Acts and Peter's theology

Page 14 of 14 • Prev 1 ... 9 10 11 12 13 14

Switch to Forum Live View Acts and Peter's theology

1 year ago :: Apr 29, 2012 - 3:30AM #131
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,877	Dave Apr 29, 2012 -- 12:16AM, davelaw40 wrote: you had to use the Texanism? You couldn't have gone with Don't kid a kidder? LOL! I appreciate the sign of indulgence embedded in embedding my quotation ... ... and no, the tamer expression would not have been as effective, in view of the ... er ... substance matter ... er ... touched upon on the previous posts ... MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 30, 2012 - 10:56AM #132
Adelphe Posts: 28,569	Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: LOL! Spectacular evasion! Let's add the question mark, so the lady has no doubt that it is a question. What does Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelic-scholastic philosophy have to do with Scripture, let alone Sola Scriptura? Why don't you check with him? He started the entire Summa Theologica with it: First Part (Prima Pars) Sacred Doctrine GENERAL: The nature and extent (1) of sacred doctrine. Let's make it even more direct. What does ridiculing Thomas Aquinas' "arguments" have to do with "trashing the word of God"? [Patiently...] I was simply following the rather obscure Danish scholastic philosopher's--and his #1 fan's--argument to its logical conclusion... A ... er ... highly cultural quote is in point ... “Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter.” ― Carolee Dean, Take Me There MdS Is there a difference? Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 30, 2012 - 11:05AM #133
Adelphe Posts: 28,569	Apr 28, 2012 -- 5:33PM, Iwantamotto wrote: Ed.W: "Murder" is unjustifiable homicide. I think Jesus' death was justified in the mind of God. I don't think Christianity gets to have it both ways. It says Jesus' death is justified but then goes on and on and on villifying everyone involved in the execution and calling shenanigans on the charges levvied against Him. It's justified for what it paid for--eternal redemption. And "No one takes it from Me but I lay it down of My own accord." Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 30, 2012 - 12:27PM #134
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,877	Apr 30, 2012 -- 10:56AM, Adelphe wrote: Apr 28, 2012 -- 8:04PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: ... What does Thomas Aquinas' Aristotelic-scholastic philosophy have to do with Scripture, let alone Sola Scriptura? Why don't you check with him? He started the entire Summa Theologica with it: First Part (Prima Pars) Sacred Doctrine GENERAL: The nature and extent (1) of sacred doctrine. First, if the lady had bothered reading what she cites, instead of merely linking it, she would have (perhaps ...) understood that what Thomas Aquinas calls "sacred docrtine" is NOT Sacred Scripture per se, BUT the theological-philosophical study of Sacred Scripture: “Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. ” [Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?] Second, interesting how the lady extols Thomas Aquinas, the champion theologian-philosopher of the Catholic Church, the Doctor Angelicus, as though the authority of his theological-philosophical Summa was (almost?) on a par with Sacred Scripture. ... What does ridiculing Thomas Aquinas' "arguments" have to do with "trashing the word of God"? ... I was simply following the rather obscure Danish scholastic philosopher's--and his #1 fan's--argument to its logical conclusion... The logical conclusion had already been drawn ... er ... unexpellably, by the rather obscure "Danish scholastic philosopher" in his Theofæcia, his magnum opus, on strictly theological-philosophical ground, clearly moulded on the Aquinas' own theological-philosophical argument, quoted with generous emphasis by the lady at her post #113 [#] ... [#] Actually the lady either deliberately or inadvertently misquoted, because her "quotation" is NOT from Thomas Aquinas, BUT from a summary of the teaching of the "learned Dominican theologian Bañez (1528-1604)" (see Grace, Actual and Habitual, by Joseph Pohle, 1919, page 232, ebook #29540 @ gutenberg.org). All this may well lead to the conclusion of the primacy of the argument of the rather obscure Danish scholastic philosopher ... “Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter.” Is there a difference? Probably not. That's why, once again, it would be wise for the lady to stick to the (colorful) Texan adage ... MdS Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 30, 2012 - 12:56PM #135
Adelphe Posts: 28,569	Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:27PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: First, if the lady had bothered reading what she cites, instead of merely linking it, she would have (perhaps ...) understood that what Thomas Aquinas calls "sacred docrtine" is NOT Sacred Scripture per se, BUT the theological-philosophical study of Sacred Scripture: “Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. ” [Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?] Second, interesting how the lady extols Thomas Aquinas, the champion theologian-philosopher of the Catholic Church, the Doctor Angelicus, as though the authority of his theological-philosophical Summa was (almost?) on a par with Sacred Scripture. Er, pardon me for not directing you specifically to the specific article(s) in Question 1. I erroneously assumed what is apparently an entirely lacking familiarity with it (which, btw, would have quickly rectified itself (and privately...) if you bothered at all to review it...) The logical conclusion had already been drawn ... er ... unexpellably, by the rather obscure "Danish scholastic philosopher" in his Theofæcia, his magnum opus, on strictly theological-philosophical ground, clearly moulded on the Aquinas' own theological-philosophical argument, quoted with generous emphasis by the lady at her post #113 [#] ... Exactly why the rather obscure Danish scholastic philosopher remains obscure to this day. [#] Actually the lady either deliberately or inadvertently misquoted, because her "quotation" is NOT from Thomas Aquinas, BUT from a summary of the teaching of the "learned Dominican theologian Bañez (1528-1604)" (see Grace, Actual and Habitual, by Joseph Pohle, 1919, page 232, ebook #29540 @ gutenberg.org). I certainly did not misquote. I said Aquinas "solved it." Of course you'd have to know something of his Summa(s), his Five Ways, etc... Probably not. MdS Excellent! I finally get an answer to this. Interesting. Interesting, indeed... Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe. Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen.
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?
1 year ago :: Apr 30, 2012 - 8:27PM #136
Miguel_de_servet Posts: 16,877	Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:56PM, Adelphe wrote: Apr 30, 2012 -- 12:27PM, Miguel_de_servet wrote: First, if the lady had bothered reading what she cites, instead of merely linking it, she would have (perhaps ...) understood that what Thomas Aquinas calls "sacred doctrine" is NOT Sacred Scripture per se, BUT the theological-philosophical study of Sacred Scripture: “Hence theology included in sacred doctrine differs in kind from that theology which is part of philosophy. ” [Whether, besides philosophy, any further doctrine is required?] Second, interesting how the lady extols Thomas Aquinas, the champion theologian-philosopher of the Catholic Church, the Doctor Angelicus, as though the authority of his theological-philosophical Summa was (almost?) on a par with Sacred Scripture. Er, pardon me for not directing you specifically to the specific article(s) in Question 1. I erroneously assumed what is apparently an entirely lacking familiarity with it (which, btw, would have quickly rectified itself (and privately...) if you bothered at all to review it...) This is nothing but *ignorance* shrouded in *obfuscation* ... The logical conclusion had already been drawn ... er ... unexpellably, by the rather obscure "Danish scholastic philosopher" in his Theofæcia, his magnum opus, on strictly theological-philosophical ground, clearly moulded on the Aquinas' own theological-philosophical argument, quoted with generous emphasis by the lady at her post #113 [#] ... Exactly why the rather obscure Danish scholastic philosopher [&] remains obscure to this day. A phrase is missing here [&], something like "had already drawn the logical conclusion". The "logical conclusion" was made clear by the rather obscure "Danish scholastic philosopher" with a ... er ... substantial instance of the "Power of God as Prime Mover": “... every time men (and also women) have a BM, it is ultimately God, as First Cause and Unmoved Mover (Greek: kinoun akinetos; Latin: primum movens), that relieves himsef ...” [#] Actually the lady either deliberately or inadvertently misquoted, because her "quotation" is NOT from Thomas Aquinas, BUT from a summary of the teaching of the "learned Dominican theologian Bañez (1528-1604)" (see Grace, Actual and Habitual, by Joseph Pohle, 1919, page 232, ebook #29540 @ gutenberg.org). I certainly did not misquote. I said Aquinas "solved it." Of course you'd have to know something of his Summa(s), his Five Ways, etc... LOL! The lady's obfuscation and *chuzpah* have certainly reached new heights, with this latest ... er ... "*explanation". Oh, BTW, lady's seems to be blissfully unaware* that BOTH the Jesuit Luis de Molina (1535 -1600) and the Dominican Domingo Báñez (1528 - 1604) claimed allegiance to Thomas Aquinas and his Summa, although their "systems" could not be more at odds ... “Don't try to bullshit a bullshitter.” Is there a difference? Probably not. Excellent! I finally get an answer to this. Interesting. Interesting, indeed... ... that's why, for the umpeenth time, it would be wise for the lady to stick to the (colorful) Texan adage ... MdS Moderated by Adelphe on Apr 30, 2012 - 08:41PM Revelation is above, not against Reason “The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27) “Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9) “By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6) “Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1) “Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38) “For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13) “Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)
Quick Reply Cancel Quote message in reply?