[geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
- From: "Jack Lewis" <jack.lewis@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 12:32:30 -0000
Dear Cheryl,
Just a friendly word of warning. Some of us have already tried to debate
R.C. doctrine with those on the forum who are RCs. It was a waste of time.
Neville has discouraged this type of discussion because it gets nowhere and
he has respectfully asked us not to debate these kind of issues but rather
to stick to the point of the forum namely things geocentric.
Love in Christ
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: "Cheryl B." <c.battles@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 2:17 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
> Philip, If a church or person lines themself up with the scriptures -- is
it
> the person or group or church or the scriptures that are besmirched when
> somebody supposedly comes along and "proves" the scriptures, or
> interpretation of those scriptures, wrong?
>
> The RC church has in the past agreed with the scriptures at times and at
> times not. Likewise with any man or group you care to name, bar none.
>
> But it is the Scriptures that are our standard of authority -- not the men
> or groups who deign to interpret those scriptures.
>
> God gave authority only to Jesus and to His Word -- not to any manmade
> tradition. The church is the body of believers, those who have "received
> the love of the truth," -- not necessarily members of any certain group or
> church.
>
> As the Bible says, all believers are priests unto God.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Philip" <joyphil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 8:37 PM
> Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
>
>
> > Nick I will compile a resume.
> > The Galelleo affair was before the rules of infallibility were defined,
so
> this allows the evolution/creationists, (slow creation LOL) a reason to
make
> controversy of it. I t was the work of a "protestant" Irish Catholic
> priest, who did not accept the TRUTH about Genesis, who set about to prove
> that certain decrees were infallible, simply to make the Infallibility
> doctrine, and the Church stupid and wrong, because as he believed,
> "everybody and his dog knows that the world rotates and moves around a
> stationary sun" Fr. Roberts..
> >
> > Obviously "Rome" believes that today, so it has "given up the Ghost"
and
> gone to bed with the devil...
> >
> > But I do have on file a very good compilation of the history wih comment
> supporting the GC view. I will send it privately to any requesting it,
> Titled,
> > The Theological Status of Heliocentrism October 1997 by J. S. Daly
> >
> >
> > Chapter 2 begins like this with a long list of dates....
> > Documents and Facts Bearing Upon the Church's Attitude to Heliocentrism
> > 24th May 1543: Nicolas Copernicus' De Revolutionibus Orbium Caelestium
is
> published with ecclesiastical approval on the day of its author's death.
The
> study argues in favour of heliocentrism in several places but is prefixed
by
> a preface explaining that heliocentrism is advanced only hypothetically.
> This preface was commonly assumed for some years to have been written by
> Copernicus himself, though it is now established that its true author was
> Osiander.
> >
> > 18th February 1564: Galileo Galilei is born at Pisa.
> >
> > 1600: Giordano Bruno is tried for heresy. During his trial the
Consultors
> of the Inquisition listed among the unorthodox propositions taught in his
> writings several in favour of heliocentrism, based on Copernicus. Pope
> Clement VIII deleted these from the list of propositions he was to abjure.
> Bruno was burned at the stake.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Niemann, Nicholas K.
> > To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2005 10:53 AM
> > Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Gary asked for it.
> >
> >
> > Philip,
> > I think you've stated this well.
> > Can you save me from hunting. Where is the Church's definition on the
> > immobility of the earth.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Nick.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
Other related posts:
