D
dumbox1
Guest
I miss him already, the big galoot. 
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Adam, is that the best you have to offer. How about some serious rebuttal, with substantiating evidence. Are you up to it? </font>[/QUOTE]He is. Problem is you're not. You already told Carson that you refuse to acknowledge or read _published_ work relevant to your claims. If you're too busy to read a book why should Adam waste his time thinking you'll read a post? </font>[/QUOTE]He is up to it, as long as we don't waste his time with the same old tired and ignorant arguments. 'Scuse me while I drive a truck through that loophole...Originally posted by Harley4Him:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jmgainor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Brother Adam:
jmgainor,
Your website is a joke.
Sincerely,
~A historic Baptist
Originally posted by Mark H.:
I miss him already, the big galoot.![]()
#1. Carson majors in "argument inabsentia" on this board as "a pattern" rather than the exception.Originally posted by jmgainor:
I am fully aware of all of the arguments, and have addressed them in the Papacy Uncovered website. I have far more important things to do than to read the same arguments all over in StephenRayspeak. It was a lazy and cheap shot on the part of Carson.
Carson, there's hundreds of years of popish propaganda out there. Of course, I'm sure you believe that Stephen Ray has originated some new stuff that I need to get caught up on. I've asked you to post his arguments that you find compelling. You say that you don't have the time. I like to put my time to the best use I can as well. At the moment, I am able to use some of my time here to discuss what I consider to be important issues, and to share some of my understanding with those for whom it may be helpful.Originally posted by Carson Weber:
Hi Mike,
With my workload at the St. Paul Center for Biblical Theology, fostering a relationship with my girlfriend, helping a group of individuals become Catholic on campus, and studying for comprehensive exams while completing my final projects before my looming graduation date, I am unable to spend much more time on this website this Spring.
If you have an open mind that isn't afraid of the learning process, I would encourage you to read Stephen K. Ray's Upon This Rock and see if, after reading it, you can still honestly say, "I think I am pretty familiar with the arguments. The Rock on which the Church is being built is Christ, and not Peter ... all of the Peter = (the) 'rock' arguments are found to be unpersuasive when looked deeply into. They are all built on specious and shallow reasoning—assuming conclusions that are founded on false premises. They are subtle enough to fool the masses, but can't stand up under scrutiny."
It's just a suggestion for you whose thesis aims to uncover the papacy. You should know the best arguments out there by reading the best Catholic apologists, and I put forward Steve as one of the best when it comes to the Petrine ministry.
Thanks Bob,Originally posted by BobRyan:
It gives the reader a clear picture of the strength of the debate on each side and is "instructive" to all but the most blinded devotee of tradition and mythology.
In Christ,
Bob
GS,Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You have the same sources I did. I was mistaken on the ellipsis. Other sources used it; yours does not. Which is correct?
Those links help me none in scholarship. For all I know, one posted it falsely and others copied it. If your website is authoritative, you should be able to point me to where I can find it in print to verify it and its context.
GS,Originally posted by jmgainor:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by GraceSaves:
You have the same sources I did. I was mistaken on the ellipsis. Other sources used it; yours does not. Which is correct?
Those links help me none in scholarship. For all I know, one posted it falsely and others copied it. If your website is authoritative, you should be able to point me to where I can find it in print to verify it and its context.
Originally posted by GraceSaves:
GS,You move from possibility to certainty, yet you seek others to trust you? You said it was "unlikely" to be kepa/kepa, yet what the Catholic Church says is a "lie." That doesn't follow. At your best, you could say "you continue to believe their interpretation/theory." Unless you have undeniable proof, you are hardpressed to accuse of lying.
Quite the contrary. You are attempting to take the sin of which Rome is guilty, and accuse me of it. Where have you *ever* seen them tell you that it is unlikely that petros/petra was kepa/kepa; but that is was more likely kepa/shua? They *always* push the kepa/kepa theory as though it were an 'undeniable fact'. In so doing, they are lying to you.
I have at least told you what the possibilities and probabilities are, and provided you with the evidence upon which I have based my opinion. You can draw your own conclusions. Of course, you can also simply play the puppet, and let Rome continue to pull the strings.
GS, I posted 4 links for you, which I figured would be enough. I had a whole list of further links that use the same quote, but I thought 4 would be enough. You are so crippled by papal idolatry that you cannot bear the thought that something that is born witness to by several sources could possibly be true if it makes your 'pope' look like he was/is in error.Originally posted by GraceSaves:
Thanks for verifying that. I was correct in my assertion. Valid references are unimportant to "scholarship" after all. Heaven forbid I ask you to verify information. Doing so makes me a follower of "demons and deceit!" Thanks for the incite.
Priceless! Who could make this stuff up?!Originally posted by jmgainor:
Oh, BTW, does your employer allow you to post on this board on company time?
And they said doing drugs was bad!Originally posted by jmgainor:
Popery has turned you into a mental and emotional cripple, who is incapable of seeing the light, and dealing with reality.
Bob, I'm fully aware that it's not an easy bondage to break out of—especially for one who was born into and raised in it. At least, that was my own experience. It is so deeply engrained into the heart that Jesus made Peter the first pope, and so on..... through today. What set me free was the reading of the Scriptures, which, of course, provide all the authority and basis upon which to place one's faith "in the Word", rather than in the whole 'church' structure. But, even with the Word, and the Holy Spirit, I still had to go through some real traumatic upheavals in my own heart and spirit. I literally had to break all the old foundations of who/what I was, and to lay a new foundation in Christ. Of course it was worth it. The passage comes to mind that says "He is able to do exceedingly abundantly above all that we can ask or think". Beyond that, words fail.... Awesome!???Originally posted by BobRyan:
Mike -
You're welcome.
I have to admit that among the RC posters I have found very few with a stomach for actually addressing the difficult points made in a challenge to their traditions.
Bill Putman and a very few others have provided the exception to that rule - at least they will go a short distance with detail-level discussion before they jump off into "I can't hear any more details - I have run out of responses to them".
In Christ,
Bob