| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"BRAINIAC" |
| Date: |
04 Jan 2008 06:40:52 AM |
| Object: |
Sola Scriptura - A Question |
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
.
|
|
| User: "BAM" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
05 Jan 2008 08:24:19 AM |
|
|
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells them to
preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants think
that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
BAM
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
05 Jan 2008 03:25:45 PM |
|
|
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point. Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book. Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and of
God's will for us.
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after. If I kicked out
Revelation, I could still fit in with the early Church in that my list would
also be "nearly complete". And I could still claim Sola Scriptura.
The only reason people claim Sola Scriptura is because they feel they can't
trust other humans. It does imply, on a deeper level, a distrust of God's
assurance of truth, but that's not their primary reason. Perhaps a major
problem is their understanding of how God works with man.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
The Theotokos Website - http://www.theotokos.co.za/
A Rural Virologist - http://www.theotokos.co.za/umtata
Sabbath Keepers - http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
05 Jan 2008 06:27:46 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
I have known any number of Roman Catholics who would tell you in a
blink that they were "baptized Roman Catholics", and now they're
ATHEISTS.
There are those that group ^ ^ ^ in here!
(ARCB)
If I kicked out
Revelation, I could still fit in with the early Church in that my list would
also be "nearly complete". And I could still claim Sola Scriptura.
Who authorized you to "kick out Revelation?"
The only reason people claim Sola Scriptura is because they feel they can't
trust other humans.
We believe in Sola Scripture because scripture teaches it.
john w
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
07 Jan 2008 02:56:00 PM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to teach.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
there are people out there, John, who try to understand what the Bible says
without reading their ideas into it. We know you read your ideas into the
Bible, for example where two men "go down into" the water, for the one man
it means full immersion, while for another it doesn't.
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
And they appointed successors. At least that's in the Bible ... Sola
Scriptura isn't.
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
For the same reason you worship John the Baptist and the church with a date
on the cornerstone saying it's first century AD.
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and
of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there
were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
Nobody here in the RCC group is attacking the Bible. We're just not reading
your philosophy into it.
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
People lose faith for many reasons. Some happen to have believed in Sola
Scriptura and the Bible before losing it.
I have known any number of Roman Catholics who would tell you in a
blink that they were "baptized Roman Catholics", and now they're
ATHEISTS.
There are those that group ^ ^ ^ in here!
(ARCB)
If I kicked out
Revelation, I could still fit in with the early Church in that my list
would
also be "nearly complete". And I could still claim Sola Scriptura.
Who authorized you to "kick out Revelation?"
Martin Luther.
The only reason people claim Sola Scriptura is because they feel they
can't
trust other humans.
We believe in Sola Scripture because scripture teaches it.
Now that is exactly the point of this thread, John. Let me quote the
original post:
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Can you answer that?
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
The Theotokos Website - http://www.theotokos.co.za/
A Rural Virologist - http://www.theotokos.co.za/umtata
Sabbath Keepers - http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
07 Jan 2008 09:06:03 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
there are people out there, John, who try to understand what the Bible says
without reading their ideas into it.
You are AGAIN imposing your views upon me.
Don't.
We know you read your ideas into the
Bible, for example where two men "go down into" the water, for the one man
it means full immersion, while for another it doesn't.
?????
Early church history, NUMEROUS passages in the Bible, and early
church architecture indicate IMMERSION baptism.
I note you are quite content to let Rome decide such issues FOR you,
rather than to take the CONSERVATIVE approach and be immersed as a
BELIEVER (something I am BETTING you have NEVER done)
"in case the RCC is wrong, and the re-baptizers are right."
If the "re-baptizers" are right, and your "church" (cult) is wrong,
you have started your "walk with God" by not BOTHERING to find out for
yourself.
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
And they appointed successors. At least that's in the Bible ... Sola
Scriptura isn't.
You are misinformed, or you are a liar. I'll go with, you're a
liar.
And I find NO place in the entire New Testament where the apostles
were encouraged OR authorized to appoint "successors."
In fact Paul states VERY clearly that he's "the last apostle Christ
appointed."
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
For the same reason you worship John the Baptist
You DO worship Mary and Peter. You pray to both.
I don't worship John the Baptist. I worship He who baptizes
believers with the Holy Spirit.
^ ^ ^ That's something you have no knowledge, no experience of.
In fact, say the word "Christian", and we don't even believe in the
same religion!
You follow the views of CORRUPT men; I follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ.
and the church with a date
on the cornerstone saying it's first century AD.
There's only one Who I worship. And I must wonder why you would LIE
about such things?
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and
of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there
were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
Nobody here in the RCC group is attacking the Bible.
You claiming you / your cult "wrote the Bible" is a ridiculous,
utterly non-historical fabrication.
We're just not reading
your philosophy into it.
????? All I'm "reading" is the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit to
teach me.
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
People lose faith for many reasons.
You just changed the subject AGAIN.
Some happen to have believed in Sola
Scriptura and the Bible before losing it.
AGAIN, you prove yourself a pathological Roman Catholic LIAR.
I have known any number of Roman Catholics who would tell you in a
blink that they were "baptized Roman Catholics", and now they're
ATHEISTS.
There are those that group ^ ^ ^ in here!
(ARCB)
If I kicked out
Revelation, I could still fit in with the early Church in that my list
would
also be "nearly complete". And I could still claim Sola Scriptura.
Who authorized you to "kick out Revelation?"
Martin Luther.
He's not the Holy Spirit, and I don't recognize his authority or
yours.
He had good ideas, and he had bad. I was mis-taught that he had
left the RCC early in my life.
When I found out that he remained in the RCC til his death, I lost a
lot of respect for him.
The only reason people claim Sola Scriptura is because they feel they
can't
trust other humans.
We believe in Sola Scripture because scripture teaches it.
Now that is exactly the point of this thread, John. Let me quote the
original post:
Don't bother.
Galatians 1 puts it very clearly.
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Can you answer that?
See above. The answer hasn't changed in the 7 YEARS I've been
giving it.
All you need to do now is to RE-explain Galatians 1 to INCLUDE the
word "traditions", which word is NOT included in the text, and which
totally de fangs and declaws the RCC.
God bless,
Stephen
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
08 Jan 2008 10:42:38 AM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and b)
the Bible.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and that
it's not merely your own opinion.
there are people out there, John, who try to understand what the Bible
says
without reading their ideas into it.
You are AGAIN imposing your views upon me.
Don't.
You're the one who thinks his ideas are conceived from the Holy Spirit.
We know you read your ideas into the
Bible, for example where two men "go down into" the water, for the one man
it means full immersion, while for another it doesn't.
?????
Early church history, NUMEROUS passages in the Bible, and early
church architecture indicate IMMERSION baptism.
Just as some passages do, others don't. And I never claimed immersion
wasn't the norm. It still is. I'm just saying that it's daft that the
phrase "go down into" means two different things for the two people it
refers to, even when it's only used once in the passage.
I note you are quite content to let Rome decide such issues FOR you,
rather than to take the CONSERVATIVE approach and be immersed as a
BELIEVER (something I am BETTING you have NEVER done)
"in case the RCC is wrong, and the re-baptizers are right."
If the "re-baptizers" are right, and your "church" (cult) is wrong,
you have started your "walk with God" by not BOTHERING to find out for
yourself.
I think you mean without submitting to your opinions, which are from the
Holy Spirit.
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
And they appointed successors. At least that's in the Bible ... Sola
Scriptura isn't.
You are misinformed, or you are a liar. I'll go with, you're a
liar.
Haven't you read the Bible?
And I find NO place in the entire New Testament where the apostles
were encouraged OR authorized to appoint "successors."
What about Matthias?
In fact Paul states VERY clearly that he's "the last apostle Christ
appointed."
Yes, but the teaching mission of the Church didn't end then, and nor did the
Apostles' successors.
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
For the same reason you worship John the Baptist
You DO worship Mary and Peter. You pray to both.
We do not worship either.
I don't worship John the Baptist.
Quite.
I worship He who baptizes
believers with the Holy Spirit.
^ ^ ^ That's something you have no knowledge, no experience of.
In fact, say the word "Christian", and we don't even believe in the
same religion!
You follow the views of CORRUPT men; I follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ.
Revealed personally to you, it seems.
and the church with a date
on the cornerstone saying it's first century AD.
There's only one Who I worship. And I must wonder why you would LIE
about such things?
You're the one who claims it.
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and
of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was
finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there
were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to
what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
Nobody here in the RCC group is attacking the Bible.
You claiming you / your cult "wrote the Bible" is a ridiculous,
utterly non-historical fabrication.
We compiled it, we preserved it, and we believe its human authors were
Catholics.
We're just not reading
your philosophy into it.
????? All I'm "reading" is the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit to
teach me.
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
People lose faith for many reasons.
You just changed the subject AGAIN.
Nope. I just responded to what you wrote. You've just changed the subject
to my allegedly changing the subject, yet it was you who changed the subject
to losing faith, and now to changing the subject.
Some happen to have believed in Sola
Scriptura and the Bible before losing it.
AGAIN, you prove yourself a pathological Roman Catholic LIAR.
No, I just think you like calling people liars. Wasn't your nickname Liar
Johnny at one point?
I have known any number of Roman Catholics who would tell you in a
blink that they were "baptized Roman Catholics", and now they're
ATHEISTS.
There are those that group ^ ^ ^ in here!
(ARCB)
If I kicked out
Revelation, I could still fit in with the early Church in that my list
would
also be "nearly complete". And I could still claim Sola Scriptura.
Who authorized you to "kick out Revelation?"
Martin Luther.
He's not the Holy Spirit, and I don't recognize his authority or
yours.
Only your own.
He had good ideas, and he had bad. I was mis-taught that he had
left the RCC early in my life.
When I found out that he remained in the RCC til his death, I lost a
lot of respect for him.
Judging a book by its cover.
The only reason people claim Sola Scriptura is because they feel they
can't
trust other humans.
We believe in Sola Scripture because scripture teaches it.
Now that is exactly the point of this thread, John. Let me quote the
original post:
Don't bother.
I shouldn't have, because you aren't interested in a reply, just in yelling.
Galatians 1 puts it very clearly.
Verse 25. How could I have missed it?
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Can you answer that?
See above. The answer hasn't changed in the 7 YEARS I've been
giving it.
All you need to do now is to RE-explain Galatians 1 to INCLUDE the
word "traditions", which word is NOT included in the text, and which
totally de fangs and declaws the RCC.
Galatians 1:14 KJV And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals
in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my
fathers.
G3862
paradosis
par-ad'-os-is
From G3860; transmission, that is, (concretely) a precept; specifically the
Jewish traditionary law: - ordinance, tradition.
Now you need to show the words "Sola" and "Scriptura" in the passage. Even
in the Vulgate, they're not there, and that's the Latin translation!
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
The Theotokos Website - http://www.theotokos.co.za/
A Rural Virologist - http://www.theotokos.co.za/umtata
Sabbath Keepers - http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
09 Jan 2008 01:01:49 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:38 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and b)
the Bible.
You should stop falsely accusing people (lying). If you believe I'm
"reading my own or other people's ideas" into scripture, you really
need to give concrete examples for your accusations.
Otherwise, they're nothing but lies.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
You AGAIN don't know theology.
The Holy Spirit who told the apostles what to write, as He told the
prophets what to write, is the Spirit of Christ.
Meaning, for all intents, Jesus told the apostles what to write.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and that
it's not merely your own opinion.
That belief is not an assumption. Scripture is quite clear that the
Holy Spirit will come to you and teach you, if you ask.
I ask, and I believe God is faithful.
Interestingly (something you would not know), I've spoken with many
people about this concept, and we've all had the same experience of
the Holy Spirit coming to us and teaching us, and we've all been
brought to THE SAME UNDERSTANDING of scripture.
That is not possible unless the same Holy Spirit was teaching us all
the same things.
there are people out there, John, who try to understand what the Bible
says
without reading their ideas into it.
You are AGAIN imposing your views upon me.
Don't.
You're the one who thinks his ideas are conceived from the Holy Spirit.
No. I KNOW they are.
Just like I know you're an apostate. YOu choose the teachings of MEN
(in Rome) OVER the teachings of God.
Scripture is crystal clear on a variety of issues. You turn your back
on CLEAR scripture (like about chanting, like about worshipping idols,
like about infants not needing "salvation")
any time CLEAR scripture deviates from the false teachings of Rome.
We know you read your ideas into the
Bible, for example where two men "go down into" the water, for the one man
it means full immersion, while for another it doesn't.
?????
Early church history, NUMEROUS passages in the Bible, and early
church architecture indicate IMMERSION baptism.
Just as some passages do, others don't.
That ANY passages indicate immersion baptism (and they DO) should be
sufficient.
INSTEAD, you SEEK "vague texts" that you can TWIST for your own
purposes.
The baptism of Jesus, and the baptism of the Ethiopian make
immersion the CLEAR method.
And I BET you have never been immersed!
And I never claimed immersion
wasn't the norm. It still is. I'm just saying that it's daft that the
phrase "go down into" means two different things for the two people it
refers to, even when it's only used once in the passage.
It's not daft at all. The passage merely takes us a place YOU
choose to not go.
I note you are quite content to let Rome decide such issues FOR you,
rather than to take the CONSERVATIVE approach and be immersed as a
BELIEVER (something I am BETTING you have NEVER done)
"in case the RCC is wrong, and the re-baptizers are right."
If the "re-baptizers" are right, and your "church" (cult) is wrong,
you have started your "walk with God" by not BOTHERING to find out for
yourself.
I think you mean without submitting to your opinions, which are from the
Holy Spirit.
YOu CONTINUE to dodge immersion baptism, like the apostate you are.
If you were SINCERE, you'd "want to be certain." Yet you REFUSE to
be immersed.
Why? Because ROME says so!
I follow JESUS.
You follow ROME!
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
And they appointed successors. At least that's in the Bible ... Sola
Scriptura isn't.
You are misinformed, or you are a liar. I'll go with, you're a
liar.
Haven't you read the Bible?
There is no mention WHATSOEVER that the apostles-- or any one of
them-- were ever authorized or empowered to appoint successors.
Paul made it crystal clear that there was one set.
And I find NO place in the entire New Testament where the apostles
were encouraged OR authorized to appoint "successors."
What about Matthias?
What about Matthias?
You believe that a MISTAKE the 11 apostles made warrants
duplication?
I don't.
I see NO place in the New Testament where the apostles were
AUTHORIZED to appoint Matthias.
And while the apostles were appointing Matthias, with roles of dice,
Jesus was coming back to select Paul.
In fact Paul states VERY clearly that he's "the last apostle Christ
appointed."
Yes, but the teaching mission of the Church didn't end then, and nor did the
Apostles' successors.
Why do you change the subject every time you lose a point?
The teaching didn't end. The office of "apostle" ended.
They were given for a time, like "tongues" were given for a time,
like miraculous healings were given for a time.
If you believe that apostles are for today, and that your cult ALONE
is authorized to have apostles (funny, you only recognize ONE), where
are tongues? Where are miracles? Where is divine healing?
You can't have one without having ALL. There are no tongues, there
is no healing, there are no supernatural miracles BECAUSE "the
Apostolic Age" (the times of the apostles) came to an END with the
death of the last apostle Jesus PERSONALLY appointed.
Prove me wrong. (you can't/ I'm right)
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
For the same reason you worship John the Baptist
You DO worship Mary and Peter. You pray to both.
We do not worship either.
You are a liar. You might as well climb into your car and say, "I'm
NOT driving my car! I am merely pressing my foot to the gas and
steering it."
Whatever you wish to re label it, you worship Mary and you worship
Pete, and you worship a long list of "saints."
Well, I therefore DEMAND that you worship me! I am a saint!
I don't worship John the Baptist.
Quite.
You've looked over my shoulder during my worship times, and you know
who I worship?
You're a liar!
I worship He who baptizes
believers with the Holy Spirit.
^ ^ ^ That's something you have no knowledge, no experience of.
In fact, say the word "Christian", and we don't even believe in the
same religion!
You follow the views of CORRUPT men; I follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ.
Revealed personally to you, it seems.
Revealed to all who open their spiritual eyes. YOU should truly try
it sometime.
and the church with a date
on the cornerstone saying it's first century AD.
There's only one Who I worship. And I must wonder why you would LIE
about such things?
You're the one who claims it.
??? I never claimed that I WORHIP or worshipped a church built in the
1st Century! I merely said "it's there!"
Pre "Rome."
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church, and
of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was
finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there
were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to
what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
Nobody here in the RCC group is attacking the Bible.
You claiming you / your cult "wrote the Bible" is a ridiculous,
utterly non-historical fabrication.
We compiled it, we preserved it, and we believe its human authors were
Catholics.
smirk.
I don't see the word "Roman Catholic" mentioned anywhere in the
Bible.
You are delusional.
We're just not reading
your philosophy into it.
????? All I'm "reading" is the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit to
teach me.
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
People lose faith for many reasons.
You just changed the subject AGAIN.
Nope.
YOU are boring beyond words, and you are fabricating! And I simply
won't allow you to waste any more of my time.
john w
snip
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
09 Jan 2008 11:58:29 AM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:38r8o35bc9rn1cer18pih4n7vu81rcsar6@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:38 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that
explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason
Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and
b)
the Bible.
You should stop falsely accusing people (lying).
I think it's obvious that I'm not.
If you believe I'm
"reading my own or other people's ideas" into scripture, you really
need to give concrete examples for your accusations.
Otherwise, they're nothing but lies.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to
teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
You AGAIN don't know theology.
The Holy Spirit who told the apostles what to write, as He told the
prophets what to write, is the Spirit of Christ.
Meaning, for all intents, Jesus told the apostles what to write.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus told them to go and write a book?
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the
Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and
that
it's not merely your own opinion.
That belief is not an assumption.
Yes, it is. It's the same assumption every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness and
Adventist and Baptist make - that what they think the Bible says is really
the Holy Spirit teaching them.
Scripture is quite clear that the
Holy Spirit will come to you and teach you, if you ask.
So you believe in infallibility through asking.
I ask, and I believe God is faithful.
To you and all those who arrive at different conclusions?
Interestingly (something you would not know), I've spoken with many
people about this concept, and we've all had the same experience of
the Holy Spirit coming to us and teaching us, and we've all been
brought to THE SAME UNDERSTANDING of scripture.
Yet if you spoke to people who did not have the same understanding, you'd
also find that they asked, and they prayed. So you're just selecting a
biased population for your study.
That is not possible unless the same Holy Spirit was teaching us all
the same things.
there are people out there, John, who try to understand what the Bible
says
without reading their ideas into it.
You are AGAIN imposing your views upon me.
Don't.
You're the one who thinks his ideas are conceived from the Holy Spirit.
No. I KNOW they are.
Just like the Mormon and the Calvinist and the Arminian and the
paedo-Baptists and the KJV-only group? They also KNOW they are, because
they have also asked and prayed.
Just like I know you're an apostate. YOu choose the teachings of MEN
(in Rome) OVER the teachings of God.
No, I choose to take the teachings of men with a pinch of salt. Which is
why I take your teachings with a pinch of salt. Many different groups of
men with different conclusions can't all be right. So there's no reason to
view you as special.
Scripture is crystal clear on a variety of issues. You turn your back
on CLEAR scripture (like about chanting, like about worshipping idols,
like about infants not needing "salvation")
any time CLEAR scripture deviates from the false teachings of Rome.
No, you just pretend things are CLEAR scripture when they're not. Such as
when one man "goes down into" the water, he's fully submerged, but when
another does, he's not - and you turn that into dogma with which to call
others apostate.
We know you read your ideas into the
Bible, for example where two men "go down into" the water, for the one
man
it means full immersion, while for another it doesn't.
?????
Early church history, NUMEROUS passages in the Bible, and early
church architecture indicate IMMERSION baptism.
Just as some passages do, others don't.
That ANY passages indicate immersion baptism (and they DO) should be
sufficient.
And that ANY passage indicates otherwise (and the DO) should also be
sufficient.
INSTEAD, you SEEK "vague texts" that you can TWIST for your own
purposes.
Nope, they're there in the Bible.
The baptism of Jesus, and the baptism of the Ethiopian make
immersion the CLEAR method.
No, they don't actually. The word "immersion" is not there in the text.
And I BET you have never been immersed!
And I never claimed immersion
wasn't the norm. It still is. I'm just saying that it's daft that the
phrase "go down into" means two different things for the two people it
refers to, even when it's only used once in the passage.
It's not daft at all. The passage merely takes us a place YOU
choose to not go.
I chose not to go shopping on the way home from work today.
I note you are quite content to let Rome decide such issues FOR you,
rather than to take the CONSERVATIVE approach and be immersed as a
BELIEVER (something I am BETTING you have NEVER done)
"in case the RCC is wrong, and the re-baptizers are right."
If the "re-baptizers" are right, and your "church" (cult) is wrong,
you have started your "walk with God" by not BOTHERING to find out for
yourself.
I think you mean without submitting to your opinions, which are from the
Holy Spirit.
YOu CONTINUE to dodge immersion baptism, like the apostate you are.
No, I don't dodge anything. I just don't see the word "immersion" in the
texts you think it's to be found in.
If you were SINCERE, you'd "want to be certain." Yet you REFUSE to
be immersed.
I don't refuse. I have gone swimming many times. But since the Bible
doesn't insist in immersion, why should I obey your commandments when I've
already been baptised.
Why? Because ROME says so!
No, Rome considers immersion to be the normative method.
I follow JESUS.
You follow ROME!
You follow yourself.
You set up arbitrary standards to make yourselves look good.
Why aren't the books the apostles (those who knew HIM), sufficient?
The apostles knew they wouldn't live forever.
They wrote their stories, and they wrote the teachings we hold dear
today.
And they appointed successors. At least that's in the Bible ... Sola
Scriptura isn't.
You are misinformed, or you are a liar. I'll go with, you're a
liar.
Haven't you read the Bible?
There is no mention WHATSOEVER that the apostles-- or any one of
them-- were ever authorized or empowered to appoint successors.
Then they did so without being authorised or empowered to do so.
But then the same can be said for the Bible - they wrote it without being
told to. At least not in the biblical record. But it seems as if you don't
believe in Sola Scriptura either, since you believe something outside of the
biblical record.
Paul made it crystal clear that there was one set.
Yes, he indicated one set of Apostles. You're in complete agreement with
the Catholic Church there. He never said, however, there was only one set
of successors.
And I find NO place in the entire New Testament where the apostles
were encouraged OR authorized to appoint "successors."
What about Matthias?
What about Matthias?
You believe that a MISTAKE the 11 apostles made warrants
duplication?
I don't.
I see NO place in the New Testament where the apostles were
AUTHORIZED to appoint Matthias.
And while the apostles were appointing Matthias, with roles of dice,
Jesus was coming back to select Paul.
Wow ... so you DO actually think they were wrong in doing so? Go figure ...
now you judge the decisions of the Apostles.
In fact Paul states VERY clearly that he's "the last apostle Christ
appointed."
Yes, but the teaching mission of the Church didn't end then, and nor did
the
Apostles' successors.
Why do you change the subject every time you lose a point?
The teaching didn't end. The office of "apostle" ended.
Now you're spouting Rome's teachings again.
They were given for a time, like "tongues" were given for a time,
like miraculous healings were given for a time.
If you believe that apostles are for today, and that your cult ALONE
is authorized to have apostles
No, you're thinking of Mormons.
(funny, you only recognize ONE),
Now you're thinking of Jehovah's Witnesses.
where
are tongues? Where are miracles? Where is divine healing?
If you opened your eyes and your heart, you'd see.
You can't have one without having ALL. There are no tongues, there
is no healing, there are no supernatural miracles BECAUSE "the
Apostolic Age" (the times of the apostles) came to an END with the
death of the last apostle Jesus PERSONALLY appointed.
Prove me wrong. (you can't/ I'm right)
You're always right, because you have the Holy Spirit.
Why would you worship Mary and Peter, and you won't give the writings
of the apostles due respect?
For the same reason you worship John the Baptist
You DO worship Mary and Peter. You pray to both.
We do not worship either.
You are a liar.
Nope. Do not bear false witness.
You might as well climb into your car and say, "I'm
NOT driving my car! I am merely pressing my foot to the gas and
steering it."
Whatever you wish to re label it, you worship Mary and you worship
Pete, and you worship a long list of "saints."
Well, I therefore DEMAND that you worship me! I am a saint!
Satan also demanded worship, and we rightly reject him and his evil works.
I don't worship John the Baptist.
Quite.
You've looked over my shoulder during my worship times, and you know
who I worship?
If I looked over your shoulder, would I see who you worship? Are you now
saying that when the Holy Spirit reveals the true understanding of the New
Testament to you, he does so visibly?
You're a liar!
I worship He who baptizes
believers with the Holy Spirit.
^ ^ ^ That's something you have no knowledge, no experience of.
In fact, say the word "Christian", and we don't even believe in the
same religion!
You follow the views of CORRUPT men; I follow the teachings of Jesus
Christ.
Revealed personally to you, it seems.
Revealed to all who open their spiritual eyes. YOU should truly try
it sometime.
All, even though they disagree on many issues.
and the church with a date
on the cornerstone saying it's first century AD.
There's only one Who I worship. And I must wonder why you would LIE
about such things?
You're the one who claims it.
??? I never claimed that I WORHIP or worshipped a church built in the
1st Century! I merely said "it's there!"
Yes, and if it's the same Holy Spirit that appears to you and gives you the
true understanding of the Bible who showed you this church, you should take
a pill of sorts.
Pre "Rome."
Prior to 21 April, 753 BC?
Something in the first century AD saying AD or BC on it is your imagination
running wild. You probably saw a sign made afterwards that indicated when
the church was built.
??? Because Rome says not to?
Thank goodness we have a book,
though - it certainly helps understand the mind of the early Church,
and
of
God's will for us.
!!! It certainly does!
That makes it so much less important when the actual canon was
finalised -
and we know that while many had a nearly complete New Testament, there
were
still books that were disputed up to the time of the statement as to
what
was universally accepted and what was not, and even after.
"Oh, Good GRIEF!"
How about you find a nice quiet place in the RCC group for your
attack on the Bible?
Nobody here in the RCC group is attacking the Bible.
You claiming you / your cult "wrote the Bible" is a ridiculous,
utterly non-historical fabrication.
We compiled it, we preserved it, and we believe its human authors were
Catholics.
smirk.
I don't see the word "Roman Catholic" mentioned anywhere in the
Bible.
That's two words.
I don't see the word "John Weatherly" mentioned in the Bible either.
You are delusional.
I'm not the one who sees things that haven't yet come into existence, like
signs saying AD made in the first century AD.
We're just not reading
your philosophy into it.
????? All I'm "reading" is the Bible, with only the Holy Spirit to
teach me.
N o man EVER lost his faith for staying with the Bible!
People lose faith for many reasons.
You just changed the subject AGAIN.
Nope.
YOU are boring beyond words, and you are fabricating! And I simply
won't allow you to waste any more of my time.
Maybe next week then.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
The Theotokos Website - http://www.theotokos.co.za/
A Rural Virologist - http://www.theotokos.co.za/umtata
Sabbath Keepers - http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
10 Jan 2008 11:45:36 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:58:29 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:38r8o35bc9rn1cer18pih4n7vu81rcsar6@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:38 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that
explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason
Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and
b)
the Bible.
You should stop falsely accusing people (lying).
I think it's obvious that I'm not.
^ ^ ^ OTC, your comments prove that you are not
thinking
You are not communicating
You are trying to "ZING" me.
And you are lying. It's obvious, you are speaking authoritatively
on my life, on my issues, and you're "presenting knowledge" about me
that you couldn't possibly know.
That's called "lying." Ad hominems.
Simply for the sake of being "one up." I don't play that game.
Find another spiritual, emotional, mental child, and go play with
them.
If you believe I'm
"reading my own or other people's ideas" into scripture, you really
need to give concrete examples for your accusations.
Otherwise, they're nothing but lies.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to
teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
You AGAIN don't know theology.
The Holy Spirit who told the apostles what to write, as He told the
prophets what to write, is the Spirit of Christ.
Meaning, for all intents, Jesus told the apostles what to write.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus told them to go and write a book?
I just explained that. All you are doing now is admitting you -- a
non-Christian -- just don't get the most basic theology.
"No surprise." You're a Roman Catholic. You've been taught the
Catechism. You've never been taught basic Christianity (the 1st
Century New Testament version Jesus gave us and the apostles recorded)
You've never been taught basic Christian theology.
YOu've ben taught Roman DOGMA. Period.
Roman Dogma does not equal Christianity.
You should TRULY set aside your Catechism, walk out of the Roman
Catholic Cathedral, and pick up a modern language BIBLE (NIV, TEV,
etc), then go find a conservative Baptist or Community Church where
the Bible is preached and taught.
Find out what Christianity actually is all about.
You have ZERO idea.
The Holy Spirit is referred to in MANY ways. "Teacher" "Comforter"
"Healer" "The Holy Spirit" "The Spirit of God"
"The Spirit of Christ" "The Spirit".
Yes, The Spirit of Christ and The Spirit of God are interchangeable.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the
Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it, but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and
that
it's not merely your own opinion.
That belief is not an assumption.
Yes, it is.
Um.. No, it isn't.
And you don't get to tell me that's not true, merely because I'm not
a Roman Catholic.
You are basically denying the experience of being "Holy Spirit
taught" MERELY because you've never been blessed with that experience.
Sad.
It's the same assumption every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness and
Adventist and Baptist make - that what they think the Bible says is really
the Holy Spirit teaching them.
Not true. And your making such an ugly, untrue comparison simply
means you "don't get it", and you're simply not open to new (Non-RCC)
concepts.
Meaning, I'm wasting my time.
Meaning, YOU are wasting my time.
Scripture is quite clear that the
Holy Spirit will come to you and teach you, if you ask.
So you believe in infallibility through asking.
???? Absolutely. The Holy Spirit won't lie.
HOWEVER, there is even a test of whether the voice you hear is the
Holy Spirit or someone else.
You seem to not know that, EITHER.
So I am not going to tell you. "The information is not for you."
It's something you must learn on your own. (I could tell you, but
you wouldn't believe me, so why bother?)
I ask, and I believe God is faithful.
To you and all those who arrive at different conclusions?
As I was saying earlier, (and why would I bother? You're not
receptive)
There IS a test. The test is 100 % accurate.
Interestingly (something you would not know), I've spoken with many
people about this concept, and we've all had the same experience of
the Holy Spirit coming to us and teaching us, and we've all been
brought to THE SAME UNDERSTANDING of scripture.
Yet if you spoke to people who did not have the same understanding, you'd
also find that they asked, and they prayed. So you're just selecting a
biased population for your study.
You are arguing about an experience you've never had.
I am not going to do that.
snip
I will not allow you to smear my experience of the Divine.
What you can't experience personally, you want to ridicule.
"No!"
john w
.
|
|
|
| User: "Stephen Korsman" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
10 Jan 2008 12:53:46 PM |
|
|
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:colco3l8vij3t3p12ajd3ueejsta8jub34@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:58:29 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:38r8o35bc9rn1cer18pih4n7vu81rcsar6@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:38 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that
explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also
tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason
Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would
not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and
b)
the Bible.
You should stop falsely accusing people (lying).
I think it's obvious that I'm not.
^ ^ ^ OTC, your comments prove that you are not
thinking
You are not communicating
You are trying to "ZING" me.
And you are lying. It's obvious, you are speaking authoritatively
on my life, on my issues, and you're "presenting knowledge" about me
that you couldn't possibly know.
Nope. Things you've told us here.
That's called "lying." Ad hominems.
Simply for the sake of being "one up." I don't play that game.
Find another spiritual, emotional, mental child, and go play with
them.
If you believe I'm
"reading my own or other people's ideas" into scripture, you really
need to give concrete examples for your accusations.
Otherwise, they're nothing but lies.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to
teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and
what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
You AGAIN don't know theology.
The Holy Spirit who told the apostles what to write, as He told the
prophets what to write, is the Spirit of Christ.
Meaning, for all intents, Jesus told the apostles what to write.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus told them to go and write a
book?
I just explained that. All you are doing now is admitting you -- a
non-Christian -- just don't get the most basic theology.
Galatians 1:25, yes, but where in the Bible does it say that? Nowhere.
"No surprise." You're a Roman Catholic.
Yes, a Christian.
You've been taught the
Catechism.
No, I studied it and the Bible for myself.
You've never been taught basic Christianity (the 1st
Century New Testament version Jesus gave us and the apostles recorded)
Yes, I have.
You've never been taught basic Christian theology.
YOu've ben taught Roman DOGMA. Period.
Roman Dogma does not equal Christianity.
You should TRULY set aside your Catechism, walk out of the Roman
Catholic Cathedral, and pick up a modern language BIBLE (NIV, TEV,
That I've done.
etc), then go find a conservative Baptist or Community Church where
the Bible is preached and taught.
Why? Submit to the teachings of men? No thanks.
Find out what Christianity actually is all about.
You have ZERO idea.
The Holy Spirit is referred to in MANY ways. "Teacher" "Comforter"
"Healer" "The Holy Spirit" "The Spirit of God"
"The Spirit of Christ" "The Spirit".
Yes, The Spirit of Christ and The Spirit of God are interchangeable.
Nobody said they weren't.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the
Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of
a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it,
but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and
that
it's not merely your own opinion.
That belief is not an assumption.
Yes, it is.
Um.. No, it isn't.
And you don't get to tell me that's not true, merely because I'm not
a Roman Catholic.
It has nothing to do with religion. It's an assumption. Go and check out
the local dictionary regarding the meaning of that word.
You are basically denying the experience of being "Holy Spirit
taught" MERELY because you've never been blessed with that experience.
There are many who have been "Holy Spirit taught" but they were taught
conflicting things, so I discount that experience as contrary to the Bible,
as the Bible tells me to.
Not only that, but I've searched the Bible and I can't find "Holy Spirit
taught" anywhere. So it's another one of your personal inventions - you're
"Holy Spirit taught" and the rest of Christianity is just plain wrong if
they disagree with you.
Sad.
It's the same assumption every Mormon and Jehovah's Witness and
Adventist and Baptist make - that what they think the Bible says is really
the Holy Spirit teaching them.
Not true.
Actually, it is.
And your making such an ugly, untrue comparison simply
means you "don't get it", and you're simply not open to new (Non-RCC)
concepts.
They're concepts shared by many sects that disagree with each other.
Meaning, I'm wasting my time.
Meaning, YOU are wasting my time.
Nope. You're wasting it.
Scripture is quite clear that the
Holy Spirit will come to you and teach you, if you ask.
So you believe in infallibility through asking.
???? Absolutely. The Holy Spirit won't lie.
Fascinating admission. In psychiatry your beliefs are called delusions.
Most Baptists would call them that too.
HOWEVER, there is even a test of whether the voice you hear is the
Holy Spirit or someone else.
You seem to not know that, EITHER.
So I am not going to tell you. "The information is not for you."
Aah ... it's a secret. A gnostic religion.
It's something you must learn on your own. (I could tell you, but
you wouldn't believe me, so why bother?)
I don't think you can describe it.
I ask, and I believe God is faithful.
To you and all those who arrive at different conclusions?
As I was saying earlier, (and why would I bother? You're not
receptive)
There IS a test. The test is 100 % accurate.
If it's not in the Bible, it's not accurate.
Interestingly (something you would not know), I've spoken with many
people about this concept, and we've all had the same experience of
the Holy Spirit coming to us and teaching us, and we've all been
brought to THE SAME UNDERSTANDING of scripture.
Yet if you spoke to people who did not have the same understanding, you'd
also find that they asked, and they prayed. So you're just selecting a
biased population for your study.
You are arguing about an experience you've never had.
I've never excluded those who disagree with me from a set of believers and
then defined those who remain within the set as the sum of all those who are
"Holy Spirit taught."
I am not going to do that.
snip
I will not allow you to smear my experience of the Divine.
What you can't experience personally, you want to ridicule.
Nonsense. I just don't believe the way you divine the truth, because it's
not biblical.
God bless,
Stephen
--
Stephen Korsman
The Theotokos Website - http://www.theotokos.co.za/
A Rural Virologist - http://www.theotokos.co.za/umtata
Sabbath Keepers - http://www.theotokos.co.za/blog/
IC | XC
---------
NI | KA
.
|
|
|
| User: "john w" |
|
| Title: Re: Sola Scriptura - A Question |
10 Jan 2008 02:16:06 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 20:53:46 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:colco3l8vij3t3p12ajd3ueejsta8jub34@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Wed, 9 Jan 2008 19:58:29 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:38r8o35bc9rn1cer18pih4n7vu81rcsar6@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Tue, 8 Jan 2008 18:42:38 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:e7p5o3da67h18vogcb30j2bhv3fd4sarfa@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Mon, 7 Jan 2008 22:56:00 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"john w @yahoo.com>" <johnw<no> wrote in message
news:io70o3l6qdj9ps0lr0u78gk1rkao02fcgf@4ax.com...
x-no-archive: yes
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:25:45 +0200, "Stephen Korsman"
<adventism@theotokos.co.za> wrote:
© 2007 John D Weatherly all rights reserved; no portion of this post
may be used anywhere else without written permission of the author.
"BAM" <mcca5761@blahblahbellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:NoMfj.46143$vt2.8974@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
"BRAINIAC" <nournme@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1e3f8d90-4be0-47e2-a8a7-3df421c51ef8@v4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Can someone present here the actual chapter and verse that
explicitly
states that the Bible is the only source for Christian doctrine?
Jesus told his Apostles, "He who hears you hears me." He also
tells
them
to preach to all nations, telling them everything He taught.
No mention of passing around books though. For some reason
Protestants
think that translations are trustworthy, but men aren't.
No mention of passing around books though. Excellent point.
Actually, it isn't!
Jesus referred to the Old Testament many times. There is no reason
to believe He didn't know that the apostles (He hand-picked) would
not
leave us their stories.
Nobody ever said he didn't know that.
That is the implied suggestion when Roman Catholics minimize or
trivialize the Bible as you're doing.
You should stop reading your own ideas into a) other people's words, and
b)
the Bible.
You should stop falsely accusing people (lying).
I think it's obvious that I'm not.
^ ^ ^ OTC, your comments prove that you are not
thinking
You are not communicating
You are trying to "ZING" me.
And you are lying. It's obvious, you are speaking authoritatively
on my life, on my issues, and you're "presenting knowledge" about me
that you couldn't possibly know.
Nope. Things you've told us here.
That's called "lying." Ad hominems.
Simply for the sake of being "one up." I don't play that game.
Find another spiritual, emotional, mental child, and go play with
them.
If you believe I'm
"reading my own or other people's ideas" into scripture, you really
need to give concrete examples for your accusations.
Otherwise, they're nothing but lies.
The point is that he never told them to. He told them to go and to
teach.
???? Your theology is WAY off! Evidently, you do not believe that
the New Testament AND the Old Testament are Holy Spirit-inspired.
I do. I never said I don't. I just mentioned what Jesus did say and
what
he didn't say. You object to the facts.
You AGAIN don't know theology.
The Holy Spirit who told the apostles what to write, as He told the
prophets what to write, is the Spirit of Christ.
Meaning, for all intents, Jesus told the apostles what to write.
Where does it say in the Bible that Jesus told them to go and write a
book?
I just explained that. All you are doing now is admitting you -- a
non-Christian -- just don't get the most basic theology.
Galatians 1:25, yes, but where in the Bible does it say that? Nowhere.
"No surprise." You're a Roman Catholic.
Yes, a Christian.
You've been taught the
Catechism.
No, I studied it and the Bible for myself.
You've never been taught basic Christianity (the 1st
Century New Testament version Jesus gave us and the apostles recorded)
Yes, I have.
You've never been taught basic Christian theology.
YOu've ben taught Roman DOGMA. Period.
Roman Dogma does not equal Christianity.
You should TRULY set aside your Catechism, walk out of the Roman
Catholic Cathedral, and pick up a modern language BIBLE (NIV, TEV,
That I've done.
etc), then go find a conservative Baptist or Community Church where
the Bible is preached and taught.
Why? Submit to the teachings of men? No thanks.
Find out what Christianity actually is all about.
You have ZERO idea.
The Holy Spirit is referred to in MANY ways. "Teacher" "Comforter"
"Healer" "The Holy Spirit" "The Spirit of God"
"The Spirit of Christ" "The Spirit".
Yes, The Spirit of Christ and The Spirit of God are interchangeable.
Nobody said they weren't.
The Holy Spirit is the same EXACT Spirit that indwelt Jesus. ("The
Holy Spirit shall come upon you.")
Col 2 In Him dwelt the fullness of the Godhead in flesh.
(Father/Son/Holy Spirit)
That means that the Spirit of Jesus Christ told the apostles to
write the New Testament.
That means that the Bible (both books) are fully authorized and
fully empowered by God.
Agreed.
The very origin of this thread was a question relating to where the
Bible
teaches SS. And you haven't shown us either.
I don't need to. But that question has been asked / and answered
MANY times just since I've been in here.
And now you won't.
And one of the answers REMAINS: Galatians 1.
Ah yes. Verse 25.
Just reading
the New Testament, without making assumptions about the existence of
a
canon, it would appear that the authority for teaching lay with the
Apostles
and those they appointed, not in a book.
????
Why would anyone "just read the New Testament." ???
Well, maybe you read it along with the assumptions you bring to it,
but
You have NO CLUE what "assumptions" I bring to reading / studying
the Bible! First ASSUMPTION I make is that it is Holy
Spirit-conceived, and totally sufficient in its teaching. With the
Holy Spirit teaching me its contents, I need no human to intervene!
That is the next assumption - that the Holy Spirit is teaching you, and
that
it's not merely your own opinion.
That belief is not an assumption.
Yes, it is.
Um.. No, it isn't.
And you don't get to tell me that's not true, merely because I'm not
a Roman Catholic.
It has nothing to do with religion. It's an assumption. Go and check out
the local dictionary regarding the meaning of that word.
You are basically denying the experience of being "Holy Spirit
taught" MERELY because you've never been blessed with that experience.
There are many who have been "Holy Spirit taught" but they were taught
conflicting things, so I discount that experience as contrary to the Bible,
as the Bible tells me to.
Not only that, but I've searched the Bible and I can't find "Holy Spirit
taught" anywhere.
That is because you are spiritually blind.
Any one who says that "Roman Catholic" EQUALS "Christian" is ill
-informed.
I can't count the ATHEISTS I've run into over the past 60 YEARS | | | | | | | | | | | |
