[geocentrism] Re: Clueless (Hang Together)
- From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2004 09:13:40 +1000
You're right Gary, well put, and it is no wonder the Rob's can have no
respect
for God, or the Bible, when Christians themselves split up and fight one
another. All do well to think about that. What creates disunity? Rebellion
protestation against order and authority. Rob does not have to see disunity
here, it is
in the world everywhere.
However, I do not condemn Jack or myself or Neville or Nicholas who had to
come out of the dark, (that was a pleasant surprise) for defending their
faiths, whatever it is. Their feelings come from the heart, and we all at
least agree that God alone, the final Judge, judges the heart. But those who
have no heart, and I consider myself such, must use their reason, and will
be so judged if they fail to do so honestly. (honesty does not allow pride,
but is based upon humility)
Thus we need a friendly alternative forum where we can thrash out our
personal beliefs elsewhere, leaving this one solely for the science of
cosmology and science which may I dare say includes creation.
In case that never happens, and even though I have been attacked many times
by Sola scriptura individuals for using their Bible to contradict certain
statements they make based on scripture, taken out of context, (How dare a
Catholic who does not believe in the Bible think he can use it against us) I
beg to be able to reply to Jacks last questions in defence.
Those not concerned can simply delete now. This will be my last word. I have
already established a private line with Jack at his initiative. I am only
going to answer here those questions raised by Jack on this forum. There is
no angst. I have no heart remember. I have stated here several times, reason
is the only way, blind faith is for those with a heart and no brain. God has
given ample revelation for the Brains, and I do not mean the Holy Bible,
which is an explanation, but not a proof in reason.
My answer/comment will be in {these brackets}
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2004 12:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Belief in the obvious
Philip > the list?
> Methinks you are allowing your bigotry/hate to affect your judgement, Or
> are you suggesting that Roman Catholics should have no input to this
> forum.... ?
Jack
I have no problem with Catholics being on the forum Philip. It's only a
problem if they use their dogma as part of the posting. As a protestant
Christian, it makes me feel challenged.
Philip
{ Your feelings (of being challenged) are unnecessary, and unwarranted. It
is not Catholic to
challenge anyone. We are allowed to answer, in charity, but never force our
will. Only within our own congregation, may the superiors impose his will on
the inferiors, and even then with prudence. The ordinary lay person is
confined to conversion by example. i.e. living an exemplary life in total
submission to God and His church. (not to say I am such a perfect example)
You were not challenged. I was supporting
your own belief in the dogma of geocentrism. If you will begin to doubt your
own belief simply because it is Catholic dogma as well, your faith or
reasoning is
weak. }
Philip
> This is entirely false. It is a point of view and a judgement according to
> Jack or his minders.
{ here Jack left out what I said that was false. If I remember I think I
said that it was false to say the Church believes in evolution, No matter. }
Jack
It's not false, check my other posting to you about Catholic history and
authority.
Phil
{ There are many histories . Many false. Histories are the works of men,
and usually biased. Yes even Catholic histories. They do not form part of
Catholic Sacred Tradition, or the Holy Bible. Our faith is not based upon
history}
Philip
> The Word of God cannot take second place to anything. It
> takes central place in all the liturgies of the Church, and from the
> beginning has always been available publically in those churches that
could
> afford the cost (hand written!) in the language common to all of the
> educated people of Europe (the Roman Empire,) Latin.
Jack
Great for the educated, but not too good for the non-educated. Were it not
for the protestant reformation, you would not enjoy reading the Bible, that
is if you do, in English.
Phil
{ This is an emotive response. I know that I am going to answer with what
could be called biased history. The English language before the reformation,
was varied right across England, as was all the languages of Europe. and the
world. Latin, due to the Roman Empires influence , was common to all. The
non educated went to Mass every day. They had the Bible read to them every
day in their own language by educated clergy. The very same scripture as I
get read to me today, if I went every day. 365 different parts of the Bible.
Your last(point) is pure presumption. At the time of the reformation all the
educated could speak and write several languages in addition to Latin. Today
very few can speak two. and Latin is not one of them. Education was in most
cases provided by the Church. The State provided no free education. Only the
bright among the poor ever got a free luinch}{However, though I am only
putting up one history against another, a serious researcher could easily
verify it. The Bible had been authorised to be translated into several
vernaculars long before the reformation rebellion. But sticking to England,
we have a copy of the work of Caedmona monk of Whitby, done at the end of
the 7th century translated to the English of that time. The next Century the
Work of the venerable Bede, a monk of Jarrow. These translations continue
varying with the language. notable is the anglo-Normon middle English work
Orm, circa 1150. and Salus Animae 1250.
This is but a few. My fingers tire....All this has protestant historical
testimony, included in the translators words of the preface of the first KJV
authorised version. Even Cranmer in His preface of 1540 mentions the Bible
of the Saxon tongue......
One more point. Jesus neve spoke of education, but submission, love,
humility,and suffering
and sacrifice, and obedience.}
Phil
> As to the last, only God himself or one appointed by Him may judge a
person
> to be a heretic. I find it hard to believe that Jack would claim to have
> been given such powers to judge.
Jack
That being the case then the Catholic church has a very exhalted view of
itself. Tell me what is 'anathema' and how did it come about?
Philip
{ See Jack your feeling of being challenged. You could not answer my
question of your claim to authority to judge, which is the crux of our whole
disagreement. You responded by asking an innocuous question that obviously
asks why does the Church have the authority more than you or I do. Jesus
gave the Apostles the power to do all in His Name. He did not give it to me
or
any other. Only the Apostles. Now would not it be a stupidity if He did not
also provide for a means of succession, well documented in Acts, by the
laying of Hands. }
Phil
HOWEVER, The Roman Church has NEVER
> recanted or redefined the fundamental dogma, that was based upon Holy
Writ,
> and the Fathers of the Church, and Papal decrees, in agreement, that our
> system is geocentric, and that the world was created in 7 days, some 7,000
> years ago. To hold a contrary view is still heresy.
Jack
I accept the Catholic's position on geocentrism but where does the authority
for 'Holy Writ' and Papal decrees come from?
{Once again, Jack ignores the statement I was correcting, that the Church
teaches evolution. He refuses to acknowledge he was wrong, or even
ask me to prove I was right. His last, "where does the authority
for 'Holy Writ' and Papal decrees come from?" is answered in the Bible. If I
give the quotes I will be accused of using their Bible, as if they owned it.
This is a lie, because the Catholic Church nurtured and preserved the Bible
for centuries before the advent of the printing press. All hand copied,
mostly by monks in the monastaries. See above}
Phil
> What the Church teaches, and what some churchmen or others think it
teaches
> are often two entirely different things.
Jack
As I see it pretty much most of what the Catholic church teaches comes from
its own churchmen. If its not in the Bible then it is man's.
Philip
{If it is not what Jesus taught, then it is baseless. Jesus commanded His
men to preach in His name, not to write a Book. However, under the guidence
of the Holy Spirit they did put down the basic essentials to text, which
centuries later were collated and authorised as the New Testament. See these
quotes...all from your bible, I will include also the latin and the English
translation of
the Vulgate, from long bfore the reformation.....don't ask me to put up
Martin Luthers original version, even you may get a fright.....}
SOLA SCRIPTURA (BIBLE ONLY)
Jn 21:25 --- not everything is in the Bible.
25 But there are also many other things which Jesus did which, if they
were
written every one, the world itself. I think, would not be able to contain
the books
that should be written.
KJV
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could
not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
2 Thess 2:15; 2 Tim 2:2; 1 Cor 11:2; 1 Thess 2:13 --- Paul speaks of
oral tradition.
Acts 2:42 --- early Christians followed apostolic tradition.
2 Pet 3:16 --- Bible hard to understand, gets distorted.
16 sicut et in omnibus epistulis loquens in eis de his in quibus sunt
quaedam difficilia intellectu quae indocti et instabiles depravant sicut et
ceteras scripturas ad suam ipsorum perditionem
KJV16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in
which
are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest
ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own
stedfastness
2 Jn 1:12; 3 Jn 1:13-14 --- more oral tradition.
2 Pet 1:20-21 --- against personal interpretation.
20 hoc primum intellegentes quod omnis prophetia scripturae propria
interpretatione non fit
21 non enim voluntate humana adlata est aliquando prophetia sed Spiritu
Sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei homines
KJV 20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any
private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men
of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
Acts 8:31; Heb 5:12 --- guidance needed to interpret scriptures.
On Authority!
PAPACY/INFALLIBILITY
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32 --- Peter always
mentioned first, as foremost apostle.
Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69 --- Peter speaks for the apostles.
Acts 2:14-40 --- Pentecost: Peter who first preached.
Acts 3:6-7 --- Peter worked first healing.
Acts 10:46-48 --- Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter.
Jn 1:42 --- Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: Kepha for rock).
Mt 16:18-19 --- "on this Rock ... keys ... bind ... loose"
Is 22:22; Rev 1:18 --- keys as symbol of authority.
Jn 21:17 --- "feed my sheep"
Lk 22:31-32 --- "Simon ... strengthen your brethren".
Lk 10:1-2, 16; Jn 13:20; 2 Cor 5:20; Gal 4:14; Acts 5:1-5 --- "vicars"
of Christ.
Mk 6:20; Lk 1:70,2:23; Rom 12:1; Act 3:21, 1 Cor 7:14; Eph 3:5; Col
1:22 --- humans can be holy ("call no one holy").
Final word. As you know, I do not accept the right for me to privately
interpret scripture according to my wits, especially if such was to
contradict dogma defined by the authority of the Church. If I did I have no
doubt I would find other quotations that would serve to contradict all of
the above. I know most of them, so there is no need for anyone to send them
to me. Such would only serve to put me in the position mentioned, by
2Peter,3 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things;
in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are
unlearned and
unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own
destruction.
And even though I may claim to some learning, I claim no authority .....Not
even to the King would I recognise such authority to preach....
This site will get you to quite a lot of Bibles.
http://www.holywar.org/indexholy.html
Over and out. have fun...Philip.
Jack
Other related posts:
