Error, Tradition and the sinful nature

In Acts 20 Paul predicted that error would begin to infest the true NT church even in the first century "I know that after my departure savage wolves will arise...from among your own selves"

In Mark 7 -- Christ observed that the magesterium of the "One True Nation Church" that God started at Sinai - had already begun replacing the Word of God with the "traditions of man".

But what gives rise to this "leap into error"? Might we still see this principle working in the church today?

Then I notice threads right here that give instructive insight into how this still works today. WE can see it clearly in two examples on this board.


#1. The case of living cells vs abiogenesis

On the evolution vs Christ thread - the subject of amino acids and chiral orientation came up (and the fact that evolutionism's abiogenesis story could never be believed by anyone observing chiral orientations of amino acids in living cells).

But UTEOTW claims this was "refuted" - and that the fact is that in the beginning living cells did not work that way. (HE states it as fact).

But then he later admits - that science shows nothing of the kind. We have no evidence at all of living cells composed of random chiral distributions.

Yet his argument against it was stated as 'fact' as if it had been "shown" to be true. (When in fact science ONLY shows us left-handed chiral orientations in amino acids).


#2. The case of "Vicarius Filii Dei" (666).

On the Baptist vs Catholic doctrines thread Mioque asserts that I am the author of this title - or I made it up for the RCC.

Yet when pressed - Mioque must admit that in fact it IS in the RC document "The Donation of Constantine" and is applied directly to Pope Peter and his successors in that RC document.

We see that it was endorsed by no less than Ten Popes in legal arguments over a period of centuries. And key RCC leaders even argued for CONTINUED use of the document AFTER it was found to be RC in origin and NOT that of a pagan emperor. (Note: It is "because" it is a forgery that it is RC - and not ROMAN in origin and use).

Consistent in both examples we find the authors of those claims - sincerely advocating positions that have no basis in fact.

You would think that they would be embarrased to bring these flawed defenses to light - but on the contrary - they are proud to present them at any opportunity "As if" they had evidence supporting their claims.

How can that be? Why wouldn't the human tendancy be to hide these weaknesses and promote a stronger point instead?

The fact is - when pressed on these points they DO switch topics quickly seeking a stronger footing. Then why wouldn't they avoid these weak spots like the plague?

Is it simply our human nature that we are all flawed and that error blinds us to our own weaknesses - until the difference between "fact" and "Story" becomes blurred. (Though they seem to admit to facts when pressed on these points - if cornered).

Is that how the Jews came to "sincerely" adopting tradition that violated the Word of God?

I am sure they did not say to themselve "HEY lets think of something that will violate God's Word".

What do you think?

In Christ,

Bob

 

If you don't read the thread on evolution that is current on this thread today - you won't see the "current" discussion on abiogenesis. If you need to see the statement from Richard Dawkings on "explaining everything" and "starting from nothing" I can give it. But I trust you can go to that thread if you are really confused on the details of that subject.

My point here is that with no information at all - people are asserting pure blue-sky fact-challenged positions. Yet the "details" remain the same - even if you don't take the time to notice them.

People are even willing to admit to some of the basic facts - while reaching for "proof-out-of-nothing".

Isn't that how erroneous traditions find their support? Were the Jews really saying to themselves "hey lets invent some error"???

I don't think so. I think they were serious and sincere, but misguided. If human nature can be sincere about pure fabrication as was shown in example #1 and #2 (even today) then how likely that traditions and erroneous doctrines would creep in just as Paul predicted in Acts 20?

In Christ,

Bob

 

AS further evidence of this -- on the "Jesus didn't believe in evolutionism" thread - we note that the evolutionist now claim that "no evidence" (for their needed chiral distributions) is the same as "actually having evidence" in favor of evolutionism (as in actually having living cells with random chiral distributions).

As Paul of Eugene's post shows - They claim BOTH are evidences for evolutionism. What devotion - what determination -- what lack of critical thinking.

So But isn't it possible that this same "behavior" is how we get error introduced as tradition and then readily accepted by Christians today?

In Christ,

Bob

 

I am not in doubt of your sincerety when you claim I made up the title no matter what the historic facts are.

I am simply pointing out that this is an example of how facts get turned around into "beliefs" that are "held anyway".

You admit that the Donation of Constantine DOES apply "Vicarius Filii Dei" to Peter AND his successors.

You admit that the document - the Donation of Constanting was PROMOTED by Catholic Popes for a number of centuries - in legal proceedings due to its CONTENTS showing the rights, power and position that should be awarded to the Papacy.

And you don't refuse the fact that prominent Catholic leaders argued FOR the document even AFTER it was found to be of Catholic Origin and purpose and not actually of Pagan Roman origin.

OF course you carefully try not to admit that the "fact" of the forgery is what makes it "CATHOLIC" and not Pagan Roman in origin. You like to pretend that the fact that it is not really Constantine's document (not really pagan ROMAN in origin) is what makes ME the author - or the one who in your words "made it up for Catholics".

In my opinion you sincerly try to avoid the obvious conflicted elements of the position to which you hold. Then you send out little one liners "Bob has made this up for Catholics" -- as if you really believe it.

I think that after repeating it enough - you really do believe it no matter how it flies the face of historic fact that even you find hard to obfuscate.

In Christ,

Bob

 

I beg to differ.

In most threads the "evidence" is all contained in some other set of books, or sources not on this message board. But in the case of this thread all the evidence it appeals to (outside of Mark 7) is contained in this area of the board on just 2 or 3 threads. That means that "research" on what was said and how - can all be done right here. No secret source "gotcha" is possible. It is all right here in black and white.

That means that this thread can be started - relying on the availability to the reader of current topic threads currently active.

This is in fact "the ideal scenario".

In the cases of some of the quotes here - I will post the link. I agree that this would make it easier for someone reading that did not follow the other threads.

In Christ,

Bob

 

"You admit that the Donation of Constantine DOES apply "Vicarius Filii Dei" to Peter AND his successors."

The entire use of this document BY the RCC has been to claim that the priviledges and authority given to Peter MUST also be awarded to his successors.

Is it your intent now to pretend that the RCC actually uses this document to claim that the titles, priviledges and authority of Peter must NOT be given to his successors?

(Is there "no limit" for you on this one -Mioque??)


"You admit that the document - the Donation of Constanting was PROMOTED by Catholic Popes for a number of centuries - in legal proceedings due to its CONTENTS showing the rights, power and position that should be awarded to the Papacy."
'' -- BEFORE the document was found to be of RC origin - insead of Pagan Roman origin

Bob said
"And you don't refuse the fact that prominent Catholic leaders argued FOR the document even AFTER it was found to be of Catholic Origin and purpose and not actually of Pagan Roman origin."
''

So (though dragged screaming and kicking on this one) you are still admitting that they are promomting the document -- though you hope to misdirect with some "French document" if that will suffice to sidetrack.

Well done -- but the point remains.

NOT only did they endorse it before AND after going public with its source - but they ALSO inserted its CONTENTS into Canon Law. (OR is Canon law also the French and not the Roman Catholics in your current revision of this??)

You are one of the few people I know that will claim that Canon Law is "not Catholic" but French or "Not Catholic but Bob".

It is more than a little intertaining to see what lengths you are going to on this one.

-- as if you really believe it. "

And I am convinced that if you repeat it enough - you actually do believe it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Originally posted by BobRyan:

"IF" evolutionism "were true" then NATURALLY occuring amino acids SHOULD be able form proteins with some "force and intelligence applied" as we do in the LAB.

Then those proteins "SHOULD" come together and form living cell structures IF evolutionism were true.

How "Nice" and expected it would have been for evolutionism in its attempts to show this in the lab IF it could actually have done it.

But the experiment is a bust.

In fact that Amino Acid chains that form disqualify themselves from being used in living proteins. The experiment is a bust.

So in true evolutionism style where "every result" is predicted in hindsight. Paul shows us that we should not be "surprised" that what evolution CLAIMS to have taken place naturally can not be replicated/verified in the lab and that we should "expect" that this is the case.

How "nice

But creation PREDICTS that life does NOT and CAN NOT just pop out of the ooze. Bible Creation claims that God and God alone is the author of life so amino acids CAN not simply occur in a form that creates proteins for living cells and then those proteins form the cell structures needed and then the cell comes together as a living organism. Creationism predicts this CAN not be done.

Thererfore the fact that LIVING systems are composed of a distribution of chiral orientations that CAN not be reproduced naturally - is "not surprising" rather it is expected that JUST such a break must occur in the sequence for building living cells.

But to the faithful devotee - even having 100% against one's view - is "no evidence", is "evidence to be discounted" is "to be avoided".

Point illustrated.

And as I said at the top - this kind of devotion is how we get the errors of tradition to replace the Word of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Where did Christ mention the magesterium? When did he call Israel the "One True Nation Church?"

Thanks,
Neal </font>[/QUOTE]Romans 11 - only one vine -- ALL branches in the ONE vine STARTING with the Hebrew Nation Church of God - begun at Sinai.

Heb 4:1-2 we are in the SAME position having been preached the same Gospel "The Gospel was preached to US just as it was to THEM ALSO".

Rev 12 it is the ONE church (the woman) both BEFORE Christ and for 1260 years AFTER Christ -

And in Mark 7:1-11 we see the story with the teaching body - the magesterium - of that one true nation church - the ONE with the FOREVER promises of God's Teaching Word and His Holy Spirit (See Isaiah 59) that had begun swapping the doctrines of man - for the Word of God.

In Christ,

Bob

 

that's not exactly what is going on. He said this to the Church IN EPHESUS! not the entire NT Church. </font>[/QUOTE]So maybe we shouldn't read that part of the Bible as IF it is true today.

Or "maybe" it is all true. Maybe the "Savage wolves" of Acts 20 AND the 2Cor 13 imposters, and the Phil 3 imposters and the 2Thess 2 deceptions all predicted for the church (and the false teachers already in place that Jude addressed) really ARE indications of what was coming in the dark ages of mankind as the church embraced paganism and adopted those traditions into its own body and practice.

hmmmm just maybe. But I wouldn't want to go out on a limb here.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Mioque -- The Donation of Constantine says that Peter is the vicar of the son of god and that the popes are the vicars of Peter. --

Wrong.

The RCC still claims that Christ is God (thankfully) and that the successors of Peter are the vicars of Christ.

(Do you need a quote here?)

The document whose contents the RCC have entered into Canon law - called "The Donation of Constanting" -- argues that the titles and priviledges accorded PETER ARE ALSO to be accorded to his successors so that what is right for Peter - is right for them.

In Christ,

Bob