Posted by Jaypeeto on March 20, 1999 at 08:02:23 {MW/mrDAKQdkdU}:
In Reply to: Written to Catholics or JWs? posted by Cygnus on March 19, 1999 at 23:44:57:
Hi Cyg!
WHEW!!!!!!
Where would you like me to begin????
There is so MUCH balderdash and tripe contained in that diatribe, it would take a WEEK to refute two or three assertions!
Let's start with one. (I KNOW THAT YOU ARE NOT THE AUTHOR OF THAT ARTICLE, IT IS WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY TOO ASININE FOR THE LEVEL OF INTELLIGENCE I HAVE ALWAYS SEEN IN YOUR POSTS...THIS SOUNDS LIKE A FUNDIE VERSION OF "YOU KNOW.")
I'll start with one, challenging the article's author:
WHY should I (Jaypeeto) get specifically a copy of the KING JAMES BIBLE and read IT's New Testament through just once?! The author should show me where SCRIPTURE, and Scripture ALONE ((SOLA, author!!)) orders me to specifically
use a 17th century Translation which originally even incorporated what this (obviously ultra-fundamentalist) author would no doubt abhor as the so-called "APOCRYPHA!!!!"
Where does "Scripture ALONE" say that I should use a King
James?!
On forbidding people to read the bible, he should be much more specific. When did this start?
Where? In reaction to WHAT?! What is the historical context of this "forbidding"??
Also, prior to the 16th century, among those
NOT ACCEPTING the authority of Rome, (The entire Eastern Orthodox Church), and who did ***not*** "forbid" anyone to "read" the Bible,
WHEN and WHERE did anybody come up with the unique interpretations this author holds to? Names and
places, please. (Not you, Cygnus, the author).
By the way, author, how is that say, Luther, who thundered "SOLA Scriptura," and Calvin, who ALSO thundered it loudly, came up with two diametrically opposed interpretations of the meaning of the Holy Eucharist, from the EXACT SAME Scripture verses? Luther held to consubstantiation, a form of the "REAL Presence," while Calvin held only to a SPIRITUAL presence which did NOT in any way bring about a corporeal presence of the Risen Christ in the elements.
Radically different interpretations. Mutually exclusive, in fact. So, dear fundamentalist author, to WHICH of the GOD-RAISED-UP "great" Reformers, was the Holy Spirit bearing True Witness? To Luther? or
to Calvin?
Both were using the Scriptures, same topic.
They disagreed. Violently (read some of Luther's UNedited writings, by the way, to see how malicious this man was toward OTHERS who held to SOLA scriptura yet who "DARED" to
come to a different interpretation than his!)
In Paul's letters, he tells us that the CHURCH OF GOD is the Pillar and Support of the Truth.
That, dear fundamentalist, is part of the scriptures you CLAIM to venerate, as is Christ's
promise that the Faith would never be obliterated from the face of the earth. Where then, were your fellow fundamentalists all through the ages from the 1st century down to now? If you throw the Albigensian Cathars at me, I will tell you
what THEY believed, and refer you to scholars like David Christie-Murray who will verify what I say, that these people held to a theology which would impel you to DRIVE THEM OUT OF YOUR CONGREGATIONS BY FORCE, yet your beloved "SERMONS ON
THE TRAIL OF BLOOD" and other tripe, purports that these were simply part of the misunderstood evangelicals who were persecuted by the whore of Babylon!
Anyway.
Thanks for posting that, Cygnus.
I needed the mental equivalent of a
gallon of CUBAN COFFEE to get me going this morning.
Best Regards,
Jaypeeto :)