blood-vessel). I was going to pass over the fact that, when I’d said “you and the LDS both have the KJV and yet interpret it differently” Apocalypse responded with “that’s wrong, because we both have the KJV, but they interpret it differently”. (As I said before, neither he nor his partner in all this–whom he perhaps should admonish for the latter’s making use of books from the Ethiopian canon–is an Aquinas or Maimonides.) But I’ll return for just a moment to answer your friendly question on my favorite topic… me!

I’m currently proofreading a catalogue of mediæval musical manuscripts from the National Library of Greece (and correcting the horrendously inaccurate English translations therein). But by far the most important thing in my future is my wedding this May (in picturesque and historic Leyden) to my beautiful Byzantinist girlfriend. We met while doing our MPhil’s in Mediæval Greek and were formally engaged at the summit of the island on Lake Pamvotis, outside Joannina, in front of a little church, which was locked, with no-one there but us.

Indulge me for a minute, please, to sing of my dear one’s virtues. I had despaired of ever finding a right girl for me, let alone the right girl. And I certainly never imagined that my friendship (which was instant and sincere) with this gorgeous Dutch girl (two inches taller than me, eight years younger and a hundred times better looking) would ever become romantic; but somehow Lachesis smiled upon me and brought us together. She (my girl, not Lachesis) is kind to every person; gentle and humorous; tremendously intelligent, but wears it lightly and is friend to all. She lights a room up (to use a trite, but apt, image) with her smile and eyes. Every old Greek woman who’s met her has praised her for her virtues and me for being wise enough not to let her go. She’s been speaking English since she was four, and speaks it more naturally and fluently than I do, plus German, French and Greek.

This Summer we’ll spend in Columbus, and then in the Fall we start our doctoral programs: she at Harvard in Mediæval Greek, concentrating on hagiography and editing; I at Ohio State, with MA in Classics (Latin and Ancient Greek) and PhD in Hellenic Studies (Ancient-Mediæval-Modern Greek), with my dissertation on how the stories of Troy were read at Byzantium (especially in the twelfth century). We’ll have Summers together, and weekends here and there, and then in half a decade from now will take whatever academic jobs are available (in America, England, Europe or Australia), write and teach, and start producing beautiful bilingual children (English-Dutch, of course). (If we’re in America, we will under no circumstances, by the way, send them to a government school, like the awful ones I went to.) Please wish us luck, as we will need it, and I wish the same to you.

P.S. Happy Birthday! Was that on Sunday? That was my sister’s birthday too! (We made “Crème Brulée French Toast”. It was easy but super-yummy.)

P.P.S (since we’ve been discussing religion). I just finished watching–I keep terrible hours–a lovely film, God Is Great, And I’m Not (Dieu est grand, je suis toute petite), a comedy (but not an entirely frivolous one) about a young woman looking for religion, who starts dating a non-observant Jew and becomes (though will it be permanent?) more Jewish than he. (It stars the extremely sympathetic Audrey Tautou, and is quite different from that other charming, more well-known work she’s in.)

P.P.P.S. (The other night I saw The Kite Runner. What a beautiful film; I can’t recommend it strongly enough. The final scene, and the final six words, had me bawling the most cathartic weeping I’ve had in years.)