|
Post by billbo1970 on Jul 11, 2003 7:13:38 GMT -5
God first, Bible, then tradition Bibliolotry Definition: The term bibliolatry is derived from the word idolatry, or the worship of idols. Thus, bibliolatry refers to the worship of the bible - taking it so seriously and so literally that it becomes the entire focus of religious devotion, even to the exclusion of everything else. Fundamentalism is often accused of engaging in bibliolatry. I fear that, when Christ comes, if He does one small thing that goes against the teachings of "Bible-believing" Christians, they will shake their own bibles in his face, just as the pharisees did. Their bible too (their interpretation), became more important than God Himself. So, they failed to recognize him. Only his sheep will know him. It will be the same at his second coming; His sheep will know him. God bless Spoken like a true Rc.
The simple fact is that Jesus broke no commandment or He would have been a sinner and NOT SATISFACTORY as our Sacrifice.
You really need to get rid of those Rc gpkmtyolles and see tyhe truth of God's word for yourself. There have been tens of thousands of people who have seen the light and left that corrupt, Satanic inspired institution.[/color][/quote] Gene, relax brother. That last sentence really wasn't necessary! Truth in love Gene, truth in love. I know that the Catholic church teaches some things that we do not agree with, but the truth is that there are some born-again catholics.
PIC, Bill [/color]
|
|
|
Post by billbo1970 on Jul 11, 2003 7:15:43 GMT -5
I say "almost" because I don't have time to read and see if the B.Cat. is accurate with the scriptures, which I'm pretty sure it isn't. [/color][/quote] When you say something, and then go on to say your statement isn't based upon actual proof, it makes the reader question ALL of your statements, not just this one. Be careful in your posts Gene.
PIC, Bill [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:18:35 GMT -5
Brian wrote: If there is truly a chair of Peter, why didn't he know to indicate it in writing? The doctrine evolved later, so how can it be claimed that he was the infallible representative of Christ on earth who would have successors with similar power? Why did the idea of the power of the bishop of Rome have to develop in the church, rather than get asserted in writing from the very onset? If it were that important, it would have been indicated in the various epistles of the Bible to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not spelled out in the NT, so this is not a very good argument. God bless Not a good argument? Why not, does it make too much sense? After all, it seemed necessary to forge a document that the Roman church used for centuries to further it's ambitions. If a written document claiming Peter as a pope isn't necessary, then why was a forgery necessary?[/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:24:50 GMT -5
Spoken like a true Rc.
The simple fact is that Jesus broke no commandment or He would have been a sinner and NOT SATISFACTORY as our Sacrifice.
You really need to get rid of those Rc gpkmtyolles and see tyhe truth of God's word for yourself. There have been tens of thousands of people who have seen the light and left that corrupt, Satanic inspired institution.
Gene, relax brother. That last sentence really wasn't necessary! Truth in love Gene, truth in love. I know that the Catholic church teaches some things that we do not agree with, but the truth is that there are some born-again catholics.
PIC, Bill
It is harsh and blunt, but nevertheless, TRUE!! [/color]
|
|
|
Post by genesda on Jul 11, 2003 7:28:55 GMT -5
I say "almost" because I don't have time to read and see if the B.Cat. is accurate with the scriptures, which I'm pretty sure it isn't.
When you say something, and then go on to say your statement isn't based upon actual proof, it makes the reader question ALL of your statements, not just this one. Be careful in your posts Gene.
PIC, Bill
You're right, I should have kept the people who don't know the Rcc and who is really behind it when I wrote.
It's just that people here claim to know the scriptures and if one knows the scriptures, then they should know what the Roman church is and should take offense at how God's word is changed and twisted there.[/color]
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:14:21 GMT -5
Brian wrote: The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not spelled out in the NT, so this is not a very good argument. God bless Not true. Read it again.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:17:12 GMT -5
You seem to be grasping here, Guide; Peter is the Rock; that's much clearer then the complex doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Your dodging my friend ;D God is the Rock. 2 Samuel 22:31-33 (KJV) As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. [32] For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God? [33] God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect.
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:29:13 GMT -5
God first, Bible, then tradition Bibliolotry Definition: The term bibliolatry is derived from the word idolatry, or the worship of idols. Thus, bibliolatry refers to the worship of the bible - taking it so seriously and so literally that it becomes the entire focus of religious devotion, even to the exclusion of everything else. Fundamentalism is often accused of engaging in bibliolatry. I fear that, when Christ comes, if He does one small thing that goes against the teachings of "Bible-believing" Christians, they will shake their own bibles in his face, just as the pharisees did. Their bible too (their interpretation), became more important than God Himself. So, they failed to recognize him. Only his sheep will know him. It will be the same at his second coming; His sheep will know him. God bless Spoken like a true Rc.
The simple fact is that Jesus broke no commandment or He would have been a sinner and NOT SATISFACTORY as our Sacrifice.
You really need to get rid of those Rc gpkmtyolles and see tyhe truth of God's word for yourself. There have been tens of thousands of people who have seen the light and left that corrupt, Satanic inspired institution.[/color][/quote] Have you considered approaching this with more tact?
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 11, 2003 9:32:48 GMT -5
Have you considered approaching this with more tact? What do you mean? That was tactful for Gene!
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:33:56 GMT -5
Well, if that's all they would miss, then their salvation would almost be assured. I say "almost" because I don't have time to read and see if the B.Cat. is accurate with the scriptures, which I'm pretty sure it isn't. [/color][/quote] It is accurate concerning the person and work of Jesus. It is not accurate on how to get saved, but who is to say that a person would not get convicted of sin and feel an intense need for Jesus in his life? Being shipwrecked would be a case where it would be easier to trust 100% by faith, not on works. Oh, and you'd probably disagree with the Baltimore Catechism where it explains the ten commandments. I think it said the RCC has the power to change the Sabbath.
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 11, 2003 9:37:36 GMT -5
God is the Rock. 2 Samuel 22:31-33 (KJV) As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. [32] For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock, save our God? [33] God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect. So if God is the Rock, what was the purpose of giving Simon bar Jonah a new name- Peter which as we know also means rock?
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:38:19 GMT -5
Not a good argument? Why not, does it make too much sense? After all, it seemed necessary to forge a document that the Roman church used for centuries to further it's ambitions. If a written document claiming Peter as a pope isn't necessary, then why was a forgery necessary? [/color][/quote] Are you referring to the Donation of Constantine?
|
|
|
Post by BrianDaniel on Jul 11, 2003 9:43:12 GMT -5
So if God is the Rock, what was the purpose of giving Simon bar Jonah a new name- Peter which as we know also means rock? I'm sure you have heard the argument that it was a play on words and it referred to Peter's confession of faith, not the establishment of the papacy.
|
|
|
Post by Metanoia on Jul 11, 2003 10:14:06 GMT -5
I'm sure you have heard the argument that it was a play on words and it referred to Peter's confession of faith, not the establishment of the papacy. I understand the argument, but let us put that aside since you have correctly pointed out that God is the Rock. If the Rock that Christ was referring to was himself, what purpose would it serve to change the name of Simon to Peter, if he was not indeed giving him the position of Vicar. Why did he specifically change his name to "rock"? He could have changed it to anything He wanted to, but the significance of naming him rock can not be overlooked or trivialized.
|
|
logos
Full Member
Posts: 191
|
Post by logos on Jul 11, 2003 11:16:58 GMT -5
WOW I missed a lot in the past couple hours. BrianDaniel wrote touche'. This is true(e.g. Trinity), as long as by development you understand that to mean a maturing of an idea, not a changing of one. BrianDaniel wrote I apologize. I must have been pretty tense at the time. As you guys all know, we are playing an intense sport Again, I'm sorry, thanks for keeping me accountable. What does tu quoque mean? BrianDaniel also wrote You will admit that whether or not this statement becomes a moot point is dependent on who "wins" this argument. If sola scriptura is true, then you are right in asking that, and I would have to concede defeat. If sola scriptura is false then your agrument doesn't make sense since that would be assuming sola scriptura to be true. So I can't answer it. BrianDaniel wrote also: You should be claiming that God will make one 100% correct. John 18:37 "For this I was born and for this I came into the world, to testify to the truth. Everyone who belongs to the truth listens to my voice."Matt 28:19-20 says to teach ALL that Jesus commanded. He says that the Church will be the Pillar of Truth 1 Tim 3:15 Jesus IS Truth (Gospel of John)Never in the Bible does Jesus differentiate between big and small truths. He only speaks of Truth. Why would Jesus allow us to be in error (albeit in 'small' matters) since he IS truth? Where does the Bible differentiate between small and large matters? GuidemeLord wrote:From that baptismal formula, can you come to the conclusion that the Holy Trinity is three persons in one Godhead, distinct yet unified(using our human logic 1+1+1 should not equal 1. Why couldn't the Trinity be three aspects of God's character? Or three manifestations? The clarity with which all Christendom holds this belief could not have come from just the Bible. In Revelation there are 12 foundations of the Church. In Matthew Peter is called a foundation. Jesus calls Himself THE foundation. Which do we choose? If you use your argument of the 12 foundations against Peter, then I could use one of Jesus the foundation against the 12, or Peter against Jesus, or Peter against the 12. Do you see how vague the Bible can be when we are left up to our own devices in matters of interpretation? genesda wrote: Then I would say Just the Gospels are necessary for Salvation. Many people come to know Jesus through just reading the Gospel of John. So in theory we don't NEED the rest of the Bible? But this is not the claim of sola scriptura. Sola scriptura claims that the Bible holds all Christian Doctrinal truth (not everything ever taught). genesda wrote: Blasphemy is a powerful word. Make sure you mean it when you say it, and make sure the other person has done it. No one mentioned "heeding the Word of God" as being idolotry. They in fact asked a question. "Can there be bibliolatry?" genesda also wrote: You do realize that the famous Gutenberg Bible (The first book ever printed) was a Catholic Bible with the deutercanonicals in itn and it was in the vernacular German tongue, this is before Luther's German Bible. 1582 the Rheims New Testament was printed in English. In 1609 the Douay OT was printed in English. These came together to be the Douay-Rheims (Go figure ) and was a Catholic bible printed two years before the English King James. Please go back into history, and search Non-biased sources regarding Bible texts and whether or not the Church stopped people from reading the Bible. (Remember that for 1000 years Latin was the vernacular, and most people couldn't read, also the reason Bible's were chained was because they were expensive, about 10 years wages, to copy and bind. You wouldn't claim that the pens in a bank or books in a phonebooth are chained because the government doesn't want people to use them? All books, including secular texts, in universities were chained). genesda wrote: Please by nice and Christian. Bilbo- I first want to say that I read the 'American Values' thread and saw the post that you agreed with. I guess you and I DO agree on something. I like your style....politically speaking of course. I am not offended by you asking me questions. You wrote: Your beliefs differ somewhat from those of 'typical' christians. THANKS! My religion is Christian, my denomination is Catholic. I subscribe to the Roman rite (rituals, ways of doing things) so I am a Roman Catholic. I have learned what I know from prayerful reading of the Bible, Catechism, encyclicals, councils, Church Fathers. I'm in Southern or Central California (depending on if it's summer or school time). As you know I am pretty stubborn, but I am learning a lot here, thanks. Also, since I'm not sure if you like me, I think you do, I never intend to be a jerk, but I am naturally a sarcastic (not jaded or bitter) person, so please assume the best intentions whenever I write. Feel free to ask me anything else you want Bill, you can pm me too. I apologize if I was mean or harsh to anyone. And if these smilies help to lighten the mood then please accept them. ;D Peace of Christ- logos
|
|