Yes, He did.
However, it would appear that little of what he said was actually written in Aramic. If it was, you will find a transliteration of it in the Bible (although I could be wrong, I can't seem to find actual references to any lengthy passages in Aramic).
For example, Matthew 27:46(NIV) - About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?"--which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Otherwise, it's Greek. I might also point out that a small portion of the Old Testament was also in Aramic, but only a very small portion of it.

I would like to actually see evidence that this passage was originally in Aramic, and not reverse-translated to it.

So the church is "male"? Sorry, that doesn't fly well with the rest of the Bible, which clearly shows that God looks at the church as a female entity, and himself as a male entity. Ephesians 5:25 - "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her."

I'm confused. Even if all you said is true, how did it establish the heirarchy of the Catholic church?

You know, you might've been more convincing if you got your information from a more neutral site.

By their compassion and love for God. See below. I direct you to a small church in Kansas City, Missouri that has not stopped worshipping since September 19, 1999. It's 24-7 worship, even when there's harsh weather, even in tornados. It doesn't stop. Prayer is on a similar shedule, although not quite 24 hours a day. And their worship is not just singing a single song over and over or something. It's spontaneous, it comes from the heart, it's Biblically based. If you want to check it out their music, there's a link at the bottom of my sig. Those songs were given to me by a prayer leader from my church, who was "trained" at the House of Prayer in Kansas City.
I challenge you to find another place of any religion or denomination that does the same, anywhere in the world. That's true devotion to God.

Yes, but not to an extreme.

• I do not believe that God only communicates with figureheads.
• I do not believe that God communicates to others through figureheads. It is mentioned many times in the Bible that Christ desires a relationship with his beloved, which removes any need for figureheads other than Christ.
• I believe God speaks to the hearts of all who listen, and that whatever he tells you can be backed up with scripture. (If it could not be backed by scripture, how could you know if it's really from God and not Satan or your own thoughts?)
• I do not believe that Mary was assumed into heaven.
• I do not believe she has special position in heaven.
• I believe God chose her to bear Christ because He knew she would be faithful to do it.
• I do not believe in praying to the saints. Communication with the dead is forbidden in the Old Testament (I think in Leviticus), no exceptions.
• I do not believe in purgatory. There is no Biblical support that it exists.
• I believe any damage done to a person's saved spirit by sin is dealt with on earth. (For example, if you get drunk, go out driving, and trash your car, all consequences of that action are on you immediately.) Because of that, there is no need for purgatory.
• I believe that Jesus died once and for all for our sins, also negating the need for purgatory. The Bible says he tosses our sins as far as the east is from the west. The distance between east and west cannot be measured.
• I believe that it is faith in Christ that saves you, not belonging to a specific church or denomination.
• I believe that a person's true heart (both in faith and not in faith) is revealed by their actions, not by empty words.
• I believe that worship is a cycle. God demonstrates his love for us when we first demonstrate our love for Him, which in turn makes us want to demonstrate more love for Him, and continues in such a fashion, unless we break the cycle. (I'm using "we" to indicate we as individuals, not we as a collective group.)

That covers most of the basics of my beliefs, I think.

Oh the irony.

Please... stop trying to elevate yourself above everyone. It'll never work.

Man. Get over yourself.

I have to use Catholic resources, since anyone who isn't Catholic probably disagrees. Asking me to use non-Catholic resources is like asking you to find a true Catholic resource that says something contrary to official Church teaching.



No -- that paragraph doesn't say that Peter is the church. It says that upon him, the church would be built. =)


It, combined with tradition/history, establishes Peter as the first Pope.

For sola scriptura, you either are or you aren't. Sola scriptura means "by scripture alone" -- you can't be 'partially' "by scripture alone."


Neither does the Catholic Church..so we agree there.

I agree with many of your beliefs -- but doesn't the old testament also say that you should stone disobedient children?

Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. Basically you used a lot of words to tell everyone that I said something. I disagree that pointing out someone's ignorance is an ignorant act in and of itself. Ignorance carries a negative connatation, but its definition is not negative at all.



Wait, I'm the one who needs to get over himself? Gold. Pure gold. I think you might have some wires crossed. Usually, the person that arbitrarily excludes over 50% of the population as potential dates is the person who needs to get over themself.

But nice attempt. I can really see your point. Or not...

Yes, you do need to get over yourself. The decision to limit who you date based on your religion is far from arbitrary, it takes a lot of strength and faith to follow through on. You seem to be the only one in this entire thread that's hell-bent on starting a flame war. Everyone else is able to (at the very least) agree to disagree. Those who are debating are doing so in a civil manner. Please learn to respect the beliefs of others without insulting them. To do otherwise shows ignorance.

Fixed.

Yeh, I'd date someone from another religion as I don't have one myself, although I don't think I'd date someone who is really hardcore into their religion as I like to curse and drink.

Wow. Your epidermis* is showing.

*read: ignorance

What if they were a hardcore cursadrinkian?

I really have mixed feelings on the subject. On the one hand, if I actually loved someone enough to get into a serious relationship, I'd like to think religion would be a minor issue. But on the other hand, I've seen what can happen in this kind of a situation. One couple in particular, the wife was Christian and the husband wasn't. He's 'converted' (I hate that word) now, so everything's fine for the moment, but their difference in beliefs nearly tore them (and their family) apart. So quite honestly, unless you're willing to compromise your beliefs, I wouldn't recomend it.

For anyone who doesn't mind a good bit of reading, and possibly having to consider other viewpoints, this is a most informative critique on Petrin Succession:
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/peterpope.html

Interesting -- but the majority of Protestants believe in sola scriptura, so rejecting part of the Bible as inaccurate or not historical would be catastrophic to their beliefs. =)

This is also a long read, but has a lot of historical references:
http://www.cfpeople.org/Apologetics/page51a066.html

I don't like women who are taller than 5'6". I prefer almond-shaped eyes, high cheek bones, and an oval-shaped head. Oh, boy. How much of the population did I just exclude? Excuse me while I go stew in my ignorance.

Hands off my lady Wolfy! I'm watching you!

But yeah, there's a big difference between preferring something and excluding. I think most people are figuring it out now.

Some people are saying 'My religion says to stick to our own' and are doing so. Fair play to them, if that's their cup o'tea.

Others are saying 'Despite what my religion says, I see myself sticking to our own, because it'll avoid some complications'. Which is a good point, and also leaves room to move in case that special someone who isn't from your religion takes you by surprise.

Some even say 'Bollocks to what my religion says, I'll do what I like'. I imagine if I was religious I'd fall somewhere between this one and the last.

And then there's people coming from the other side of the argument saying things like 'I don't date religious nut-jobs' which I think is fair enough personally, because those that do act like that are not what I'd see myself spending time with.

(As it happens my girl goes to church, I'm agnostic, and there is no problem - we coexist very happily let me say)

So unless I've missed something, there's very little left to argue about.

And there's a good chance I have missed something, because I'm a spaz

OOOoOooOooo... I like girls too, man we have so much in common!

It's your loss, and it's not fair to those who might have had a happy life with you.

Let me put it this way: would you date and marry a homosexual man? Why not? It's your loss; you're denying all those men out there who could have enjoyed a happy life with you. How ignorant of you to deny them that opportunity.

Religion, sex, hair color, body type -- anything and everything is a discrimination against someone else when you hold a preference. You make a choice, and you exclude all the others. If you don't, you end up like this:

Hahaha, thats a very good point Wolfy.
I'd find it hard going to be in a relationship with a strongly religious person.
This isn't the only reason, but:
How would you raise the kids? If you were an atheist and your partner a christian, what would you say when little Timmy asks about God?

Ask your mother.

Wolfy, you're comparing a Jew marrying a Christian to a heterosexual marrying a homosexual. By definition, the homosexual and the heterosexual are incompatible due to their sexual preferences. That's a ridiculous analogy.

And many people are completely incompatible with each other due to their religious preferences. For some reason you keep trying to define TYPES of preferences where no difference exists. A preference is a preference no matter what you're talking about. I can't for the life of me understand why you can't see this from someone else's perspective. You're still trying to force your viewpoint on everyone here. We get your point, even if we don't agree. Please drop it already.

No. I'd never date someone that didn't share my views on God, because God is a huge part of my life.

So when's the last time he did anything for you other than tell you to shun people?

Did a girl just recently turn you down because of your religious affiliation or something, Freelancer? I mean, chill out. You seem to be taking this very personally.

So some Christians don't want to date Jews; some Jews don't want to date Christians. Some Democrats don't want to date Republicans; some Republicans don't want to date Democrats. Some sports fanatics don't want to date sports-haters. You get the point.


I'm pretty sure no one in this thread is talking about completely shunning those of other religions. I'm sure they are friends with those with different beliefs. However, some feel uncomfortable entering into a close, intimate relationship with someone who does not share the belief system that very well may consist of the core of their worldview. *shrugs*

I'm only going to say it one more time; so you're a Christian and you won't date a Jew? Is there anything wrong with the Jew? No.. they're a perfectly legitimate, wonderful person if you'd only get to know them, there is nothing wrong with them. There's something wrong with you. Applying blanket conditions to everyone only ensures that you propagate an unchristian attitude and hurts everyone including yourself.

Refusing to date someone because they're not Christian, my god.. Not only is that very hurtful and awkward, but I can hardly see Jesus doing something like this:

Woman: "Hey Jesus, I was wondering if maybe you wanted to hang out sometime. Maybe we could go see a movie?"

Jesus: "Okay... but.. are you Christian? You know, the whole church and god forbidding dating non-christians and stuff..... "

Woman: "........"

Jesus: "Nothing personal."

[Woman walks away]

Absolutely ridiculous. And just imagine something similar happening in a high school hallway somewhere. Talk about awkward. You wanna know why it's so awkward? Because it's so goddamn ridiculous and taboo.

You completely ignored what I just said. I am not talking about totally shunning those with different beliefs. No one is advocating that people of different religions should not or cannot be friends. What is being discussed is the fact that some people don't want to be in an intimate relationship in which their beliefs come into direct and daily conflict with their significant other's. Why can't you respect someone's personal decision?

And just for the record, Freelancer: I'm a Christian and my girlfriend of two and half years is agnostic. So obviously I don't have a problem dating someone with different beliefs. However, I can accept those who choose otherwise. I don't necessarily agree with them, but I'm not going to bark and rant at them either.

Actually, no. I'm talking about a date. As is the original poster of the thread. As is the poster above me. Denying a petty date to someone just because they think a different way than you? Not only is it arrogant to suggest your system is right and they're wrong by denying them a date, but it's not tolerant, not rational, and not nice.

Yeah, I would, unless there were extreme compatability difficulties. Beggars can't be choosers, and I'd assume this applies to most of ya'll.

Wuss, I suggest ignoring Freelancer. He is completely close-minded to someone else's point of view. He thinks that because he would date anyone, that everyone else in the world should feel the same way. Maybe if we ignore him long enough he'll go away?

I had a whole thing typed up, and I realized there was a much easier way of going about this.



(emphasis mine)

How is that statement any different than saying, "As long as my prospective spouse shares my worldview and religious beliefs, it's all good"? You're excluding anyone who considers their religion to be a vitally important to their lives. Furthermore[/b], that's quite the arrogant assumption that you could possibly ever mean enough to someone else to make them decide to cast aside their religion just for you.

Hahahaha... nice. Yeah, if they're a biotch like you described there wolfy, there wouldn't be a second date. But certainly a first.

That picture is pure excellency. :]

=)

that proves it freelancer, we're just better!

and to bump this annoying thread of lauras and to increase the level of ignorance... i say...

if she aint at least half oriental, slightly mad, and satanic/nonreligous.... GET OUT OF MY SIGHT!!

done.

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

I'm sure that a site about secular humanism would be completely unbiased doing a study of that nature. Who exactly performed the study and how did they sample the people involved? Where is the raw data? Was there even a study or did this guy make up his info? Next time try to find something from an unbiased third party with as much info as you can find. Most "studies" are crap.

So, sorry but your article will have to be completely disregarded until you can show that it's valid.

How does that refute my argument?

It doesn't...

Date? Yes, and I have. It's not serious enough for it to matter to me. My last girlfriend was (is) a very devoted christian, whereas I'm pretty strongly atheist. It worked quite well, although that's not to say it didn't complicate things slightly. But the relationship was on a level that I don't think it really became a real issue. But if we were to ever have started discussing marriage, you can bet it would have come up.

Okay then Crimson, it is impossible to validate anything on the internet with your logic.