# "Seven Deadly Sins"



## Dixie Dawg (Jan 18, 2009)

I had recorded a series on the History Channel earlier this month but just now got around to watching it.  I find it very interesting and am curious about what y'all think of the origin of the idea, or where they came from.  Any thoughts?

Oh, and these are the seven deadly sins:

Vanity/Pride
Envy
Gluttony
Acedia/Sloth
Greed/Avarice/Covetousness
Anger/Wrath
Lust


----------



## Sterlo58 (Jan 18, 2009)

Don't know the origin but I am guilty as charged on all seven counts ( at one time or another ) .


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 18, 2009)

Hi Dixie 

You made me think too early in the morning...lol. But here is my thoughts 

I believe they came from Scripture, though not addressed the same as the history channel. I was interested, but did not watch the series  

Anyhow, here is the Amplified Bible (one of my favorites) reference. Christian or not, we would all do well to avoid these pitfalls  

Amplified Bible is used in all Scripture references...


Proverbs 6:16-19 (Amplified Bible)

16 These six things the Lord hates, indeed, seven are an abomination to Him: 
*17 A proud look [the spirit that makes one overestimate himself and underestimate others], a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,*
*18 A heart that manufactures wicked thoughts and plans, feet that are swift in running to evil, *
*19 A false witness who breathes out lies [even under oath], and he who sows discord among his brethren. *

*To specifically address your list (from History Channel, I am going back to look up more   It is an interesting discussion  To be fair, I am looking at Bible verses mostly in Proverbs cuz that's where I found the 7 deadly sins and at the Dictionary for a secular definition. *

For what it's worth, sometimes not a lot..lol, I also put in my 2 cents on each 


 Vanity/Pride 

Julia's opinion  
I think that moderation is a major key in a lot of areas, and that pride in a good job is one thing, while vanity, or pride that is a "puff me up" sorta thing is another   Up to each of us to discern the acceptable 

*Proverbs 13:10*
By *pride* and insolence comes only contention, but with the well-advised is skillful and godly Wisdom.

*Ecclesiastes 6:9*
Better is the sight of the eyes [the enjoyment of what is available to one] than the cravings of wandering desire. This is also *vanity* (emptiness, falsity, and futility) and a striving after the wind and a feeding on it!

Merriam Webster Definition:

Pride
Pronunciation: 
<DD class=pron>\ËˆprÄ«d\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD>1*:* the quality or state of being proud: as a*:* inordinate self-esteem *:* conceit b*:* a reasonable or justifiable self-respect c*:* delight or elation arising from some act, possession, or relationship <parental _pride_> 2*:* proud or disdainful behavior or treatment *:* disdain3 a*:* ostentatious display b*:* highest pitch *:* prime





Envy 

Julia's Opinion: On this one, we outta be happy with what we have, or work for better, but not be jealous of what someone else has because that ALWAYS leads to trouble... or at least it has for me in my lifetime 

*Proverbs 14:30*
A calm and undisturbed mind and heart are the life and health of the body, but *envy*, jealousy, and wrath are like rottenness of the bones.

From Merriam-Webster:
<DD class=hwrd><SUP>1</SUP>en·vy javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?envy0001.wav=envy') </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\Ëˆen-vÄ“\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD><DT class=inf>Inflected Form(s): <DD class=inf>_plural_ envies </DD><DT class=ety> </DT>1*:* painful or resentful awareness of an advantage enjoyed by another joined with a desire to possess the same advantage2_obsolete_ *:* malice3*:* an object of envious notice or feeling <his new car made him the _envy_ of his friends>



Gluttony

Julia's Opinion:  This one is easy. Maybe why we (as a nation) get too fat...lol. BUT seriously we can be a glutton for more than food!!

*Proverbs 23:21*
For the drunkard and the *glutton* shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags. 

from Merriam-Webster:
glut·tony javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?glutto03.wav=gluttony') 
<DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\ËˆglÉ™t-nÄ“, ËˆglÉ™-tÉ™-nÄ“\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD><DT class=inf>1 *:* excess in eating or drinking 2 *:* greedy or excessive indulgence </DT> 


Acedia/Sloth

Julia's opinion:  I have never heard of Acedia (interesting once I looked it up)... but to me sloth is laziness...

from Merriam Webster
sloth javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?sloth002.wav=sloth') javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?sloth001.wav=sloth') 
<DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\ËˆsloÌ‡th, Ëˆsläth _also_ ËˆslÅ�th\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD><DT class=inf>Inflected Form(s): <DD class=inf>_plural_ sloths javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?sloth003.wav=sloths') \_with_ ths _or_ thz\ </DD><DT class=ety> </DT>1 a*:* disinclination to action or labor *:* indolence b*:* spiritual apathy and inactivity <the deadly sin of _sloth_>

and 
<DL><DT class=hwrd>Main Entry: <DD class=hwrd>ace·dia javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?acedia01.wav=acedia') </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\É™-ËˆsÄ“-dÄ“-É™\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD><DT class=ety>Etymology: <DD class=ety>Late Latin, from Greek _akÄ“deia,_ from _a-_ + _kÄ“dos_ care, grief — more at hate </DD><DT class=date>*:* apathy , boredom </DT></DL>

*Proverbs 24:30*
I went by the field of the *lazy* man, and by the vineyard of the man void of understanding;
*Proverbs 26:14*
As the door turns on its hinges, so does the *lazy* man [move not from his place] upon his bed.
 

Greed/Avarice/Covetousness

Julia's Opinion... I hate this in me and in others!! Can't be satisfied to do my best cuz the "grass is greener" syndrome comes into play. It's me just not being able to be interested in doing my best cuz I am always trying to outdo, outwin, be better than you... (Using I loosely, but I have struggled with this at times!) ugh!

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: 
greed javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?greed001.wav=greed') 
Pronunciation: 
\ËˆgrÄ“d\ 
<DL><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_noun_ </DD></DL>
*:* a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed 

*Proverbs 1:19*
So are the ways of everyone who is greedy of gain; such [*greed* for plunder] takes away the lives of its possessors.


Anger/Wrath

Julia's Opinion: Get's me in trouble sometimes. I try really hard, and then once I have lost my temper it can be hard to reel back in!  There is a good anger and not so good. I think anger causes envy to some degree (can't prove that one!) and getting angry to the point of loss of control is dangerous... whether the action taken is physical or not! Getting angry to the point of fixing a problem is sometimes needed, but almost always hurtful to someone!!

From Merriam Webster:

Main Entry: 
<DL><DD class=hwrd>an·gry javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?angry001.wav=angry') </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\ËˆaÅ‹-grÄ“\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_adjective_ </DD><DT class=inf>Inflected Form(s): <DD class=inf>an·gri·er; an·gri·est </DD></DL>1*:* feeling or showing anger *:* wrathful2 a*:* indicative of or proceeding from anger <_angry_ words> b*:* seeming to show anger or to threaten in an angry manner <an _angry_ sky>3*:* painfully inflamed <an _angry_ rash>


*Proverbs 15:18*
A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to *anger* appeases contention.

*Proverbs 29:22*
A man of wrath stirs up strife, and a man given to *anger* commits and causes much transgression.


Lust

Julia's Opinion... I am not sure personally how far this is from envy... but that envy leads to lust! I gotta have your dog. He is better than mine, kind of a problem and lusting after it will make both of us sick of me! (Using I loosely again..) We can all put ourselves in the I that has been used in this 

Merriam Webster:
Main Entry: 
<DL><DD class=hwrd>las·civ·i·ous javascript:popWin('/cgi-bin/audio.pl?lasciv01.wav=lascivious') </DD><DT class=pron>Pronunciation: <DD class=pron>\lÉ™-Ëˆsi-vÄ“-É™s\ </DD><DT class=func>Function: <DD class=func>_adjective_ </DD><DT class=ety>Etymology: <DD class=ety>Middle English, from Late Latin _lasciviosus,_ from Latin _lascivia_ wantonness, from _lascivus_ wanton — more at lust </DD><DT class=date>*:* lewd , lustful </DT></DL>— las·civ·i·ous·ly _adverb_ 
— las·civ·i·ous·ness _noun_ 



*Proverbs 6:25*
*Lust* not after her beauty in your heart, neither let her capture you with her eyelids.
*Proverbs 27:20*
Sheol (the place of the dead) and Abaddon (the place of destruction) are never satisfied; so [the *lust* of] the eyes of man is never satisfied.




Dixie Dawg said:


> I had recorded a series on the History Channel earlier this month but just now got around to watching it. I find it very interesting and am curious about what y'all think of the origin of the idea, or where they came from. Any thoughts?
> 
> Oh, and these are the seven deadly sins:
> 
> ...


----------



## THREEJAYS (Jan 18, 2009)

I agree w/ JH, the scriptures warn against these as I know you know from old to new testament.If theres an earlier origin I don't know it.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 18, 2009)

To the best of my remembrance they were compiled as the seven deadly sins by an early bishop of Rome. Not 100% certain though. 

I've got the show tivo'd but haven't watched it yet.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 18, 2009)

They idea of making 7 sins "deadly" is Roman Catholic in origin.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 18, 2009)

Everything before the Reformation is Roman Catholic in origin in the Christian faith or Orthodox. 

The idea behind deadly was to point out the severity of the sins and the soul sucking void they can draw you into.


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 18, 2009)

I think Proverbs, written mostly by Solomon, were WAY before the origin of the Catholic Church. And those 7 sins are in there... in Proverbs and all throughout the Scripture actually... so it is not Catholic in origin. The early Catholic church adopted rules for them, but they did not originate with any church as we know it today.  They did originate with God himself through His prophets.



fivesolas said:


> They idea of making 7 sins "deadly" is Roman Catholic in origin.


----------



## Lowjack (Jan 18, 2009)

Is A believer blamed or even capable of sinning ?
If so then Christ died in vain. Might have well kept on sacrificing sheep.


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 18, 2009)

Oh my!! Of course we are!! 

I guess I could give you scripture references, but the new Testament is full of where Paul exhorts the new church to come away from the sin that they sometimes struggle with... 

We are NOT perfect, though one of these days that will change. But someone who believes a Christian cannot sin has a spirit of Pride that is scary!

We are not blamed, if we go to the Father with our shortcomings. We have an Advocate who intercedes for us. But don't ever think we are not capable of terrible things if the circumstances are ripe for sin...

Go study Romans, Galatians, Colossians... 

Julia




Lowjack said:


> Is A believer blamed or even capable of sinning ?
> If so then Christ died in vain. Might have well kept on sacrificing sheep.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 18, 2009)

Not only are we capable we do constantly. Good references JuliaH!

Christ's death offers forgiveness for or sins not the promise of never sinning again.


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 18, 2009)

Thanks Celtic   There is no wonder the folks who post and read in here who may not be Christian challenge our thinking...lol. Not saying they are right either, but we have to be careful to speak only of things we know to be true, imho


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 18, 2009)

JuliaH said:


> I think Proverbs, written mostly by Solomon, were WAY before the origin of the Catholic Church. And those 7 sins are in there... in Proverbs and all throughout the Scripture actually... so it is not Catholic in origin. The early Catholic church adopted rules for them, but they did not originate with any church as we know it today.  They did originate with God himself through His prophets.



The early Church was not Roman Catholic. I make the distinction on purpose. If you are Roman Catholic I will understand that you do not. 

There are no "seven deadly sins" in Scripture. The sins referenced by Rome are sins according to Scripture, but the idea of 7 deadly ones is their invention. 

-five


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 19, 2009)

Please don't use the Catholic Church to attempt to argue this point. I do know that the Catholics think they are the only true church.... I just don't happen to believe it. The early church was not any of the denominations that tend to think they are "it" but that's ok too 

I don't care what the sins referenced by Rome are... my comparisons were from Proverbs for those sins that God hates. That should be important to us 

THEN I went and looked to the Scripture and the Dictionary to address the 7 things from the History Channel... not the other way around 

I have not always been Catholic. I have not always been Christian either, but I am now. I guess I just don't think along any denominational lines...   I hope that is okay in here... 

Julia



fivesolas said:


> The early Church was not Roman Catholic. I make the distinction on purpose. If you are Roman Catholic I will understand that you do not.
> 
> There are no "seven deadly sins" in Scripture. The sins referenced by Rome are sins according to Scripture, but the idea of 7 deadly ones is their invention.
> 
> -five


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

JuliaH said:


> Please don't use the Catholic Church to attempt to argue this point. I do know that the Catholics think they are the only true church.... I just don't happen to believe it. The early church was not any of the denominations that tend to think they are "it" but that's ok too
> 
> I don't care what the sins referenced by Rome are... my comparisons were from Proverbs for those sins that God hates. That should be important to us
> 
> ...



I meant no offence or personal attack by my response. I stated as a matter of fact that the idea of 7 deadly sins is a Roman Catholic invention, and I stand by that unless shown otherwise. 

This thread is about the 7 deadly sins and origins of them, unless I missed it. I also stated in my previous reply that the sins mentioned are mentioned in Scripture, but that Scripture does not separate out 7 particular sins and call them deadly--that Rome invented. 

If we are interested in truth regardless of church membership then we must agree that Rome invented the 7 deadly sin idea.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Everything before the Reformation is Roman Catholic in origin in the Christian faith or Orthodox.
> 
> The idea behind deadly was to point out the severity of the sins and the soul sucking void they can draw you into.



to say that "everything" prior to the reformation was RC is crazy. 

could you explain?  because you obviously meant something else...  please define _everything_...


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 19, 2009)

So, if you reject the 7 deadly sins because the might be Catholic in origin, what to do?? Just sin and have fun??

It does not matter to me the origin. What matters to me is what the Scripture says about those and the closeness of the "7 deadly sins" to those mentioned in Proverbs that God hates... 

That is how I learn... but to each his own 

Julia



fivesolas said:


> I meant no offence or personal attack by my response. I stated as a matter of fact that the idea of 7 deadly sins is a Roman Catholic invention, and I stand by that unless shown otherwise.
> 
> This thread is about the 7 deadly sins and origins of them, unless I missed it. I also stated in my previous reply that the sins mentioned are mentioned in Scripture, but that Scripture does not separate out 7 particular sins and call them deadly--that Rome invented.
> 
> If we are interested in truth regardless of church membership then we must agree that Rome invented the 7 deadly sin idea.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

JuliaH said:


> So, if you reject the 7 deadly sins because the might be Catholic in origin, what to do?? Just sin and have fun??
> 
> It does not matter to me the origin. What matters to me is what the Scripture says about those and the closeness of the "7 deadly sins" to those mentioned in Proverbs that God hates...
> 
> ...



Julia, 

I am not sure your understanding me. Let me try again. The thread is about the origin of the 7 deadly sin idea. This is Roman Catholic in origin, plain and simple. Just a fact. 

Your question to me in your reply here is a bit off the wall, don't you think? What is the purpose of it? I can reject many Roman Catholic inventions, be justified with God, and not condone sin or practice lasciviousness. A rejection of Roman Catholic dogmas and superstitions does not lead a person to "continue in grace that they may sin." 

I prefer to stick with Scripture and Scripture alone, without the inventions of men's ideas or church dogmas that have no origin in the Scripture. If you believe that following the Scriptures alone lead a person to sin as they please I would suggest you need to re-read the Scripture. 

-five


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 19, 2009)

You are twisting what I say five   and I am saying that respectfully. Have you totally ignored a very long post I made earlier, where I did share my thoughts. That should be very transparent where Julia is concerned 

Julia


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

JuliaH said:


> You are twisting what I say five   and I am saying that respectfully. Have you totally ignored a very long post I made earlier, where I did share my thoughts. That should be very transparent where Julia is concerned
> 
> Julia



Julia,

I have no intention to twist your words. It is possible I am misunderstanding you. 

Sorry for any confusion. 

-five

Edited in: We are misunderstand each other. I was trying to answer the OP. The contruction of taking seven sins out of Scripture and making them into "deadly" ones is Roman Catholic in origin. The sins themselves are all found in Scripture.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

Julia...you are wasting your time. Solas is a staunch anti-Catholic and like most of his ilk, he rejects anything that even SEEMS like it came from Rome even if it lines up with what he believes. He'll just twist it around until he can reconcile himself with whatever it is he believes so that it looks like something that King James would agree on.

I'm just going to say a Rosary for him and light a few candles that he will see the error of his ways.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

For the record, I am a staunch anti-schismist so I am the yin to his yang. We are like peas and carrots. Truthfully, I really like Solas. I think I would realy like to sit down and have lunch with him.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> Julia...you are wasting your time. Solas is a staunch anti-Catholic and like most of his ilk, he rejects anything that even SEEMS like it came from Rome even if it lines up with what he believes. He'll just twist it around until he can reconcile himself with whatever it is he believes so that it looks like something that King James would agree on.
> 
> I'm just going to say a Rosary for him and light a few candles that he will see the error of his ways.



This kind of disparaging remarks and personal attacks are not unusual from Roman Catholics. 

I am calling you on the spot right now to retract your personal attacks and the lie your spreading that I am anti-(Roman) catholic. I am not. I love Roman Catholic people as I do someone from any other religion that is non-Christian. I detest and hate Roman Catholic unbiblical dogmas, superstitions, false doctrines, et. 

Surely you would not fault me for hating a false way, as the Scripture teaches? Perhaps you would...

In another post I shared some things that I would agree with the Roman Catholic church on. But this does not mean I agree with the Roman Catholic church, nor would have fellowship with it at all. 

To me the RCC is a false religion like Mormonism and JWs, hindus, et. But I believe its worse than false as it actually twists the doctrines of Christ and becomes a stumbling block to those seeking to enter the Kingdom of God. 

If you want to call that anti-whatever, so be it. 

-five


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> For the record, I am a staunch anti-schismist so I am the yin to his yang. We are like peas and carrots. Truthfully, I really like Solas. I think I would realy like to sit down and have lunch with him.



Anytime. I would even go hunting with you.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

Well, I am sorry if I hurt your feelings. Please accept my apologies. 

HOWEVER....I do feel that based on previous posts you have made that you are indeed anti-Catholic. I could take about two hours and go back cutting and pasting but it would make no difference. You are just a product of your religion and so am I. I get the heebie jeebies when I step foot in a schismatic church and I would guess you'd get the same if you walked into a Catholic Church. I seriously doubt that you are a bad person. You're probably a very good father and husband. we just disagree forcfully with each other regarding our faiths.

You take me hunting and I wll take you fishing. Deal? If you try and lay hands on me I'll splash you with Holy Water, though.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

One more question:


In your avatar, you are dressed as a shrubbery and sitting in your livng room. Do you have a problem with deer in your living room?


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

Or...do you just have a very comfortable deer stand?


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> One more question:
> 
> 
> In your avatar, you are dressed as a shrubbery and sitting in your livng room. Do you have a problem with deer in your living room?



I just bought a gillie style bug suit and tried it on at home and the kids wanted to snap pics. lol 

I don't have a deer stand yet. Just a deer blind and that shrub I will wear. 

You don't want me to take you hunting if your not a hunter. I am new to hunting. Only killed two squirrels so far. This will be my first deer season. 

If you splash me holy water I will snatch it from you and drink it, hog tie you with your rosary, and shoot all your religious images.  

On a more serious note, you can consider me anti-Roman Catholic if you want to, but I do want to clarify that I am not anti-people. Doctrine, dogma, practice, et. Yes, in that sense I am anti (against) the Roman Catholic church.


----------



## fivesolas (Jan 19, 2009)

btw, my feelings were not hurt.


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm only new at hunting animals.


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 19, 2009)

Me too!! And I COMPLETELY agree with your edited part   I did not say that exactly,  but tried to use the dictionary, Proverbs and other references to show that they are addressed   God is not Catholic, Baptist, or any denomination... it's just our poor attempts at trying to communicate that gets us in trouble... and I am good at not being able to always communicate as well as I should 

Julia



fivesolas said:


> Julia,
> 
> I have no intention to twist your words. It is possible I am misunderstanding you.
> 
> ...


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 19, 2009)

fivesolas said:


> The early Church was not Roman Catholic. I make the distinction on purpose. If you are Roman Catholic I will understand that you do not.
> 
> There are no "seven deadly sins" in Scripture. The sins referenced by Rome are sins according to Scripture, but the idea of 7 deadly ones is their invention.
> 
> -five



Speaking of "inventions," we should talk about the "five solas".......


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 19, 2009)

Big10point said:


> to say that "everything" prior to the reformation was RC is crazy.
> 
> could you explain?  because you obviously meant something else...  please define _everything_...



We could begin with the Bible for starters


----------



## JuliaH (Jan 19, 2009)

Now now boys!!  

I am Catholic. BUT I did not come up Catholic. I have been Baptist, Charismatic, other non-denominational  

I believe in worshipping with my Hubby who was born and raised Catholic... so I am now Catholic. Went through a year of training to get into the church!!

BUT, if ALL of us would try to communicate from our hearts rather than from our religious beliefs we would do better  

For instance, when I came to Jesus, it was in the Baptist faith. I used to go witnessing every Wednesday, often to try to get the Catholics saved...lol. 

Then I found home church groups. I had no idea what Charismatic was, but I saw God's power in a real way back in those days!! Got in trouble cuz the Baptists did not accept that God could do anything but save... certainly no healing, etc. Well, once God showed me I was offered the out door. No hard feelings, just learned and moved on. I will always love my start there. Those "fightin fundys" taught me much, loved me much, and I loved them too!! Still have nothing against that church!! They are rooted and grounded in Scripture... just have limits (we are all human, aren't we) 

Then in and out of church for years... met Karl (Catholic hubby) and finally went thru RCIA AND Catholic Annulment... that was hard (the annulment, not RCIA). Anyhow I learned, once in the church.... a lot of Catholics are really Christians!!! WOW!! God loves Catholics too!! Now, I am still not mainstream and some things just make me smile, but its ok. 

Speak from the heart is something God taught me along the way. Speak out of love. Leave the religious part (denominational differences) alone and we can let our spirits freer to really come together 

So, just a little off topic...lol... by way of explanation 

Julia


----------



## Big10point (Jan 19, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> We could begin with the Bible for starters



thx dawg but i am still waiting on the fisherman to explain his _everything_ comment...  

i guess i'll have to prove you wrong again... tho...

John
 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...

as you can see here, the Word of God came before the RCC. The Bible is the Word of God... and its the ONLY place that we can find the Word of God...


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 19, 2009)

Big10point said:


> thx dawg but i am still waiting on the fisherman to explain his _everything_ comment...
> 
> i guess i'll have to prove you wrong again... tho...
> 
> ...



I am not disputing where the scripture came from, I am talking about who compiled the bible.


----------



## Randy (Jan 19, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> Speaking of "inventions," we should talk about the "five solas".......



be nice.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 19, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> I am not disputing where the scripture came from, I am talking about who compiled the bible.



the Word and Scripture have always been with us so it doesnt matter who put it together... as long as its put together correctly and it is in the KJV...  until all of the false per-versions started coming out is when they changed the name from The Holy Bible to the KJV...

anyway, God gets the glory for putting the Bible together not any man, whether it be a pope or Wycliffe.... i'm glad we agree that the Scripture came long before the RCC...


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 19, 2009)

Back on topic, those sins are in the bible.


----------



## jneil (Jan 19, 2009)

I'm guilty of sloth, but I'll do something about that later


----------



## Free Willie (Jan 19, 2009)

Big10point said:


> the Word and Scripture have always been with us so it doesnt matter who put it together... as long as its put together correctly and it is in the KJV...  until all of the false per-versions started coming out is when they changed the name from The Holy Bible to the KJV...
> 
> anyway, God gets the glory for putting the Bible together not any man, whether it be a pope or Wycliffe.... i'm glad we agree that the Scripture came long before the RCC...



You tickle me with the KJV stuff. 

I guess Jesus would write with a red pen, too. 

The KJV is probably the most error filled version of Scripture out there. It was written with a political slant and by men with an agenda. Various parts of the Bible were omitted or changed.

It is toilet tissue at best.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Big10point said:


> to say that "everything" prior to the reformation was RC is crazy.
> 
> could you explain?  because you obviously meant something else...  please define _everything_...



Easy. Christianity traces it's roots thru the church to the First Bishop of Rome. Peter. The Catholic Church (whether you want to say Roman or not) traces it's history and rightly so back to this time. Follow the genealogy of the Popes'. Until somewhere around the 1100's when the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church split. Then the Church lineage splits with the reformation. From that point on we get all the denominations.

Not to mention the "official" religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine in the 300's was Christianity. There it gained the structure that became the Roman Catholic Church.

The seven deadly sins also while not pointed out in scripture as seven deadly sins but the point of the Catholic writings on this was to emphasize the pitfalls of those sins. And the root that most of the rest of our sins has in those.


----------



## watashot89 (Jan 19, 2009)

i dont believe there is such a thing as a "deadly sin." Last time I checked none of my friends have been struck down recently.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> You tickle me with the KJV stuff.
> 
> I guess Jesus would write with a red pen, too.
> 
> ...



I like you Free Willie!

So Jesus spoke like Shakespeare? FW is right. The newer versions such as the NASV is much more accurate. We also have many more texts to compare it to now so to state that the ultimate version of the Bible is the KJV refutes hundreds of years of archeology and Biblical study but very knowledgeable people. Who were righteous in their attempts and did the research necessary.


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 19, 2009)

Free Willie said:


> You tickle me with the KJV stuff.
> 
> I guess Jesus would write with a red pen, too.
> 
> ...




Can you point out to me what has been changed by the KJV or what gives it a political slant? And some back up for it?
Not disagreeing with you, But I would like to see it for myself, cause I seen that statement several times but am unsure of it.

I know the duet. books are not in the KJV, but is ome of the other books not translated accurately?

Thanks for your help.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Not so much IMO a political slant but there are new translations of the original Greek that show women in higher roles than the Catholic or Fundamentalist churches want to admit. 

The KJV in my understanding is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. So you are in some cases 3 or 4 times removed from the original text. Newer version cut that down to 1 or 2. And plenty of source material to work from. Apologetics.com has done several programs on this and I would highly suggest them. They are not pro-catholic, a few of them are baptist, a a couple Presbyterian so everyone should be well represented.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Not so much IMO a political slant but there are new translations of the original Greek that show women in higher roles than the Catholic or Fundamentalist churches want to admit.
> 
> The KJV in my understanding is a translation of a translation of a translation of a translation. So you are in some cases 3 or 4 times removed from the original text. Newer version cut that down to 1 or 2. And plenty of source material to work from. Apologetics.com has done several programs on this and I would highly suggest them. They are not pro-catholic, a few of them are baptist, a a couple Presbyterian so everyone should be well represented.



 Look in your new versions [niv,nasv,etc] that you say are so accurate, look in 2 samuel 21:19 and see if David was the only one who killed Goliath?????????????


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

No. Ancient Hebrew texts have that discrepancy too. Nice try though. There are lots of thoughts on that. Personally I am not too worried about it because I do not hold to Soloscriptura. It does not affect my belief.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. Ancient Hebrew texts have that discrepancy too. Nice try though. There are lots of thoughts on that. Personally I am not too worried about it because I do not hold to Soloscriptura. It does not affect my belief.



 Your beliefs or thoughts do not change the facts of truth....


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Neither do yours. 

Are you familiar with what Soloscriptura means??? If you want to be derogatory we can do that too. Would rather not.

But while we are on it what IN YOUR OPINION is the TRUTH?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Neither do yours.
> 
> Are you familiar with what Soloscriptura means??? If you want to be derogatory we can do that too. Would rather not.
> 
> But while we are on it what IN YOUR OPINION is the TRUTH?



 The truth is Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, but the niv, nasv and others have it wrong in 2nd Samuel 21:19, and then contradict themselves in 1st Chron. 20:5..

 I can tell that you do not hold to the solo scriptura or sola scriptura form of hermeneutics....it is obvious that you must use a plus scriptura technique, the scripture alone is not enough for you...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

No. Nor is it meant to be. We have the teachings of the apostles (not included in the Bible), we have Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, St. Patrick, C.S. Lewis, and many many others who have expounded on the scripture. On top of that we have the revelation of God shown in the creation of our world and us. We are not meant to live on scripture alone. 

If you rely on a solo scriptura (for those unaware this means scipture alone) view you place the scriptures higher than Christ. HE said we must follow the scriptures AND the teachings of our elders.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 19, 2009)

QUOTE=celticfisherman;3074952]Easy. Christianity traces it's roots thru the church to the First Bishop of Rome. Peter. IF PETER BECAME POPE IN 33 AD AND WROTE 1 PETER AND 2 PETER AROUND 65 AD... WHY DID HE FAIL TO MENTION THAT HE WAS THE SUPREME PONTIFF.  HE CALLED HIMSELF SERVANT AND ELDER BUT NEVER POPE.... SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE THAT POPE PETER FAILED TO MENTION  HIS PAPACY WHILE WRITING THE ONLY 2 SHORT BOOKS OF THE BIBLE.  IN ACTS HE CALLES HIMSELF AN ELDER BUT NEVER A POPE, EVEN THO HE HAD BEEN THE POPE FOIR 30 YEARS... ALL OF THE OTHER APOSTLE ALWAYS CALLED HIM A SERVANT OR ELDER... ITS FUNNY YALL RELY ON INFO WRITTEN HUNDREDS OF YEARS AFTER JESUS BUT RELY NONE ON THE INFALLIBLE BIBLE...The Catholic Church (whether you want to say Roman or not) traces it's history and rightly so back to this time. ITSNT IT STRANGE THAT THE ONLY RECORRD OF THIS IS YOUR OWN SOURCE.    Follow the genealogy of the Popes'. Until somewhere around the 1100's when the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church split. Then the Church lineage splits with the reformation. From that point on we get all the denominations. WHAT ABOUT THE SUCCESSION? SEVERAL TIMES THERE WERE 2 POPES IN OFFICE AND TWICE THERE WERE 3 POPES IN OFFICE...  WHO WAS THE REAL POPE.  WHAT ABOUT THE POPES WHO MURDERED POPES SO THAT THEY COULD GET THER CHAIR? WHAT ABOUT WHEN GEN. BERTHIER WENT INTO ITALY IN 1798 AND TRASHED THE VATICAN AND THERE WAS NO POPE AT ALL BECAUSE HE WAS KIDNAPPED. HOW DO WE KNOW WHICH POPE TO BELIEVE WHEN YOU HAVE 3 OR 4 OF THEM CLAIMING EXCATHEDRA AND EXCOMMUNICATIN THE OTHERS....? WHO'S THE REAL POPE?

Not to mention the "official" religion of the Roman Empire after Constantine in the 300's was Christianity. There it gained the structure that became the Roman Catholic Church.  THIS IS A GOOD POINT. THE ONLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH THAT EXISTED UNTIL 311 WAS CHRIST'S CHURCH. THEN IT GOT HIJACKED BY CONSTANTINE. THIS THE WHERE THE "REMNENT" CHURCH.  THIS WOULD BE THE SAME REMNENT CHURCH THAT WOULD BE PERSECUTED FOR THE NEXT 1200 YEARS BY THE RCC...

The seven deadly sins also while not pointed out in scripture THEY ARE POINTED OUT IN SCRIPTURE, THE RCC HAS TAKEN GOD'S WORDS AND CHANGED THEM TO FIT THEIR NEEDS, THEREBY BRERAKING COMMANDMENT IN Rev 22:18-19... AND BECOMING A CURSED SYSTEM,...  as seven deadly sins but the point of the Catholic writings on this was to emphasize the pitfalls of those sins. WE DONT NEED THE RCC OR ANY OTHE MAN TO EXPLAIN THE PITFALLS.  THERE IS SIN AND SIN LEADS TO DEATH...  THAT DOESNT NEED A LONG DRAWN OUT EXPLANATION FROM A SINFUL MAN....  THE BIBLE I ALL SUFFECIENT IN ALL MATTERS...   And the root that most of the rest of our sins has in those.[/QUOTE]


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> No. Nor is it meant to be. We have the teachings of the apostles (not included in the Bible), we have Luther, Calvin, Thomas Aquinas, St. Patrick, C.S. Lewis, and many many others who have expounded on the scripture. On top of that we have the revelation of God shown in the creation of our world and us. We are not meant to live on scripture alone.
> 
> If you rely on a solo scriptura (for those unaware this means scipture alone) view you place the scriptures higher than Christ. HE said we must follow the scriptures AND the teachings of our elders.



  Luke 4:4 Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of GOD..

  John 1:1
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
KJV
   How can the Word be placed higher than the Word???

  There is no other....Gal 1:8-9

8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
KJV

   and as for the Elders they are to lead by example, not to give some new revelation from God... The canon was closed with John.....some of the men that you mentioned no doubt were Godly men, but they do/did not have anything that goes in authority ahead or above  the scriptures....


----------



## Big10point (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> no. Nor is it meant to be. We have the teachings of the apostles (not included in the bible), we have luther, calvin, thomas aquinas, st. Patrick, c.s. Lewis, and many many others who have expounded on the scripture. On top of that we have the revelation of god shown in the creation of our world and us. We are not meant to live on scripture alone.
> 
> If you rely on a solo scriptura (for those unaware this means scipture alone) view you place the scriptures higher than christ. Nothing is higher than christ.. He said we must follow the scriptures and the teachings of our elders.



yes, follow the teachiings of the elders, meaning the 12 apostles... Not augustine, aquinas, etc. Yes, paul said follow the traditions that they handed down to the poeple... Ok so could now give me 3 or more of these traditions? Youre gonna say infant baptism is one... Wrong, never mentioned in the bible...  And youll say eucharist.. Wrong again, its the lords supper that yall change into magik or transubstantiation...  But please go ahead and list me all of the rc traditions that yall have such as rosary, mary worship, lent, confession, etc etc that was passed down by the original church fathers, peter, paul, etc,,,  you cant do it.. There are none. Therefore tradition is worthless. Nothing wrong with re-baptism and the lord;'s supper but the rest are frauds...  Except for lent.. I like that one.  You use astrology (god hates) to determine when to have your ishtar eggs (hates) and fertility bunny (hates) ... Then you put lent (hates) right before so you can out and get drunk and carouse at the festivals... Which god abhors, then you get in to lent and stop eating meats on fridays which god condemned


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

big10point said:


> yes, follow the teachiings of the elders, meaning the 12 apostles... Not augustine, aquinas, etc. Yes, paul said follow the traditions that they handed down to the poeple... Ok so could now give me 3 or more of these traditions? Youre gonna say infant baptism is one... Wrong, never mentioned in the bible...  And youll say eucharist.. Wrong again, its the lords supper that yall change into magik or transubstantiation...  But please go ahead and list me all of the rc traditions that yall have such as rosary, mary worship, lent, confession, etc etc that was passed down by the original church fathers, peter, paul, etc,,,  you cant do it.. There are none. Therefore tradition is worthless. Nothing wrong with re-baptism and the lord;'s supper but the rest are frauds...  Except for lent.. I like that one.  You use astrology (god hates) to determine when to have your ishtar eggs (hates) and fertility bunny (hates) ... Then you put lent (hates) right before so you can out and get drunk and carouse at the festivals... Which god abhors, then you get in to lent and stop eating meats on fridays which god condemned



 amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Ever wonder why?

There is no validation to your argument. Try practicing Judaism by following the Torah and the other Jewish scriptures. You can't do it. You have to have the traditions that were passed down. Christ also mentions those in John and Luke. 

No one placed the writing of Lewis ABOVE the Bible. And I did not say there were new revelations. BUT YOU do not have the right or the authority to disregard everything after the closing of the canon? Why just because there is no need for further explanation? Isn't that a little like the Muslims burning all books because if it wasn't in the Quran then it isn't needed and if it was in the Quran then it wasn't needed. 

God intends for us to learn. To build. To expand our knowledge. There is no more revelation but there is learning.  The authority of the scriptures is not in question. The scriptures, the traditions of the church, and Christ are all needed. 

What church do you attend?


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Ever wonder why?
> 
> There is no validation to your argument. Try practicing Judaism by following the Torah and the other Jewish scriptures. You can't do it. You have to have the traditions that were passed down. Christ also mentions those in John and Luke.
> 
> ...



  This is what the Bible says about the other books...Acts 19:19-20

19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.

20 So mightily grew the word of God and prevailed.
KJV


  They didn't need them then or now.......we need what vrs 20 says..

  and by the way I am Independant Baptist....if that matters..


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Big10point said:


> yes, follow the teachiings of the elders, meaning the 12 apostles... Not augustine, aquinas, etc. Yes, paul said follow the traditions that they handed down to the poeple... Ok so could now give me 3 or more of these traditions? Youre gonna say infant baptism is one... Wrong, never mentioned in the bible...  And youll say eucharist.. Wrong again, its the lords supper that yall change into magik or transubstantiation...  But please go ahead and list me all of the rc traditions that yall have such as rosary, mary worship, lent, confession, etc etc that was passed down by the original church fathers, peter, paul, etc,,,  you cant do it.. There are none. Therefore tradition is worthless. Nothing wrong with re-baptism and the lord;'s supper but the rest are frauds...  Except for lent.. I like that one.  You use astrology (god hates) to determine when to have your ishtar eggs (hates) and fertility bunny (hates) ... Then you put lent (hates) right before so you can out and get drunk and carouse at the festivals... Which god abhors, then you get in to lent and stop eating meats on fridays which god condemned



So Christ was only kidding when he said "This is MY body and MY blood do this everytime you gather together in remembrance of me"?

You "like" lent so you can keep it. And oh by the way try reading my posts. I am not Catholic. And for those of you who believe Catholics "worship" Mary. Please read the Catholic doctrine. They venerate her as the Mother of Christ. While they also take a next step to say Christ had no brothers or sisters when scripture clearly mentions a couple and historical evidence backs that up but still. At least get it right. As for the rest of your rant...

Every baptism is an infant baptism. We are to come into his kingdom as children. I baptized my children as infants to bring them into the covenant of God's promises. You may not agree with it. But frankly it doesn't matter to me only the attitude you expressed which is so BLATANTLY anti-catholic and ignorant. Astrology is not used. ASTRONOMY is used. We know when Easter is because we know when Passover is supposed to be. It's according to the stars. That's Jewish tradition. 

I don't think there is enough room to go into the rest of it so...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

pigpen1 said:


> This is what the Bible says about the other books...Acts 19:19-20
> 
> 19 Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver.
> 
> ...



It does. It states where you get your views. We will not agree because I am not and cannot be Baptist. 

These authors and these books you condemn are what have provided your denomination's views.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> It does. It states where you get your views. We will not agree because I am not and cannot be Baptist.
> 
> These authors and these books you condemn are what have provided your denomination's views.



 No, the books you condem [66 of them] is where I get my views....and you should read this too..1 John 2:27

27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you : but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
KJV


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

Where did I condemn the bible? Are you really serious in this accusation? I mean come on. Just because I am not and will not be baptist you think it is OK to say that? It's not. Maybe you do not understand my stance. Maybe you do not care (which is probably more to the point) about understanding them. But do NOT put those words in my mouth. I have not and have never condemned the Bible.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Where did I condemn the bible? Are you really serious in this accusation? I mean come on. Just because I am not and will not be baptist you think it is OK to say that? It's not. Maybe you do not understand my stance. Maybe you do not care (which is probably more to the point) about understanding them. But do NOT put those words in my mouth. I have not and have never condemned the Bible.



 You say it is not good enough......you have to have something else...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 19, 2009)

I said it was not enough by itself. there is a difference. And that does not condemn it! Great way to get your way in a scripture argument. Claim the other person doesn't believe in it. 

You will not admit that your denomination determines your outlook on this. That's why there are denominations. The one I most closely relate to says we need Scripture, Tradition, and Works (for faith without works is meaningless... sound familiar). So we must put it all together to have a fulfilling relationship with Christ. Does that mean someone who just believes is not saved? Maybe. Maybe not. If you truly believe you will want to know more and your works will show this.


----------



## pigpen1 (Jan 19, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I said it was not enough by itself. there is a difference. And that does not condemn it! Great way to get your way in a scripture argument. Claim the other person doesn't believe in it.
> 
> You will not admit that your denomination determines your outlook on this. That's why there are denominations. The one I most closely relate to says we need Scripture, Tradition, and Works (for faith without works is meaningless... sound familiar). So we must put it all together to have a fulfilling relationship with Christ. Does that mean someone who just believes is not saved? Maybe. Maybe not. If you truly believe you will want to know more and your works will show this.



 Paul said that we are Saved by Grace through Faith, not of works, it is a gift of God..lest anyman should boast..

  We are not justified in the eyes of God by our works, But by Faith..

 James said for faith without works is dead...

 We are justified in the eyes of the world by our works, if I tell the world that I have Faith, they cannot see it except by my works...

  We can have works in the eyes of men, and still not be justified with God, he sees the Faith of the heart, he does not need to look upon our works to know our faith..If we were justified by our works we would boast that it was of our own doing...


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> So Christ was only kidding when he said "This is MY body and MY blood do this everytime you gather together in remembrance of me"?
> 
> You "like" lent so you can keep it. And oh by the way try reading my posts. I am not Catholic. And for those of you who believe Catholics "worship" Mary. Please read the Catholic doctrine. They venerate her as the Mother of Christ. While they also take a next step to say Christ had no brothers or sisters when scripture clearly mentions a couple and historical evidence backs that up but still. At least get it right. As for the rest of your rant...
> 
> ...



no, i dont like lent. you can read below why i do not.
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/lent.htm

no, Jesus was not kidding about His flesh... i eat the flesh of Jesus as I live my life for Him every second that i have a breath in my body...NOT once a week in cracker form, for forgiveness of sins... 

John 6
50This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. 

 51I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. 

 52The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? 

 53Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. 

 54Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. 

 55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. 

 56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. 

 57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. 

 58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever. 

_this is where the Catholics stop reading... but if you keep going...._

 59These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. 

 60Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? 

 61When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? 

 62What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? 

_63It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life_. 

did you see that? His words are SPIRIT...  or Spiritual...  Jesus was talking spiritually not literally... if He was talking literally then we would be cannibals for eating the flesh of men... cannibalism is forbidden in the Bible so we dont eat His flesh literally but spiritually...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Sorry bubba. The scriptures don't back up eating his flesh every second you breathe. It wasn't an analogy. It was a command. Something happens in that moment of blessing for the communion. You believe that all earthly things are inherently wrong. At least that is the position from which you are coming. The priests of the Jewish temples ate the flesh of sacrifices after the burnt offerings. This is what they lived off of. THIS IS WHY JESUS SAYS THIS. We are to partake in him as the sacrifice the same way.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Sorry bubba. The scriptures don't back up eating his flesh every second you breathe. It wasn't an analogy. It was a command. Something happens in that moment of blessing for the communion. You believe that all earthly things are inherently wrong. At least that is the position from which you are coming. The priests of the Jewish temples ate the flesh of sacrifices after the burnt offerings. This is what they lived off of. THIS IS WHY JESUS SAYS THIS. We are to partake in him as the sacrifice the same way.



the Scripture doesn't back it up to you.. b/c you dont want to believe it. you dont want the Truth. this teaching by Jesus was "spiritual" and not carnal. thats why some of His followers left Him at that time. eating Jesus in a wafer appeals to you... b/c thats what "the church" teaches...  eating Jesus spiritually appeals to me b/c thats what the Bible teaches...  we can agree to disagree... and my name is not bubba, it is cletus...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

I believe, you just cannot accept the history and the theology behind it. Because Theology does not appeal to you. You believe the simpler the better. Truth is never simple. Truth requires study and thought. There is history behind the idea of Transubstantiation. To before the time of Christ. Christianity has its roots in Judaism. So all of those laws and traditions are to have meaning to us. Not to keep but to understand the point of them and their ideas. 

But of course I am sure I misunderstand this because Satan has taken over and I secretly worship the Pope rather than Christ. Even though I am a Presbyterian/ Episcopal. I don't fit into a theological box.

And you will get further in your arguments if you quit claiming no one but you or that holds to your ideas is Christian.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> I believe, you just cannot accept the history and the theology behind it. Because Theology does not appeal to you. You believe the simpler the better. Truth is never simple. Truth requires study and thought. There is history behind the idea of Transubstantiation. To before the time of Christ. Christianity has its roots in Judaism. So all of those laws and traditions are to have meaning to us. Not to keep but to understand the point of them and their ideas.
> 
> But of course I am sure I misunderstand this because Satan has taken over and I secretly worship the Pope rather than Christ. Even though I am a Presbyterian/ Episcopal. I don't fit into a theological box.
> 
> And you will get further in your arguments if you quit claiming no one but you or that holds to your ideas is Christian.



i do accept history and tradition... but only what came from the Holy Spirit, which is found in the teachings of Jesus and His disciples ONLY... there has been no inspired teachings since the book of Revelation was written.

Jesus is the Truth...
proven below
John 1:17
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth,

Romans 15:8
Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth of God.

Ephesians 4:21
If so be that ye have heard him, and have been taught by him, as the truth is in Jesus

1 John 5:6
This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth.

therefore is the Tuth simple??

2 Corinthians 11:3
But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, _so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ_.

looks like we have a winner!!!!    

The Truth (Jesus) is Simple!!

you're right, theology does not appeal to me.  God and His Word appeal to me...  was Jesus a religious person? No... He fought tooth and nail with the religious leaders...  and basically told them that they dont go to heaven.... nor the people that follow their "religious" ways...

Matthew 23:13
But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in

i agree that Truth needs to be studied...  the Bible needs to be studied and thats it... nothing more needed...

2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness...

you can find your history of transubstantiation here...

http://www.lazyboysreststop.com/apol8.htm

Christianity does not have its "roots" in Judaism... the first Christians (Jesus and His disciples) came OUT of Judaism. they are not to be combined. The Talmud mocks Christ. Jewish histroy rejects Christ. there are no similarities between TRUE and pure Christianity and Judaism although there is many similarities between Catholicism and Judaism...

there is no need for the Christian to learn Jewish laws. thats why we were given a New Covenant.... it cant hurt to know them in the sense it was a foreshadowing of the Messiah but thats it... 

i dont claim anything except that i deserve helllfire forever but Jesus saved me from it...  but i do claim what the Bible claims... helllfire for "religionists" and grace for the poor, humble, weak, pitiful sinner who gets on their knees and begs Christ for salvation...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

There is nothing in the New Testament that is not foretold in the Old. And nothing in the Old that is not fulfilled in the New. The Laws of Moses still pertain to us. Thru them we are to discover we cannot be perfect and accept the Grace that God offers thru the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ.

You reject that which you do not understand. You reject Judaism. Christ was a Jew. You bash the Catholic Church which kept Christianity alive for thousands of years. 

You have hatred in your heart for these things. You are blind to what is before you. There is no radical like the convert. You are very bright in your church's views. Now just learn what people actually think and not what you or your pastor want to claim we do.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> There is nothing in the New Testament that is not foretold in the Old. And nothing in the Old that is not fulfilled in the New. The Laws of Moses still pertain to us. Thru them we are to discover we cannot be perfect and accept the Grace that God offers thru the sacrifice of his Son Jesus Christ.
> 
> You reject that which you do not understand. You reject Judaism. Christ was a Jew. You bash the Catholic Church which kept Christianity alive for thousands of years.
> 
> You have hatred in your heart for these things. You are blind to what is before you. There is no radical like the convert. You are very bright in your church's views. Now just learn what people actually think and not what you or your pastor want to claim we do.



blah blah blah... end of discussion.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Thought so. You hide behind ideology and "no creed but Christ".


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Thought so. You hide behind ideology and "no creed but Christ".



there you go again... acting like you know me... you dont.

to sum up all of my beliefs is easy... God, Jesus, Holy Spirit, Scripture... there you go...

if something falls outside of what i just listed (tradition for ex.), it is to be compared to those above.  if they do not line up, then i reject it. 

i hide behind nothing but the Word of God. and Jesus Christ as my armour... a religionist like you will never break thru my armour, no matter how hard you try... 

even when the popes killed millions of the true saints, the armour of those saints never failed... in fact it was glorified... as was God.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

There you go acting like you know me...

Yeah I do. I'm kin to a bunch of you. I am not a religionist. Well I might be since I am not quite sure what it is.

If I believe that my Doctrine and Theology determine my outlook on life and faith does that make me a religionist? Not sitting dumbly in a pew Sunday after Sunday and never discovering what others have thought or experienced? What others have suffered thru and leanred from? Believing that C.S. Lewis and others like him had valuable insight to lend on faith and life? Believing that there are other books of value to my life than the bible? Honestly searching for learning not accepting what some pastor tells me blindly?

And OMG! Popes killed millions of true saints??? WTH are you talking about? Heretics? The Papal Wars? And when did I become Catholic and to blame for all of that?

You are trying to group everyone who does not agree with your strict little view of what you believe to be Christianity. In fact you are simply mimicking the persecutors of those you so boldly pronounce as saints.

Do you believe in the Rapture? The Tribulation? 

How often do you partake in communion? Do you tithe?


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> There you go acting like you know me...
> 
> Yeah I do. I'm kin to a bunch of you. I am not a religionist. Well I might be since I am not quite sure what it is.
> 
> ...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Don't want to answer or just want to be smart about it?


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> There you go acting like you know me...
> 
> Yeah I do. I'm kin to a bunch of you. I am not a religionist. Well I might be since I am not quite sure what it is.
> 
> ...



i am sorry i was just laughing too hard to answer... 

for the respect of others here, i'll just say, do your research on the Holy Wars, the Spanish Inquisition, St. Barthalomews Day Massacre and the Holy Crusades... that should keep you busy for a while...

i dont care what others think. i only care what God thinks.

Matthew 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear Him which is able to destroy both soul and body in helll.

i dont blame you for the crusades and inquisition...

yes, i believe in the rapture, tribulation, communion (not transubstantiation) and yes i give the way that i am commanded in the NT, but no i dont tithe.  tithing was for the Jewish people, just as the sabbath was...  but thats a whole nother story...   

what difference does that make?


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Easy. You are following a set of theological beliefs in the tribulation and the rapture that did not come into being until the 1860's. 

Do your homework.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Easy. You are following a set of theological beliefs in the tribulation and the rapture that did not come into being until the 1860's.
> 
> Do your homework.



did you set me up with a trick question? i think you did...

tribulation is mentioned 25 times in the Bible... and you go and tell Enoch that he wasn't "caught up" by God...

Hebrews 11:5
 5 By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God.

Genesis 5:24 
 24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him

1 Corinthians 15:51-54 
 51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 

 52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

2 Cor 12
4 How that he was caught up into paradise...

its amazing how the Bible shows every man to be a liar...

Romans 3:4 
 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Enoch is not a reference to the tribulation and yes the idea of the rapture only dates to the 1860's in London to be factual about it. It is not a traditional Christian doctrine. This was no set up just pointing out where you are coming from for everyone else. 

Classy too calling me a liar with the Bible in the same sentence.


----------



## dawg2 (Jan 20, 2009)

...sweet Mary mother of God......


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Enoch is not a reference to the tribulation and yes the idea of the rapture only dates to the 1860's in London to be factual about it. It is not a traditional Christian doctrine. This was no set up just pointing out where you are coming from for everyone else.
> 
> Classy too calling me a liar with the Bible in the same sentence.



you are a liar... not because i say so but b/c God does... and if it makes you feel better, God said i'm a liar too...

i was referring to Enoch being raptured or caught away or harpazo...


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> ...sweet Mary mother of God......



thats a "bait" that i am not biting on...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Big10point said:


> you are a liar... not because i say so but b/c God does... and if it makes you feel better, God said i'm a liar too...



It's not about how I feel. It's about your views and twisting of the Christian Faith.


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> It's not about how I feel. It's about your views and twisting of the Christian Faith.



ok, truce...


----------



## celticfisherman (Jan 20, 2009)

Peace out brother!


----------



## Big10point (Jan 20, 2009)

celticfisherman said:


> Peace out brother!



i am so proud...   

Jim didnt have to lock it up...


----------



## Jeffriesw (Jan 20, 2009)

dawg2 said:


> ...sweet Mary mother of God......




X's 2


----------

