Two Questions To Protestants?

[Starets]

Our faith is also based on God's preserved word. ALL of it. Both in written form in the form of Sacred Scripture and in unwritten form in the form onf Sacred Tradition.

I was a history major in college. And grad school. I know more about historiographic pitfalls than any reasonably sane person should.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240092' date='Apr 12 2007, 03:19 PM']What if the teacher has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?

I don't go to any church for a reason. . .[/quote]Hi FullTruth, let's place your hypothetical in the context of the thread topic. Are you suggesting that someone was able to manipulate/change certain passages of the Holy Bible? Or, are you suggesting that a one or more doctrines were "invented" at some point in support of some conspiracy?

On any given debatable subject, one could find a non-Catholic Christian holding either side of the argument; yet, they all claim to be "Bible-believing". In contrast, the Catholic Church has a pretty robust "paper trail" with regard to its teachings.

Wouldn't you agree that it's hard to advance a discussion when accusations remain vague? So, if you've got a particular Scripture passage or doctrine in mind, bring your argument out of the shadows by sharing your specifics.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240092' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:19 PM']What if the teacher has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?

I don't go to any church for a reason. . .[/quote]

So you're saying that the entire Catholic Church hierarchy "has made a deal with those who would want to see humanity destroyed?"

My friend, that sounds like a very good reason [i]to[/i] go to church. You need a good dose of sound teaching from an authoritative source.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1240094' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:20 PM']Our faith is also based on God's preserved word. ALL of it. Both in written form in the form of Sacred Scripture and in unwritten form in the form onf Sacred Tradition.[/quote]

Rock on!

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1240107' date='Apr 12 2007, 03:48 PM']Hi FullTruth, let's place your hypothetical in the context of the thread topic. Are you suggesting that someone was able to manipulate/change certain passages of the Holy Bible? Or, are you suggesting that a one or more doctrines were "invented" at some point in support of some conspiracy?

On any given debatable subject, one could find a non-Catholic Christian holding either side of the argument; yet, they all claim to be "Bible-believing". In contrast, the Catholic Church has a pretty robust "paper trail" with regard to its teachings.

Wouldn't you agree that it's hard to advance a discussion when accusations remain vague? So, if you've got a particular Scripture passage or doctrine in mind, bring your argument out of the shadows by sharing your specifics.[/quote]
There are a lot of doctrines in the religions of man that don't make any biblical sense. Even the RC church.
Argue as you may, I will still hold this opinion of anybody praying to a saint.

Prayer is a spiritual action and an act of worship. So when you pray to somebody who could be in heaven, or not be in heaven, you are giving them worship, and as a result you have just given someone other than God something that only belongs to God, which is Blasphamy.

My arguement is this. Take out the word Saint, and put the word god in its place. So you have a saint/god for this type of situation, and a saint/god for another situation. All of this is being passed off with a couple of scriptures backing it (Any doctrine based on one or two scriptures is on shaky ground with me), so that good-hearted people like you pray to these saints and think your requests will go to God because of them.

Guess what, It's Paganism, and that's final! You will no dissuade me of that.

That is one of many examples of the blashphamy of the RC church.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 02:27 PM']There are a lot of doctrines in the religions of man that don't make any biblical sense. Even the RC church.
Argue as you may, I will still hold this opinion of anybody praying to a saint.

Prayer is a spiritual action and an act of worship. So when you pray to somebody who could be in heaven, or not be in heaven, you are giving them worship, and as a result you have just given someone other than God something that only belongs to God, which is Blasphamy.

My arguement is this. Take out the word Saint, and put the word god in its place. So you have a saint/god for this type of situation, and a saint/god for another situation. All of this is being passed off with a couple of scriptures backing it (Any doctrine based on one or two scriptures is on shaky ground with me), so that good-hearted people like you pray to these saints and think your requests will go to God because of them.

Guess what, It's Paganism, and that's final! You will no dissuade me of that.

That is one of many examples of the blashphamy of the RC church.[/quote]

So if I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you? If I ask you to pray for me, is that blasphemy?

What if I take out the word "you" and put "god" in its place. What if I take out the word "the" and put "a" in its place? What if I take out the entire sentence and put another sentence in its place? Meaning doesn't mean anything if you change the meaning, do you see what I mean?

Edited April 12, 2007 by kenrockthefirst

[FullTruth]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1240148' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:36 PM']So if I ask you to pray for me, am I praying to you? If I ask you to pray for me, is that blasphemy?

What if I take out the word "you" and put "god" in its place. What if I take out the word "the" and put "a" in its place? What if I take out the entire sentence and put another sentence in its place? Meaning doesn't mean anything if you change the meaning, do you see what I mean?[/quote]
Are you going to use one scripture, confess your faults one to another, the fervertant prayer of a righteous man availeth much to justify praying to a dead 'saint'. Sorry, not buying that one!

I sling the arrows where they need to go.

[b]Asking[/b] someone on earth to pray for you - [b]asking[/b], not [b]praying to them to pray for you[/b], is okay.
The other is blasphamy! Pure and simple blasphamy!

It is a well thought out deception that has convinced many people it is true.

Edited April 12, 2007 by FullTruth

[BG45]

I realize there's a train of discussion going on already regarding sources like Jack Chick, and must apologize for not wanting to touch that. I don't tend to use Chick as a source myself, and rarely read his works; also don't want to butt in on people already in conversation.

[quote]1-Who copied the and preserved the Holy bible before the Reformation?..Baptist? Penticostals? Who?

2-If each person is supposed to understand the Bible without the Churches interpretation why are there over 10,000 protestant sects and numerous cults all claiming to be correct and bible believing?[/quote]

1) The Roman Catholic Church.

2) We like to split when we argue. A lot.

[Akalyte]

[quote name='Budge' post='1240069' date='Apr 12 2007, 01:49 PM']My faith unlike yours is not based on HISTORY but on God's eternal preserved Word.

History has many many biases. Even recent American history is being rewritten constantly.

I was a history minor in college, you think I dont know history but I do, but it is sinking sand when it comes to being a foundation of faith.[/quote]

Which preserved word are you talking about? Your people have created countless versions of bibles with over 6000 errors in many of them! So tell me which one? It's insane, you guys talk about the bible this, the bible that! its not the bible your talking about! in PRIDE you are really refering to your personal interpretation. Sorry but Jesus never gave the command to "go therefore and make your own churches and bibles. He made one Church. It's blasphemy to go and build your own church.

Open a Protestant Bible, and you will find there are seven complete Books awanting – that is, seven books fewer than there are in the Catholic Bible, and seven fewer than there were in every collection and catalogue of Holy Scripture from the fourth to the sixteenth century. Their names are Tobias, Baruch, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, I Machabees, II Machabees, together with seven chapters of the Book of Esther and 66 verses of the 3rd chapter of Daniel, commonly called ‘the Song of the Three Children’, (Daniel iii., 24-90, Douai Version). These were deliberately cut out, and the Bible bound up without them. The criticisms and remarks of Luther, Calvin, and the Swiss and German Reformers about these seven books of the Old Testament show to what depths of impiety those unhappy men had allowed themselves to fall when they broke away from the true Church. Even in regard to the New Testament in required all the powers of resistance on the part of the more conservative Reformers to prevent Luther from flinging out the Epistle of St. James as unworthy to remain within the volume of Holy Scripture – ‘an Epistle of straw’ he called it, ‘with no character of the Gospel in it’. In the same way, and almost to the same degree, he dishonored the Epistle of St. Jude and the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the beautiful Apocalypse of St. John, declaring they were not on the same footing as the rest of the books, and did not contain the same amount of Gospel (i.e., his Gospel). The presumptuous way, indeed, in which Luther, among others, poured contempt, and doubt upon some of the inspired writing which had been acknowledged and cherished and venerated for 1000 or 1200 years would be scarcely credible were it not hat we have his very words in cold print, which cannot lie, and may be read in his Biography, or be seen quoted in such books as Dr. Westcott’s The Bible in The Church. And why did he impugn such books as we have mentioned? Because they did not suit his new doctrines and opinions. He had arrived at the principle of private judgment – of picking and choosing religious doctrines; and whenever any book, such as the Book of Machabees, taught a doctrine that was repugnant to his individual taste – as, for example, that ‘it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins’, 2 Mach. xii., 46 – well, so much the worse for the book; ‘throw it overboard’, was his sentence, and overboard it went. And it was the same with passages and texts in those books which Luther allowed to remain, and pronounced to be worthy to find a place within the boards of the new Reformed Bible. In short, he not only cast out certain books, but he mutilated some that were left. For example, not pleased with St. Paul’s doctrine, ‘we are justified by faith’, and fearing lest good works (a Popish superstition) might creep in, he added the word ‘only’ after St. Paul’s words, making the sentence run: ‘We are justified by Faith only’, and so it reads in Lutheran Bibles to this day. An action such as that must surely be reprobated by all Bible Christians. What surprises us is the audacity of the man that could coolly change by a stroke of the pen a fundamental doctrine of the Apostle of God, St. Paul, who wrote, as all admitted, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. Bu this was the outcome of the Protestant standpoint, individual judgment: no authority outside of oneself. However ignorant, however stupid, however unlettered, you may, indeed you are bound to cut and carve out a Bible and a Religion for yourself. No Pope, no Council, no Church shall enlighten you or dictate or hand down the doctrines of Christ. And the result we have seen in the corruption of God’s Holy Word.

(4) Yet, in spite of all reviling of the Roman Church, the Reformers were forced to accept from her those Sacred Scriptures which they retained in their collection. Whatever Bible they have today, disfigured as it is, was taken from us. Blind indeed must be the evangelical Christian who cannot recognize in the old Catholic Bible the quarry form which he has hewn the Testament he loves and studies; but with what loss! At what a sacrifice! In what a mutilated and disfigured condition! That the Reformers should appropriate unabridged the Bible of the Catholic Church (which was the only volume of God’s Scripture ever known on earth), even for the purpose of elevating it into a false position – this we could have understood; what staggers us, is their deliberate excision from that Sacred Volume of some of the inspired Books which had God for their Author, and their no less deliberate alteration of some of the texts of those books that were suffered to remain. It is on consideration of such points as these that pious persons outside the Catholic fold would do well to ask themselves the question – Which Christian body really loves and revers the Scriptures most? Which has proved, by its actions, its love and veneration? And which seems most likely to incur the anathema, recorded by St. John, that God will send upon those who shall take away from the words of the Book of Life? (Apoc. xxii., 19.)

[FullTruth]

Me thinks the Catholics are angry at the Protestants, damning them to hell again!

I love it how you say that the Protestant Bible is lacking, but RC church won't touch the book of Enoch, Enoch being one of the three people who has been taken up into glory. I would think that such a book would have been gratefully accepted by any believer.

But it talks about Watchers, (Fallen Angels, for those who do not understand), having children with human beings - which is a Catholic No-No! So let's throw out that inspired word of God too! Doesn't suit our doctrines! Get rid of it - it's demonic!

Love ya Akalyte, but my understanding would say the RC bibles are lacking 1 book, and Protestant 8 books!

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240392' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:31 PM']Me thinks the Catholics are angry at the Protestants, damning them to hell again!

I love it how you say that the Protestant Bible is lacking, but RC church won't touch the book of Enoch, Enoch being one of the three people who has been taken up into glory. I would think that such a book would have been gratefully accepted by any believer.

But it talks about Watchers, (Fallen Angels, for those who do not understand), having children with human beings - which is a Catholic No-No! So let's throw out that inspired word of God too! Doesn't suit our doctrines! Get rid of it - it's demonic!

Love ya Akalyte, but my understanding would say the RC bibles are lacking 1 book, and Protestant 8 books![/quote]

The Bible comes from the teaching of the Church. Not the other way around.

[FullTruth]

[quote name='T-Bone' post='1240394' date='Apr 12 2007, 07:32 PM']The Bible comes from the teaching of the Church. Not the other way around.[/quote]
If you think about what you just said - the Bible comes from the teaching of the church, means the church tells you what to think, and how to believe. Shouldn't it be the opposite, that the Bible should dictate what a believer should believe and say how a church be. But I'm one of those 'Satanic' Sola-Scriptura people.

The book of Enoch is in the Dead Sea Scrolls T-bone.

Is the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Catholic Church, or the Jewish Nation?

At some point, there was a group of people, who took all the letters and books the apostles and the jewish people wrote which were considered divinely inspired. Then they decided which of these would go into the Bible. Many were rejected, because they were Gnostics, but not all books that were rejected were rejected because they were Gnostic.

Enoch was written before the flood, and was probably preached in Noah's time. Noah took those teachings and kept them, and handed them to the Jewish people!

So the Old Testament and books like Enoch were not written by the Catholic Church, but by the followers of God before the times of Christ.

But because Enoch talks about a No-No for the Catholic Church, the children of the fallen angels and humanity, they didn't want it in their Bible.

Edited April 12, 2007 by FullTruth

[Akalyte]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240392' date='Apr 12 2007, 06:31 PM']Me thinks the Catholics are angry at the Protestants, damning them to hell again!

I love it how you say that the Protestant Bible is lacking, but RC church won't touch the book of Enoch, Enoch being one of the three people who has been taken up into glory. I would think that such a book would have been gratefully accepted by any believer.

But it talks about Watchers, (Fallen Angels, for those who do not understand), having children with human beings - which is a Catholic No-No! So let's throw out that inspired word of God too! Doesn't suit our doctrines! Get rid of it - it's demonic!

Love ya Akalyte, but my understanding would say the RC bibles are lacking 1 book, and Protestant 8 books![/quote]
we dont have the power to condemn anyone to hell, besides that's not our job. i'm angry because budge never finishes any of the debates, she keeps posting thread after thread attacking our faith without even reading our responses.


The Bible Centenary and the Catholic Church

Amid the general jubilation over the three hundredth anniversary of the appearance of King James’s version of the Bible, I think it would be a pity if we did not make mention of that great Church to which, under God, we owe our possession of the sacred Scriptures – I mean of course, the Roman Catholic Church. Without striking one single jarring note, I hope, in the universal chorus, yet I feel it would be rather ungenerous, and indeed historically unjust, did we not turn our eyes at least in passing to that venerable figure standing in the background surveying our celebrations, and, as it were, saying, ‘Rejoice over it, but remember it was from me you got it.’ As a Scotsman, who cannot forget that it is the Bible that has made Scotland largely what she is today, I yield to no one in veneration of the inspired Scriptures and in admiration of the incomparably beautiful Authorized Version. Still, honor to whom honor. We shall only be awarding a just meed of praise and gratitude if we frankly and thankfully recognize that it is to a council (or councils) of the R.C. Church that we owe the collections of the separate books into our present Canon of the New Testament, and that to the loving care and devoted labor o the monks and scholars of that Church all through the ages we are indebted, not only for the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume among the faithful when as yet no printing press existed, but even for the preservation of the Book from corruption an destruction. It is, then, undoubtedly true to say that, in the present order of Providence, it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers this notable year that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the ‘Word that endureth forever.’ – Henry Grey Graham.

[BG45]

[quote]Enoch was written before the flood, and was probably preached in Noah's time. Noah took those teachings and kept them, and handed them to the Jewish people!

So the Old Testament and books like Enoch were not written by the Catholic Church, but by the followers of God before the times of Christ.

But because Enoch talks about a No-No for the Catholic Church, the children of the fallen angels and humanity, they didn't want it in their Bible.[/quote]

However, I've yet to see anyone add it to a Protestant Bible. Now this could be due to warnings about how we should not add to sacred scripture, however, if it is indeed the inspired Word of God, I would hope that the people who publish Bibles would have the sense to publish a Bible with the Book of Enoch included.

Edit: Not trying to be a smart alec or anything. I'd really like to see it added to the Bible if someone could make a decision on it being God's Word. I've personally read the Book of Enoch, and don't find it to be that different. As FullTruth mentioned, it was a Jewish text first, and not gnostic.

Edited April 12, 2007 by BG45

[FullTruth]

[quote name='Akalyte' post='1240401' date='Apr 12 2007, 07:45 PM']we dont have the power to condemn anyone to hell, besides that's not our job. i'm angry because budge never finishes any of the debates, she keeps posting thread after thread attacking our faith without even reading our responses.
The Bible Centenary and the Catholic Church

Amid the general jubilation over the three hundredth anniversary of the appearance of King James’s version of the Bible, I think it would be a pity if we did not make mention of that great Church to which, under God, we owe our possession of the sacred Scriptures – I mean of course, the Roman Catholic Church. Without striking one single jarring note, I hope, in the universal chorus, yet I feel it would be rather ungenerous, and indeed historically unjust, did we not turn our eyes at least in passing to that venerable figure standing in the background surveying our celebrations, and, as it were, saying, ‘Rejoice over it, but remember it was from me you got it.’ As a Scotsman, who cannot forget that it is the Bible that has made Scotland largely what she is today, I yield to no one in veneration of the inspired Scriptures and in admiration of the incomparably beautiful Authorized Version. Still, honor to whom honor. We shall only be awarding a just meed of praise and gratitude if we frankly and thankfully recognize that it is to a council (or councils) of the R.C. Church that we owe the collections of the separate books into our present Canon of the New Testament, and that to the loving care and devoted labor o the monks and scholars of that Church all through the ages we are indebted, not only for the multiplication and distribution of the sacred volume among the faithful when as yet no printing press existed, but even for the preservation of the Book from corruption an destruction. It is, then, undoubtedly true to say that, in the present order of Providence, it is owing to the Roman Catholic Church that we have a Bible at all. And no one will be a bit the worse Christian and Bible-lover if he remembers this notable year that it is to the Mother Church of Christendom he must look if he would behold the real preserver, defender, and transmitter of the ‘Word that endureth forever.’ – Henry Grey Graham.[/quote]
That sounds more like you friend.

I think we can have a good debate, where we don't get overheated.

Budge can be a little much for me too handle as well.

I recognize there is alot of the Bible that came from good, spirit filled men, copying the scriptures to ensure they endured the centuries.

However, I don't believe any bible is complete. My arguement for the book of Enoch should be debated. The book of Enoch lays everything out, including the flood, what happened after the flood, and the great tribulation. Enoch was one of the only three men who was raptured, and the book of Enoch has been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls. These suggest that they are inspired by God, but it never got included in any Bible? What gives?

I think that book got cut from the original Bible because it contains the teaching of human beings having children with fallen angles, which is a Catholic No-No.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240400' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:41 PM']If you think about what you just said - the Bible comes from the teaching of the church, means the church tells you what to think, and how to believe. Shouldn't it be the opposite, that the Bible should dictate what a believer should believe and say how a church be. But I'm one of those 'Satanic' Sola-Scriptura people.[/quote]

The Church does tell me what to believe. I am not ashamed of this. The Church is an authority, authorized by Jesus Himself to teach the word of God. I submit to this authority.

It should not be the opposite. Others are better equipped to argue this point, but ponder this, the Bible itself teaches that oral tradition is both proper and valid. Just because it's not explicitly in the Bible doesn't make it untrue.

[quote]

The book of Enoch is in the Dead Sea Scrolls T-bone.
[/quote]Your point?

[quote]

At some point, there was a group of people, who took all the letters and books the apostles and the jewish people wrote which were considered divinely inspired. Then they decided which of these would go into the Bible. Many were rejected, because they were Gnostics, but not all books that were rejected were rejected because they were Gnostic.[/quote]

Books that preached other heresies were rejected as well. Or are you just hung up on gnosticism?


[quote]
Enoch was written before the flood, and was probably preached in Noah's time. Noah took those teachings and kept them, and handed them to the Jewish people!
[/quote]Proof?

[quote]
So the Old Testament and books like Enoch were not written by the Catholic Church, but by the followers of God before the times of Christ.

But because Enoch talks about a No-No for the Catholic Church, the children of the fallen angels and humanity, they didn't want it in their Bible.[/quote]

Once again, the Bible stems from the teachings of the Church. Not the other way around. This has been historically proven, despite the lies and slander by folks such as Jack Chick.

[Katholikos]

FT, the Catholic Church canonized the Jewish Scriptures she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles. Enoch wasn't among them. So take your complaint up with a higher power. If you or anyone else wants to consider Enoch scripture, why not? You interpret the words of scripture for yourselves, why not select your own inspired writings? You and other Protestants can tell writings that are inspired from those that aren't, can't you? You can tell us how you know Philemon is inspired but the Epistle of Barnabas or the Shepherd of Hermas isn't, can't you. So tell us, please.

Since you are not a Catholic, you are certanly free to make up your own set of scriptures, approve those which you like, reject those you don't like. It's been done before -- by a guy named Marcion in the second century and by a guy named Luther in the sixteenth. You decide what the scriptures mean, rejecting the authority of the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world, so why should you be limited by the authority of the Church as to which writings are scripture? Will you call your version the FTV -- the FullTruth Version? Can't wait to see it in book stores.

Christianity wasn't based on the Bible, but on the teaching of the Catholic Church, founded by Christ and instructed by the Apostles for that purpose. The Church wrote the NT and produced the Bible when she was nearly 400 years old.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']There are a lot of doctrines in the religions of man that don't make any biblical sense. Even the RC church.[/quote]I suppose the simplest question for you would be, what are the criteria which you use to discern between the "religions of man" and the "religion of God"? Further, from what qualifications and authority can you make such a pronouncement?

For example, Christians believe that the Holy Bible was authored by men, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How can you refute the Muslim apologist who suggests that our Holy Scriptures also fall under the "religion of man", when they claim that their god "spoke" the words of their holy book?

I find it even more questionable that you could have any confidence in following "biblical teachings," since it's not clear you've made up your mind what books even belong in your bible!

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']Argue as you may, I will still hold this opinion of anybody praying to a saint.

Prayer is a spiritual action and an act of worship. So when you pray to somebody who could be in heaven, or not be in heaven, you are giving them worship, and as a result you have just given someone other than God something that only belongs to God, which is Blasphamy.[/quote]This is a difference between Catholics and the fundamentalists: we Catholics believe that the Church is the mystical body of Christ. Those who have gone before us don't die when they leave this world. They are the Church Triumphant, [b]alive[/b] in Christ, thanks to His sacrifice on the Cross! In contrast, it seems the fundamentalists see the afterlife as some kind of persistent vegitative state. Apparently, those who go to heaven are deaf, blind, and pretty much unaware of anything.

I invite you to read some relevant discussion found here:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp"]http://www.catholic.com/library/mary_saints.asp[/url]

By the way, you mention that the saints may "not be in heaven." Since the Catholics' favorite saint is Mary, the mother of Our Lord, I'd like to ask: do you believe that she is in heaven, or do you believe that this is not certain? Recall, Luke 1:48.

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']My arguement is this. Take out the word Saint, and put the word god in its place. So you have a saint/god for this type of situation, and a saint/god for another situation.[/quote]OK, that's your argument. My argument is: you [u]cannot[/u] "take out the word saint and put the word god in its place".

What does saint mean? It means: holy, set aside for God, near to God. All these definitions are relative to [u]God[/u]. They all point to the One who gives them their holiness. In the case of Catholic canonized (i.e. formally recognized) saints, they are examples who demonstrated heroic virtue, and their life was dedicated to imitating their Master, Our Lord Jesus Christ! Looking to the saints' example always leads to Our Lord.

I find your argument of substituting words to be quite contrived. In addition, you may want to step back and wait a little bit before you presume to know how I pray, and why my prayers include petitions to the saints.

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']All of this is being passed off with a couple of scriptures backing it (Any doctrine based on one or two scriptures is on shaky ground with me), so that good-hearted people like you pray to these saints and think your requests will go to God because of them.[/quote]OK, so how many "Nephilim" verses have you found in the Holy Bible, that makes belief in them as magic-casting half-bred demons a major focus of your discussions here? Honestly, if anything is "on shaky ground"...

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']Guess what, It's Paganism, and that's final! You will no dissuade me of that.[/quote]I think you mean "polytheism." Anyway, believe what you wish. Who am I to dissuade you?

[quote name='FullTruth' post='1240140' date='Apr 12 2007, 04:27 PM']That is one of many examples of the blashphamy of the RC church.[/quote]Interesting point. Let's say you call the Word of God untrue. For example...ummm...Our Lord said in Matthew 16:18, "I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." Yet, you reject [u]any[/u] church: quoting your words, "I don't go to any church for a reason." Wouldn't it be a great blasphemy to suggest that Our Lord could not keep His promise?

Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:27-40), you are your own authority, fully capable of determining your own scripture canon, and interpreting each book (i.e. of those that make your final cut) as you see fit.

[Budge]

Enoch is not scripture.

I know people here wont believe this, but the Holy Spirit does lead Christians to know what is inspired and what is not.

The Holy Spirit directed me away from Enoch making it clear it is not inspired and is a mixture of truth and lies.

Also if you believe Enoch is "part" of scripture, you have spit in the face of God's promises one of which is preservation of His eternal Word. Given that Enoch is not included, there is a reason for tht.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Budge' post='1241289' date='Apr 13 2007, 05:30 AM']Enoch is not scripture.

I know people here wont believe this, but the Holy Spirit does lead Christians to know what is inspired and what is not.

The Holy Spirit directed me away from Enoch making it clear it is not inspired and is a mixture of truth and lies.

Also if you believe Enoch is "part" of scripture, you have spit in the face of God's promises one of which is preservation of His eternal Word. Given that Enoch is not included, there is a reason for tht.[/quote]

Thus spake the Magisterium of Budge.

Do you realize what you just said? YOU decided what is scripture, despite the fact that the canon of the Bible was agreed ~AD 400. The Holy Spirit directed YOU away from Enoch, giving YOU some kind of private revelation. Why is YOUR private revelation any better than David Koresh's?

As for preservation of God's eternal Word, what have you to say about Martin Luther, who chopped up the canon of the Bible and called the Letter of St. James an "epistle of straw?"