Mary ascended bodily?

You have a very shallow view of history.

 

You have a very shallow view of history.</font>[/QUOTE]Considering the Catholic Church is the original Church, founded by Jesus Christ, I'd say he's pretty accurate, actually.

God bless,

Grant

 

Or it's correct.

God bless,

Grant

 

DHK,

MEE

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The catholic teaching that they are the one original church is a lie. Sorry if you believe it, Grant, but it's still a lie.

 

Wrong, wrong, wrong. The catholic teaching that they are the one original church is a lie. Sorry if you believe it, Grant, but it's still a lie.</font>[/QUOTE]Or perhaps what you believe is a lie, Brother Curtis. And perhaps I'm right. I'm sure not sorry that I believe it. Why would I be sorry for believing the TRUTH?

God bless,

Grant

 

When you believe the truth, you won't be sorry.

 

I guess that's why I'm not sorry then! Thanks for strengthening my Catholic faith!!!

God bless,

Grant

 

I guess that's why I'm not sorry then! Thanks for strengthening my Catholic faith!!!
</font>[/QUOTE]Your faith ought not to be strengthened, but rather shattered. You are like the followers of Jim Jones who refused to believe anything outside of what good old Jim would tell them. Likewise the followers of David Koresh didn't get them very far either when they believed only David. The Mormons believe only the writings of Joseph Smith, and some of his predecessors, and the SDA's believe only the writings of Ellen G. White. There is no objective Bible study with most of these cults. They believe only what their founders tell them to believe, and they believe it blindly. So does the Roman Catholic like yourself. It seems that you are afraid to dig into history, and find out the truth for yourself. Maybe, just maybe, it might have an effect on you. Or it might hurt your pride by showing you how wrong you have been. Why don't you try it.
DHK

 

DHK,

What if I spent my whole life studying Church history...and I came to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was the original Church, founded by Jesus Christ. The fact of the matter is that you would still tell me that I was wrong. So all this talk about open-mindedness and objectiveness really should just be thrown out the window, because being objective means coming to the same conclusion that you have. All other conclusions are wrong.

Thanks Jim Jones...err...DHK.

God bless,

Grant

 

"A man convinvced against his will is of the same opinion still."

If I could prove to an atheist that the resurrection was an undeniable fact of history, and without doubt historically true. If I could lay out all the evidence before him that he would need to believe, The question would remain: Would he accept my evidence? Probably not.
You are the same way.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

The fact is that you very well could be wrong, in fact you are wrong. But you are afraid to look at the facts. And even if you did look at the facts, and they convincingly told you the truth--that the Catholic Church began in the fourth century, never was the true church, you wouldn't believe it anyway. You are afraid of the truth.
DHK

 

DHK,

These facts you have are not facts at all. You're leading a horse to a desert; there ain't no oasis. It's a mirage.

You can keep claiming to have the facts all you want. I hardly see all historians jumping onto your bandwagon.

God bless,

Grant

 

You must be very thirsty for the truth then.

I never said all historians would. You have your biased RC historians. But how about looking into some classic church historians like Philip Schaff's Church History, or Thomas Armitage, A History of the Baptists.
DHK

[ January 27, 2003, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: DHK ]

 

DHK,

I'm sure your historians are 100% unbiased, being a "History of the Baptists." I mean, what would I be thinking?

Yours aren't biased, but mine are. That point is crystal clear.

Now, if only it had any weight to it.

God bless,

Grant

 

I must point out something here. I am a Baptist and up until now I have been fully convinced of Baptist doctrine. But if you read a history written from a Protestant perspective, aren't you just as guilty as the RC who reads RC historians? Aren't both going to be biased to some extent? To me, reading a Protestant viewpoint is no more objective than reading a RC viewpoint.

Also, why does there need to be sarcasm and remarks of someone else's spiritual life? Is anyone going to be won over by that? I struggle with it at times, but sarcasm does far more harm than good.

Neal

[ January 27, 2003, 04:24 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Neal,

Sorry for employing sarcasm. But sometimes I feel like there is nothing else I can do, because my belief is by nature wrong in DHK's eyes. In doing so, he negates his comments about the necessity of being objective. I simply don't see how he justifies following both.

God bless,

Grant

 

Grant, that wasn't directly intended for you. You just happened to post right before I did.

Neal

 

At least I can say that I have read the other side. I have read the RC commentaries, the Church Fathers. I am not closed minded as you are. The sad fact here is that you, like so many cults, refuse to even read the other side of the story. You are know only one side of the coin, and that is all that you care about--right or wrong.
DHK