Jump to content

Vance

Contributor
  • Content Count

    6,361
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vance

  1. That depends on whether you are only counting elapsed time or actual time available to him to work on it. Surviving alone in that time and under his conditions required a lot of his time. He was no trust fund baby.
  2. Like as in what is know today, rather than what was known in the early 1800's Presentism. Plus write in such a short time without significant edits. Ha!
  3. Interesting that you should say that. Claiming the existence of an unbroken line of authority isn't the same as having evidence for one. Just so you know. Matt. 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand: Mark 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand. Luke 11:17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. There you go again. Sorry, but that still doesn't change the fact that they are divided and have been for nearly a millennium. The explanation for neither being in a state of apostasy is rather dubious. So, what we have here is you, with whatever constructs you came with, attempting to dismiss my constructs without considering them (ethnocentric-like). Bravo!!!
  4. Interesting that you should bring that up. Edited to add. Now if you think about it, the "razor" can be modified to eliminate this. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence"; this statement, if not supported by evidence can be dismissed without evidence. The second part is now evidence for the first part, so now the it can't be dismissed without evidence. Thanks for helping out here.
  5. I agree, and would go further (as a Latter-Day Saint who accepts Joseph Smith as a Prophet from whom we get Moses \ Never mind, we don't need to divert this thread. I agree, although I am not impressed with some of the later doctrinal "fruits", I think the Catholics do a lot of good in the world. But you have taken it back to where it always goes===> FAITH. Well, eventually the good guy does show up, but until then, we are all in for a he## of a ride. I am your friend as well.
  6. So, when an Orthodox Bishop consecrates (ordains) other bishops does he get the approval of the Pope? Does the Pope give permission to Orthodox Bishops? Does this mean that If Martin Luther would have been a bishop, then the Lutherans wouldn't be considered Protestant?
  7. I didn't claim that either Church claimed otherwise, so I was not telling you what you believe. But, I did provide (above) evidence against your claim. I suspect that a little research could uncover more evidence. I would agree with you that their priesthood authority is equally valid. Ok. I am glad that I didn't do that.
  8. Your logic is flawed, but for the sake of discussion let's stipulate that "the true church" includes a subset of "the Catholic Church" and another subset of "the Orthodox Church". Then how do you exclude the existence other subsets?
  9. I have gotten bored with so much of the stuff being posted of late. To much of the Homosexual stuff, which I can't comment on without getting in trouble. . . . . I understand that the difference. But I could argue that absence of evidence IS also evidence of absence, it is just NOT PROOF of absence. If absence, then no evidence. Here is the deal. 1. The replacement of Judas by Matthias was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. 2. The opening of teaching of the Gospel to the gentiles was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. 3. The calling of Saul (Paul) and Barnabus to the ministry was a big deal, it was done openly in the church and documented in scripture. I suspect I could come up with more, given time. The transfer of authority from Peter and/or Paul to some entity/person in Rome would have been A VERY BIG DEAL, but . . . it wasn't done openly in the church nor documented in scripture. Based on this pattern, absence of scriptural (or other documented) evidence, it can indeed be construed as evidence of absence, just not proof of absence. Just saying.
  10. That is one point I am making. The Hitchen's razor comment was mostly tongue in cheek. He provided no other. Well, that and the fact no evidence is provided. We also have the legal phrase "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" to consider. Sorry but only one can be the true church, so either one or both are not. You need to expand on what you are trying to say. You need to explain why. Well, contrary to the statement he made, I did find this, The first minute can be skipped without missing anything. Actually you haven't provided any evidence to support this claim. Well, DUH. Obviously, some ideas and ways ARE better than others. The fact that you haven't figured that out yet speaks to your lack of experience. See above. He was trying to apply a position to me that I neither expressed nor implied. He provided no evidence, and I stated that there was no first hand documentation available to support his claim. Since a negative can't be proven, all he has to do is provide a single first hand document to prove me wrong. If one existed, the Christian world would know about it. That is why it is so funny. Go back and read my post. I did dismiss them. Apparently you missed it. You should have seen my signature line before my recent changes.
  11. Absence of evidence IS absence of evidence. You have no evidence ergo, Hitchens's razor can be applied here, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". The claim is hereby dismissed.
  12. The fact that they ARE separate entities IS prima facie evidence that one (or both) are in apostasy, whether either one of them acknowledge it or not. Just saying.
  13. Too bad that neither Peter nor Paul, both capable of doing so, wrote any letters to the church in general, nor to the Romans in particular, that they had done so. This reminds me of a line from a movie, that goes something like this, "If it isn't documented, then it didn't happen."
  14. Interesting statement. But your assertion the "There never was an apostasy", is not supported by "the greek orthodox and catholic churches have clear lineages to the time of Christ", even if that were true. Hitchens's razor can be applied here. "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence". AND, quite frankly, the fact that two distinct and separate entities (often at conflict with each other), BOTH (claiming to) "have clear lineages to the time of Christ", is prima facie evidence that having a clear lineage to the time of Christ is not a bulwark against apostasy. Just saying.
  15. There is no reason to think there might be hermaphrodite Gods. So I am not sure why you would think I might be trying to say that. Welcome aboard.
  16. So Jesus spends the evening with two sisters and the Pharisees and the lawyers don't go cuckoo with all kinds of accusations of sin and misdeeds? Must have been some kind of legitimate relationship there. Again, just sayin.
  17. To me the word "God" is like the words sheep, deer, elk, quail, moose etc. It is both singular and plural. So, it would be correct to say, "There are male Gods and female Gods". If we include the previous verse it clears it up even more. Gen 1:26 ¶ And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. It would also be correct if it said. Vance 1:26 ¶ And the Gods said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So the Gods created man in their own image, in the image of the Gods created they them; male and female created they them. Or in other words, Abr 4:26 And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them. Again, just sayin.
  18. Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. I think it is clear that the image of God is both male and female. Just sayin.
  19. Regarding the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea . . . . Currently both are below sea level. The Sea of Galilee is about 700 feet below sea level and the Dead Sea is more than 1300 feet below sea level. Currently, for water to run from the Dead Sea to the ocean the water level would have to rise more than 1500 ft. and then it would flow over Afula and past Haifa into the Med. That would cause the two bodies of water to merge into one.
  20. I liked this one, https://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Paul-Richard-Lloyd-Anderson/dp/1590387295
  21. I notice that you didn't either. Is it because you can't? You could start by showing where in the Bible it says that God is "immaterial".
  22. Let's just call it what it really is, "immaterial material". The interesting thing to me is that when the term "immaterial" was coined, it referred to things like, spirit, breath, and wind (from the Greek word "pneuma"). Let us get out of the dark age science and just admit that "immaterial" doesn't mean what people think it means.
  23. I noticed that Mouw made no Biblical defense of the "orthodox" position, nor did he provide a Biblical based justification for rejection of the "LDS" position. I am thinking it is because he could do neither.
  24. In addition to that verse there is this one. Heb 5:4 And no man taketh this honour unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. Is it ok to call someone you usurps the authority of God a blasphemer?
  25. The later portions of this debate were posted in another thread. JW does misrepresent the beliefs of others (ok, he lies about them). He claims to "know" LDS doctrine and history, yet he doesn't act like it. Also, either he is not really familiar with Hebrew OR he is willing to let his debating partner misrepresent it. Letting a false information stand without correction is to perpetrate a deception. I think the "kid" did well, but he let a few false premises get introduced without question.
×
×
  • Create New...