So now learning makes men evil? Learning about other religions and belief systems (nothing is said about defending or accepting them!) makes someone untrustworthy? Having a "sacramental view of life" (which all Anglican scholars would have, I expect - including the translators of the KJV) means we should dismiss someone's comments. Alright - since you seem to know everything about everything, I therefore dismiss you as evil and untrustworthy, and will reject anything you say. Whew, thanks!
-
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!
Westcott and Hort...
- Thread starter michelle
- Start date
Michelle, why did Dean Burgon and Charles Spurgeon, who were contemporaries and personally knew Westcott and Hort (and knew them infinitely better than you do), never made such claims against their character and beliefs, but in fact respected them and accepted them as fellow believers, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
This site Michelle cited in the opening post:
http://www.historicist.com/
calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
//Historicism exposes the Rapture, ecumenical
and future Anti Christ promoters for what they are,
supporters of the true Anti Christ, the office of the Papacy.//
I don't like my Sister Michelle being run
down like that
Goodness knows i need all the help i can
get with Pretrib Rapture support
http://www.historicist.com/
calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
//Historicism exposes the Rapture, ecumenical
and future Anti Christ promoters for what they are,
supporters of the true Anti Christ, the office of the Papacy.//
I don't like my Sister Michelle being run
down like that
Goodness knows i need all the help i can
get with Pretrib Rapture support
--------------------------------------------------
Michelle, why did Dean Burgon and Charles Spurgeon, who were contemporaries and personally knew Westcott and Hort (and knew them infinitely better than you do), never made such claims against their character and beliefs, but in fact respected them and accepted them as fellow believers, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism?
--------------------------------------------------
I don't know. That is something you would have to ask them.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Michelle, why did Dean Burgon and Charles Spurgeon, who were contemporaries and personally knew Westcott and Hort (and knew them infinitely better than you do), never made such claims against their character and beliefs, but in fact respected them and accepted them as fellow believers, even when vocally disagreeing with some of their approaches to textual criticism?
--------------------------------------------------
I don't know. That is something you would have to ask them.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
--------------------------------------------------
This site Michelle cited in the opening post:
http://www.historicist.com/
calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
//Historicism exposes the Rapture, ecumenical
and future Anti Christ promoters for what they are,
supporters of the true Anti Christ, the office of the Papacy.//
--------------------------------------------------
So what. I have been called the same or worse by many here.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
This site Michelle cited in the opening post:
http://www.historicist.com/
calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
//Historicism exposes the Rapture, ecumenical
and future Anti Christ promoters for what they are,
supporters of the true Anti Christ, the office of the Papacy.//
--------------------------------------------------
So what. I have been called the same or worse by many here.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'm not sure i meant that. But if you will say it,Originally posted by natters:
Ed, you mean the creator of that historicist website is spiritually three french fries short of a happy meal, and has an agenda of smearing anyone even if it means spreading untruths? Big surprise.
I'll chime in with a:
Amen, Brother Natters -- Preach it!
--------------------------------------------------
Ed, you mean the creator of that historicist website is spiritually three french fries short of a happy meal, and has an agenda of smearing anyone even if it means spreading untruths? Big surprise.
--------------------------------------------------
Just as many in the mv camp are spreading lies, but to which are much more serious.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
Ed, you mean the creator of that historicist website is spiritually three french fries short of a happy meal, and has an agenda of smearing anyone even if it means spreading untruths? Big surprise.
--------------------------------------------------
Just as many in the mv camp are spreading lies, but to which are much more serious.
love in Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour,
michelle
http://www.historicist.com/ (used by Michelle to support her views) calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
What do they know that we don't know? Nothing.
What do they know that we don't know? Nothing.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I'd rather believeOriginally posted by Dr. Bob:
http://www.historicist.com/ (used by Michelle to support her views) calls Michelle a "supporter of the true Anti Christ"
What do they know that we don't know? Nothing.
Sister Michelle whom i know, than
some unknown www.historicit.com that
i don't know at all.
Let us suppose that there is some truth to those claims made by what appears to be legitimate historical statements concerning Wescott and Hort. In particular their inclinations toward Rome.
This has always been the view of the high-churchmen of the CofE.
Many veiled their true allegiance to the Pope particularly when a “Protestant” king or queen sat on the throne and did their “duty” rather than lose their own head.
One of the accusations in these sites is that W&H were sacramentalists subscribing to a sacerdotal priesthood. But so was every good Anglican with the exception of low church evangelical wannabes.
Every Anglican churchman with the title of “bishop” (including those on the KJV committee) were sacerdotal priests ordained by the Church of England. They practiced an Anglican form of the Mass calling it the Celebration of the Eucharist, a Sacrament, substituting the doctrine of Consubstantiation for Transubstantiation to provide a double-think word for the romish doctrine of the Real Presence.
Our anabaptists brethen were killed or tortured for speaking out against these romish doctrines and practices.
What is the point?
Not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk as well.
King Henry 8th and King James persecuted, tortured and shed the blood of believers these are facts of history
The test of a true believer in 1 John is double-barrel. Not just doctrinal but practical as well.
These kings and churchmen broke all the commandments of love.
How therefore could the love of God dwell in the hearts of these men?
If W&H are to be condemned for what they believed, what about the Church of England Anglo-Catholic hierarchy including those on the KJV committee for the bloodshed of believers because they cherished their own translation above the King and his bishops?
Ironic isn’t it that from the AV1611 contains the following translation of the Word of God:
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
What is the implication of this post?
Is it not the same as your implication concerning Wescott and Hort?
HankD
This has always been the view of the high-churchmen of the CofE.
Many veiled their true allegiance to the Pope particularly when a “Protestant” king or queen sat on the throne and did their “duty” rather than lose their own head.
One of the accusations in these sites is that W&H were sacramentalists subscribing to a sacerdotal priesthood. But so was every good Anglican with the exception of low church evangelical wannabes.
Every Anglican churchman with the title of “bishop” (including those on the KJV committee) were sacerdotal priests ordained by the Church of England. They practiced an Anglican form of the Mass calling it the Celebration of the Eucharist, a Sacrament, substituting the doctrine of Consubstantiation for Transubstantiation to provide a double-think word for the romish doctrine of the Real Presence.
Our anabaptists brethen were killed or tortured for speaking out against these romish doctrines and practices.
What is the point?
Not just to talk the talk but to walk the walk as well.
King Henry 8th and King James persecuted, tortured and shed the blood of believers these are facts of history
The test of a true believer in 1 John is double-barrel. Not just doctrinal but practical as well.
These kings and churchmen broke all the commandments of love.
How therefore could the love of God dwell in the hearts of these men?
If W&H are to be condemned for what they believed, what about the Church of England Anglo-Catholic hierarchy including those on the KJV committee for the bloodshed of believers because they cherished their own translation above the King and his bishops?
Ironic isn’t it that from the AV1611 contains the following translation of the Word of God:
14 We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death.
15 Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.
16 Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren.
What is the implication of this post?
Is it not the same as your implication concerning Wescott and Hort?
HankD