markomalley

Mark...

I have never asked you...are you a priest? Or just a well informed adherent?

I am a Lector and a catechist.

I like doing apologetics in my spare time (but don't worry, I'm not quitting my day job!)

**************ADVERTISEMENT*************

IF ANYBODY WISHES TO DEBATE A POINT OF

CATHOLIC DOCTRINE THAT THEY DON'T AGREE

WITH, I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ADDRESS

THOSE POINTS IN THE DOCTRINAL BASEMENT.

I DON'T VISIT THERE EVERY DAY, BUT AM THERE

ON A VERY REGULAR BASIS. THERE IS NO CHARGE

FOR THIS SERVICE.

**************ADVERTISEMENT*************

Thank you for your attention.

In The Purpose Driven Life, Rick Warren describes surrender as the heart of worship. It seems to be akin to submission.

In TWI we were taught never to surrender anything, especially our free will, to God or anything else, lest we become possessed with evil spirits. Yet, everything I've read and studied post-TWI seems to be indicating that surrender simply indicates that God is the boss, not me. I'm surrendering my own willful self to serve God and not my own desires.

Was this just semantics? My memory is fuzzy regarding the TWI teaching, and for a while all I knew was that alarm bells went off in my mind every time I read anything or heard anything taught regarding "surrender."

WG

I am not a Rick Warren fan.

However, in regard to your particular comment, if TWI teaches something, it's likely that it is wrong (they seemed to have that habit one way or the other).

The subject of submission is integral to a relationship with God in any fashion. Worship or otherwise. IF you make Jesus your Lord, that means that you are submitting to Him. If you don't submit your will to His will, then how can you say that you have made Him your Lord?

True worship, on the other hand, is moreso adoration than simply submission.

But isn't a sin a willful one, I mean is there a sin that is considered unwillful?? I know there are believers out there who have willfully sinned, I know I have, but I know the bible teaches that if we confess our sins, he willl forgive, because we are still beings of the flesh. I dunno, I am just trying to dispell some of the wrong teachings I have had. Becaue I desire to know as much of the truth as I can, so I can help speak it properly and without error or hypocrisy. And I do appreciate you guys taking the time to read and respond to my posts, this has been some stuff that has been bothering for some time now.

For a sin to be considered a mortal sin (a sin unto death, see I Jn 5:16), three factors must be present...

- it must be objectively grave matter (in other words, it must be really bad)

- you must know that it is objectively grave matter (remember Rom 5-7?)

- you must make a deliberate, free will decision to go ahead and commit the sin.

If you did something that was wrong, but you never knew it was wrong (nor could reasonably be expected to know it as a matter of common sense), that would be considered moreso a defect than a sin. God doesn't hold people accountable for what they don't know (or are reasonably expected to know). It would strain the person's relationship with God...

If you just came out and did something from sheer reaction, rather than making a deliberate decision, that would not really be something to which you would be held ultimately accountable. For example, if somebody waved his hand in front of your face and you, out of reflex, decked him, that is a whole lot different than you decking him without some provocation.

Likewise, somebody who is not in possession of his faculties would not be held accountable for that which he did wrong while he was not in possession of those faculties. (For example, you got wasted and started flirting with the barmaid. You would be held accountable for the decision to get wasted, but the flirting might be another issue, since you were not in possession of your faculties <<you were wasted>> when you did so.

Sorry, Im not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I know especially since I left the ministry, I have done willful sinning, I have even developed somewhat of a problem with smoking weed (is that considered a willful sin) with what I have read now, does that mean all hope for me is lost??? But even when I sin knowingly, I ask forgiveness and for grace and mercy. And this brings up another point, I was taught, as we all were, that when Hewbrews talks about there being no more sacrifices for them that have come into a knowledge of the truth, does that mean someone who has been taught the truth, but disregards it, or are we talking about a born believer. Again, I am sorry to keep this going, but I am doing my best to get through this and stomp out the fear I have of this subject. BEcause TWI had answered this question for me, but now I am unsure. A side note here, I had talked to Rev Shroyer before he passed, and he assured me that I was saved, he shared alot of the things that we have went over on this topic, but in the light of Christ died for me, I accepted him as my Savior, and am awaiting his return, and that salvation and enternal life couldn't be taken from me under any circumstance. I was also taught that when hebrews talks about there being no more sacrifices for the willfull sinner, it is because the ultimate sacrifice was already given by Jesus, and that a person could not be saved twice, once they accepted Christ, they were sealed, that Jesus was the bottomline sacrifice, jesus could not be crucified again as a sacrifice, because we already had all the forgiveness from sin from the sacrifice that God made avaible through Jesus's sacrifice. I am trying to do my best in be a better Christian, but I just have an ominious feeling that I may have already damed myself by what I have been doing, becaue my walk with God hasn't been exactly tight if you know what I mean. IF I have burned you guys out already, I understand if you don't want to post, this has been a very obsessive and fearful subject for me.

That is the key (the text I bolded).

You are still coming to God and depending on His mercy. As you seek His mercy, He will provide it abundantly.

dear potato

and

very very very :(

And the bishops who don't enforce Church law...enabling this to happen.

--

ps. mark your jokes were fantastic even though i didn't get through them all

but they do take away from real tragedy

Thanks!

I know this has been touched on here and there on the doctrinal forums, but I am still confused on what it means to Blaspheme the Holy Spirit. I mean I know the TWI take on the a person can chose to be born of either God's seed or the Devil's seed, and this decision to accept either seed is permanent and cannot be undone, but is this really the case. I have even went as far as to ask other people from other denominations, and I get even a wider array of answers such as blapheming the holy spirit is commiting sucide, or it is not accepting Christ as your savior. What also intrigues me is when CHrist spoke of this blaspheming, he said (to the acussing Pharasies) they are of their father the devil, is that because they didn't accept him as the son of God. Is it because they sought to murder him without any consideration that they might be actually murdering God's only son? There doesn't seem to be any clear cut scriptures about it. I have often wondered if we don't know what blasphemeing the holy spirit is, then how do we know we haven't done it, losing all hope of salvation and acceptance by God. TWI answer to this question was simply this: You can speak in tongues, so you are saved no matter what? ANd is that even possible, is being saved a one time deal, or is salvation something you can lose due to your carnal sins. BEcause I know I am not without sin, THis is the kind of stuff the keeps me up at night, but when I think of my everlasting life and existence with the heavealy Father, and that it might not happen, it chills me to the bone.

Welcome to GSC. And to the Doctrinal Basement.

You will find a host of different beliefs here.

The Church identifies six sins against the Holy Spirit:

Presumption (of forgiveness)

Despair (belief that your sin is too great to forgive)

Resisting the known truth

Envy of another’s spiritual good

Obstinacy in sin

Final impenitence (i.e., refusing to repent of sins until you die)

St. Thomas Aquinas has the following to say in his Summa Theologica (II.II)

Pope +John Paul II had the following to say about it (in the Encyclical Dominum et Vivificantem)

(In case you haven't figured this one out, I am the token Catholic around here)

If we take a look at the actual text of St. Matthew, we see the following:

12:31 διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν πᾶσα ἁμαρτία καὶ βλασφημία ἀφεθήσεται τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ἡ δὲ τοῦ πνεύματος βλασφημία οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται

12:32 καὶ ὃς ἐὰν εἴπῃ λόγον κατὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ ὃς δ' ἂν εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται αὐτῷ οὔτε ἐν τούτῳ τῷ αἰῶνι οὔτε ἐν τῷ μέλλοντι

I bring the Greek up here because of an interesting little tidbit in v. 32. When speaking about man, it says: εἴπῃ λόγον (eipon logos), but when speaking about the Holy Spirit, only the word εἴπῃ (eipon). The word eipon is the verb and refers to utterance without regard to the content uttered (thus the expression εἴπῃ λόγον eipon logos -- utter a word). It can also be considered a thought, as well (see Thayer's).

If you die prior to repenting of εἴπῃ κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ ἁγίου, then how can you be forgiven (consider I John)?

You will find that there are 2-3 people on this board who are publically Catholic. You will (probably not) find that there are a couple of others who are "in the closet" about it (as there are a lot who are vehemently against anything Catholic).

follows:

What's the difference between a Catholic and a Baptist? Catholics say "hi" to each other in the liquor store.

What's another difference: You can go fishing with just one Catholic. However, you must always go fishing with more than one Baptist. If you go with just one, he will drink all of your beer.

A man went to heaven and was being shown around by St. Peter.

As they went from cloud to cloud they came to various doors which St. Peter would open. One showed a large group rolling on the floor and talking in tongues. "Our Pentecostals" he said..

Next was a serious ritual. "Our Jewish persuasion" he replied.

Then another ritualistic service. "Our Catholics".

At the next cloud, he didn't open the door but instead put his forefinger to his lips in the hush motion and they both tip toed past.. Once past, the man asked what that was all about !? "Those are the Baptists", he explained. "They think they are the only one's here".

A man walks into the woman's section of a department store and tells the sales clerk he wants to buy a bra for his wife. "What type of bra?" asked the clerk. "Type?" inquires the man, "there's more than one type?" "There are three types," replies the clerk, "The Catholic type, the Salvation Army type, and the Baptist type. Which one do you need?" Still confused the man asked, "What is the difference in them?" The clerk responds, "It is really very easy. The Catholic type supports the masses, the Salvation Army type lifts up the fallen and the Baptist type makes mountain's out of mole hills."

Oh, and just to be fair:

In North Ireland a Protestant man married a Catholic woman. After their marriage he decided to covert to the Catholic church. So he went to the preist and took instructions and was later baptized Catholic.

He had one problem however. He couldn't get it into his skull that he was a Catholic man, and no longer a Protestant. This became such a problem that he returned to the priest and asked for some advice. The priest told him that if he was to repeat the phrase "I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant" enough times the idea might penetrate his thick skull. The man left mumbling to himself, "I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant. I'm a Catholic, not a Protestant."

The next Friday the priest decided to visit the newlyweds. He knocked on the door and was greeted by the wife. When he stepped in, he smelled something that should not be in a Catholic's home on a Friday. He asked the wife where her husband was, and she replied that he was in the kitchen. The priest walked into the kitchen and saw the man pouring thick brown gravy on a thick hunk of roast beef. Agast, the priest was about to explode when he heard the man mumble, "You're a trout, not a cow. You're a trout, not a cow."

Roy,

I think you should have given one more choice on the last question...after all, there may be some innies who would like to answer.

Otherwise, Great Poll!!!!!

(I understand I did a bit of an alarmist thread title...but I got you to look, didn't I?)

Source: Salt Lake Tribune, 1/18/2008

You can read the rest of the article (it gives a little more back and forth, but no real additional data).

Also, see Dallas Morning News article.

Or choose your article through Google.

So what do you think?

I would be proud to vote for a woman for office. A couple of figures come to mind: Margaret Thatcher. Jeanne Kirkpatrick. There are others, of course.

I would be proud to vote for a black man for office. A couple of figures come to mind: Michael Steele, JC Watts. There are others, of course.

I would prefer that race and sex would not be issues, but that a person's positions on the issues of the day were the determinants. But as long as 'race politics' and 'gender politics' are issues discussed during election cycles, the race and sex of the candidates will continue to be factors.

It's probably too late to way in on this discussion, but what Joey said

hit the mark with me, not the Malley Mark.LOL.

I too am fascinated in what people believe, and why they believe it.

If I found one person on this earth who shared the same beliefs I have,

I would be amazed. I mean all of them.

The RC's had their Marcion,{I think he translated some of the Epistles for them}.

They threw him out of the fold only to have him rival their church in numbers. He threw out everything

except Paul's letters.

It's been a long time on that read. and no I am not Marcionite.

I believe people who belong to denominations share beliefs, but not all the beliefs.

LOL. You are bringing up a bunch of history....discussions between the invisible one and myself...from a LONG time ago. Good times.

Even you Mark could get a good argument from a fellow Catholic.

Trust me, you have no idea....

Wife is on a pre spring cleaning kick.

...

Wife is sold out to way doctrine any balance would be helpful.

copenhagen

I fully support the concept of Burn the Chaff Day...

Start with all TWI books, notes, media (video/audio), and graphic training aids (posters, etc.).

Continue with the wife's clothes ('cept those she is wearing at the time).

Move on with the wife's objects d'art, knick knacks, crafts, etc.

After all, you are the man of the house. You make the rules (isn't that what TWI teaches?). If you say it's chaff, it's chaff. Who does she think she is to argue with you? (Again, isn't that what TWI teaches?)

You know all the chapters and verses that TWI uses to place women in subjection? Pull 'em out and apply them. Vigorously.

If she gripes, then tell her to knock it off with all the old TWI habits. If she wants to live 'em where they are convenient to her, she can live 'em where they are inconvenient, as well.

Spectrum,

TWI was a fraud.

Period.

Now we can discuss the merits of the different theological points adopted by TWI, but the fact of the matter is that each one of those was taken, without attribution, by VPW. You can look at any number of threads in the Doctrinal Forum to discover this for yourself. Use of the intellectual property of another without giving that other attribution is plagerism, pure and simple. Plagerism is a form of theft.

There are others who post here that would be better to detail exactly what was plagerized and from whom it was stolen than I could ever imagine to be. I am certain that they would be happy to again address the issue with you.

The original point of your post:

I can sympathize with your sentiments. I think that most of us were excited to be involved with a 'ministry' that had uncovered the truth as it hadn't been known since the first century and we were highly motivated to share it with others...

But we were defrauded. We were lied to. And we bought into it. Hook. Line. Sinker.

As others have stated, TWI was never about Biblical Research. TWI was always a cult of personality...with the leader being a liar, a thief, and a pervert. (Again, if you would like documentation of that, there are plenty of threads on this site that fully document that assertion)

You wish to stay in the mindset that it was a good organization with a good leader? OK, fine. That's your right to do so.

You wish to learn the truth about it? Look around.

There are plenty of folks here who still hold to many of the doctrines and practices taught by that organization but who, at least, now give credit where credit is due. If you wish to be a researcher, then you need to research how you were taught as well as what you were taught. You need to do so honestly as a real workman...

• Define what it is you wish to find out (e.g., what is Jesus' nature)
  
• Gather data from multiple appropriate sources...for example, to answer the above, you should look at:
  • the scriptures (both OT and NT)
    
  • what Jesus' contemporaries believed about him
    
  • what those who were closer to Jesus' time on earth believe about him (i.e., patristic writings). While those writings are not scripture, they will indicate what the author of the writing believed...(and, since the writings were preserved for up to 2,000 years, what a considerable group of folks believed at the time, as well)
    
  • what scholars have concluded over time (with that type of source, you can see if they effectively proved their point or not)
    
  • what other scholars say today (you can look at the methodology of the scholar to see if they formed conclusions based on a reasonable, logical, basis)
    

  [*]Form your hypothesis (What you think you should conclude from the above)

  [*]Try to disprove your hypothesis...using your data above.

  [*]Publish your theory and your proof (for example, on the doctrinal board at gsc) for critical review (trust me, if there are holes in your theory, there are multiple folks who will be happy to help you out here.

But any real researcher gives full credit to the ideas and people who came before him.

Ok, Mark Omalley, I clicked on your link to that Greek site, but I can't seem to copy and paste. Is there a special

way on that site? I signed up to be a member.

For the zhubert.com website?

I've always just highlighted the text, right clicked, and selected copy.

The one trick about that is since each one of the words points toward a hyperlink, you need to start your process of selecting so that your mouse is not directly pointing on the word, but a little to the right or to the left of the word (if you're using Windows, the cursor will change from an arrow to a finger -- or however you have it set up -- when it senses the hyperlink...if it is sensing the hyperlink, move your cursor slightly until it isn't, then hold down your mouse key and start dragging)

(That's not a special feature of that site, but is common to any web site you'll hit with your browser)

Hi Markomalley,

I'm quite certain that you are far more educated than me on these matters, but I still manage to have my own opinion. I'm fairly certain that there is a lot that we do not see eye to eye on.

I would prefer to focus on matters that we could consider together and might do us both some good.

(Believe it or not) I agree with you. Where I run into problems (and where I will disagree) is when somebody asserts something to be a teaching of the Catholic Church and it isn't or when somebody starts to assert something as objective truth when it simply isn't. Then I engage. (I don't even usually bother with trying to defend against the Whore of Babylon type comments any more...not worth my time (for the reason you cite below).

But for the most part, I would prefer to stay on a positive light and, where I insert something from Catholic teaching, it being something that might actually assist the situation at hand.

I would prefer to stay away from matters that we could probably argue about for quite some time without either of us changing our mind.

Your references to church history are fascinating and I don't doubt you one bit. I think that with the long and varied history of the catholic church there is probably many references to every religious topic under the sun. And probably from darn near every viewpoint too.

So for those who claim that dispensationalist views are the accurate and original (i.e., first century church) way to interpret the Bible, it can be proven that this is not the original way the scriptures were interpreted. It removes the authoritative claim used by the proponents of that method.

(Now if somebody wishes to still advance that method of exegesis they are more than welcome to do so...and it can be judged on its merits, as compared to other methods used by exegetes)

The manner in which I consider history in such a large church is that everything is written somewhere, but often what people are thinking about and doing may have been influenced by contemporary events. It is easy for me to imagine the events in 1967 you told me about as POSSIBLY influenced by more recent events. It's also easy to speculate on that for me but practically impossible to prove one way or the other for me.

That's a very valid point. And if I was really studying the subject, I would try to find some members of that group in 1967 and interview as many of them as I could...in order to discover where their influence came from for myself. But I brought up the history lesson in order to show that, contrary to what many have taught, spiritual 'gifts' have been provided throughout the history of the Church, since the day of Pentecost. It helps put things in perspective.

Another recolection I have of a few members of Catholic clergy is that I met a few men who were not afraid of saying to me that they thought the "VATICAN 2" writing were a travesty, or words to that effect.

For me this brings to mind the consideration that even though the history and the writings in church histories may be varied, that faith and practice is often controlled mostly by the pope in the catholic church. Historically speaking practice has often been much more limited than the scope of the writngs on any particular topic. I tend to think that it's not possible for a church to practice everything that's written in Catholic archives, simply because it's too much.

I understand, and for a doctrinal discussion...unless it is a defense, specifically, on a teaching of the modern Church, you won't find me referencing modern (post 1054 AD) sources. That is for the reason you state. But if you actually look at it, though, you really don't find a Pope making any radical changes in doctrine. New applications based on changed situations (e.g., Pope Leo XIII published several teachings on the dangers of socialism in the middle of the 19th Century...the doctrine was not new but the application was because of a different situation that had come up)

I do not intend any of this to be an attack on the Catholic church, but as simple observation and consideration Mark. I hope that it doesn't seem like an attack to you at any rate. I find your historical references fascinating.

Appreciate it.

And you might actually want to check out St John of the Cross. I say this not as an effort to proselytize, but because you might get something out of his readings. And, since they're so old, they are in the public domain!

OK, Apparently, I can see my Greek lettering, but yu'all can't? RATS!

Ok, Mark Omalley, I can see your Greek letters. All right, what was wrong with my HTML code?

Marketing? Whatever are you talking about Sushi?

There are two ways you can do it. First is with the HTML font tag, like you used. Problem is, the person reading the page has to have that font installed on his computer. Most people don't have it instsalled.

The second way is to use extended ASCII. See this link.

ASCII(235) = δ, ASCII(224) = α, and so forth.

The easiest way to input it is to hold the alt key and then use your numeric keypad to enter the ascii number.

(Of course, I copied/pasted from a website, but that's a different issue. ;)

<font size=4><FONT face=GraecaII><b><i>jEn ajarc\/h oJ lvogo~ |h pr;o~ to;n qeovn, kai; qeo;~ h\n Jo lvogo~<</b></i></FONT face></font size>

Well, we'll figure out the rest. Hallelujah!

Try this:

ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

So will that print the words for the numbers? In other words, will it convert say, 123.52 to the string "One Hundred Twenty-Three Dollars and Fifty-Two Cents?" Or something like that? If so, it's a heck of a lot easier to do in Excel than in VB. :)

And Jim, I just looked at your link. The logic there looks very similar to what I wrote on my own. I wish I had looked that up, I could have copied and pasted and saved myself a couple hours worth of work.

Rick

I guess it would help if I read the request. No, that would just change to a character format. But it should still be possible to do it with a user defined function that could be put into normal.xls.

In fact, there is: see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/213360

Sorry for the confusion.

Could be...but he was probably not the first to try to silence the "other half". The list of 'considered' books that I have seen is amazingly long. And I am fairly certain that it is not complete.

One difference is though that he (Luther) tried to cut them out after they were established as part of the Canon of Scripture, not as part of the culling process that resulted in the formation of the Canon of Scripture.

I think the discution of the canon of the scripture is fascinating but I am content with the protestant bible even though I have a Catholic version on hand that I use for reference and comparison.

I think the issue comes up particularly when one deals with a 'sola scriptura' (by the Scriptures alone) attitude. What is Scripture? What is Apocrypha? What is Pseudographia?

If I quoted "faith without works is dead" (cf James), a person who followed Martin Luther's lead and excised James from the Canon could completely disregard it. The same thing comes with the treasures within the 7 books of the OT that were removed.

(Having said that, it's far better to stress on what is common vice what splits us and then move forward)

Do you have a web link or a book to recommend to me where I can read this? I'm not doubting you on the contrary you have piqued my interest. I'll google it but I want to be certain that I am looking at the same document as you.

Early Christian Writings -- the Didache

For a good collection of patristic writings, I'd refer you to the Christian Classics Ethereal Library or New Advent.

Happy reading!

When I was in The Way, all I knew about was what The Way was doing.

I was NOT aware of global Christian happenings.

Today I find myself in a similar bubble of ignorance.

So.... my question is not what is everyone believing?

But what are people doing?

What do you know about what Christians DOING around the world to show compassion.

"And Jesus was moved with compassion"

For example,

The local church I currently attend asked for volunteers to help with flood victims.

Can people in cyberland share with me some Christian leaders or ministries that are making on impact around the world by what they DO?

A food bank

Lots of scholarships for the local parish school (and many of the recipients aren't even members of our parish or even Catholic -- my daughter's best friend -- a Lutheran -- was a recipient)

Use of parish facilities for a homeless shelter during the winter (in conjunction with other ecclesiastical communities in the town)

counseling for the living victims of abortion (the local 'Project Rachel')

assistance for single mothers (the local 'Gabriel Project')

Administration of a local food distribution scheme for low income families (the Share Food Network)

Assist with operations of a local soup kitchen (part of the Elizabeth House project)...again, with other local ecclesiastical communities in the area.

If you'd like to see a synopsis of what we do at the parish level, you can click here.

If you'd like to see a synopsis of what we do at the diocesan level, you can click here.

And, of course, there are the national groups like Catholic Charities, Catholic Relief Services, and Catholic Campaign for Human Development.

Obviously, the attitude does not quite line up with that put forth by TWI.

While I give little doctrinal weight to the writings of the RC saints, I think that what Mark posted is signicifant

in that it shows that some people in the Western Church had at least a general/cursory understanding of some

of the things that VP claimed hadn't been known since the first century.

I also find Church history and tradition somewhat facinating for the simple reason that it can help us understand

how and why many Christian doctrines were developed - and how many have evolved -- from the time of the

apostles through both the RCC and Eastern Orthodox Church's into Proterstantism and now in to modern

Evangelic & Pentecostal Christianity -- and other current movements such as the now popular and growing

"prophetic movement and even stuff like "Jews For Jesus".

I guess I am just very passionate about the Bible. I see so many contradictions in what "The Church" teaches" as opposed to what the Bible says. After leaving the way, I wondered around various churches, and I got into reading my Bible. And I saw just so much...at odds with each other. I decided one day that I would try my best to obey the Bible. Put my trust in God. Be accountable. Stop the Grace game...I got called, now I want to be chosen. I want to endure till the end. I realized that for me, the best way is through the straight and narrow path, rather than the broad and wide road, if you get my drift.

It's been a blast,

RachelYsrael

You know, Goey, the funny thing is that I don't know of any doctrines of the Church that don't have their origins from scripture or, at a minimum, from "pre-Nicene patristic writings." (although I honestly can't think, off the top of my head, of any actual doctrines that do not have their origin at least alluded to in the Scriptures.

For example, the belief against abortion is alluded to in the Scriptures, but it is explicitly condemned in the Didache (dating from around 75-80AD): "You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born."

So does that place the Didache as the source of the belief? No, the belief that a child in the womb is alive is scriptural, and thus we can conclude that the intentional termination of that life is a murder...but the Didache tells us that at least the group of Christians who wrote and maintained the document held that belief strongly, as well.

It's funny that restorationist groups like TWI talk about wanting to return to the beliefs of the early Church and get rid of all the pagan Romanist influence, and in the interpretation of scripture, they will look at a bunch of references like "manners and customs of the Bible...(generally written in the 19th and 20th Centuries...2000 years after the early Church)...but they consistently refuse to look at early Patristic writings (written in the time of the early Church and before "Constantine paganized Christianity"), which would actually show what the early Christians believed and how they practiced! For a true restorationist, I would think that they'd be passionate about referring to the pre-Nicene Fathers so that they could get it right and get rid of the modernist influence on religion.

But, hey, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...

Rachel,

I would strongly encourage you to get a copy of the Mishnah and study it along with the scriptures...it will greatly strengthen your understanding of how Christ fulfilled the OT prophesies and will help explain a lot of what was written in the NT.

But, again, I'm just a dumb Papist, so what do I know...

What post got deleted?

use the text formula

=text(value to be converted,text formatting to be used)

Then if you need to get rid of the formula, just copy the resultant cells and "paste special" the values only.

If you need to do more than one cell, just make sure to not use absolute cell references and drag/copy&paste, etc., as required.

Two links:

http://www.htmlcodetutorial.com/

http://www.w3schools.com/

The HTML Code Tutorial site is easier to use and a better quick reference (IMO), but the W3Schools is better to "learn" code. It has tutorials for HTML, XHTML, CSS, XML, XSL, SOAP, javascript, etc.

One word of warning, though...not all HTML codes work reliably here (if that's why you're asking).

For example, the <P> tag produces some strange results.