Still scoffing!

One suggestion I would have would be to educate yourself a little about the Scriptures, particularly Daniel & Revelation.

Anyway time will tell.

So far the scoffers have been right, every single one of them, for the last two thousand years!

So maybe these aren't the last days. Sometime people scoff because the thing they're scoffing need to be scoffed at.

I suspect that when the end actually does draw near, there won't be too much doubt about it.

I believe the Tsunami was a sign of shifting tectonic plates. This is a natural process.

I'm  honestly  beginning  to  think  that  the  end  is  near.

There have been people in every generation since the one contemporary with Jesus that have said the same thing!

They have all been wrong, for the last two thousand years.

The doomsayers of this generation who say we are in the "End Times" are wrong too!

Rev 6:2-8 "And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer. And when he had opened the second seal, I heard the second beast say, Come and see. And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword. And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand. And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine. And when he had opened the fourth seal, I heard the voice of the fourth beast say, Come and see. And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

Rev 19:11 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war".

Rev 19:14 "And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean".

2Kings 2:11 "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven".

2Kings 6:17 "And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha".


Well it appears there are plenty of horses in Heaven, so why not cats and dogs? Maybe the odd ferret or pig, gerbil, hamster or rat? Probably not any snakes though.

 
 
 

[[an]]

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

To 'borrow' a quote from someone else:

"Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against [an] individual ...."

(bold is my addition)
 

Er, how is that a slam exactly? Honest criticism is what it was. Personally I don't feel too much like slogging through Petro's unorganized, unfocused, poorly written and poorly presented posts. If he actually wants people to pay attention to what he says, he should put forth some effort.

dyskolos,

You said Bethlehim, was not a city, the Bible says it is a city, and I have shown you two verse that plainly tells us both names refer to a city.

No doubt you believe the teaching of this Jewish website, otherwise why would you make such a claim.

Oh brother. Not much point in continuing, is there? The only 'teaching' I'm concerned with on that website is about written Hebrew. Clearly you didn't even bother to check it out. Sadly you don't seem to understand what our 'discussion' was about.

Yes thanks I read the thread and I knew the context of your remark.

And yet you responded and in a rather snide way. Hmmm....

Seems to me that this is just such a minor thing and you have beaten it way past death

Sorry you see it that way. You could always ignore it and go on to something that you find worthy of your time.  

Even though I am not a Catholic, I find this Catholic-bashing kind of upsetting and really kind of un-Christian, so I choose not to ignore it.

Don't call the Pope 'Holy Father' if it bugs you so much.

Petro in the first place you haven't 'corrected' any of my 'presumptions'!

In the second place, the post above the one addressed to me, I have to say, it seems rather sad...and kind of desperate.

It's clear you are quote mining from your probably rather large collection of bookmarked anti-Catholic sites. You know, the ones that call the RCC the Great Whore of Babylon and such.  Can't you find one with some more up-to-date material? I mean, a couple books and a pamphlet from the 40's and a book from 1917! Are the pickings really that slim?

Plus, how about taking some pride in your presentation? The spelling,  punctuation, and grammatical errors actually make your posts difficult to read.

Here's a free add-on for Internet Explorer that you can use to spell-check:

http://www.iespell.com/

dyskolos,

It is not the individuals it is the teaching espoused, it is errorneous, and not scriptural.

"If they do not believe there own saints and popes, how can they expect anyone else to believe them??.."

Your comment here isn't about any 'errorneous' teachings, it is a slam against individual Catholics.

[this man]

My answer would be,

1. They didn't assume the MAN had sinned before birth, they assumed the MAN was somehow punished or misfortuned due to sin his PARENTS had commited.

"And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

They definitely asked if this man had commited a sin causing him to be born blind.

Yes thanks I read the thread and I knew the context of your remark.

Seems to me that this is just such a minor thing and you have beaten it way past death

What's the deal with all the Catholic-bashing on this forum?

With all the issues and challenges facing Christians today, don't you think that trying to hold your brothers and sisters in Christ up to ridicule is maybe not the best way to spend your time?

I'll say this for the Catholics - they haven't split themselves up into thousands of different denominations, like the Protestants.

Sorry I don't see where your response answers the question.

Why did the disciples assume that the man could have sinned before birth?

Why did Jesus not correct this assumption?

[John 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him".]

I'm curious what people make of this passage:

John 9:1-3 "And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth. And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him".

The disciples ask Jesus if the man could have commited a sin that led to his blindness. Since the man was born blind, the obvious question is when could he have commited such a sin?

It seems clear that the disciples are assuming that the man might have commited a sin in some pre-natal state, and Jesus doesn't correct them on this, He just says no the man didn't commit a sin that led to his being born blind.