Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (63295)	12/9/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Christ is the Word itself, in flesh. So one's claim to Christ without the Bible is quite silly. According to the Scriptures Cornelius accepted merely by hearing the Word preached. Many peoples have accepted Christ having not a Bible in hand at all. The Bible is not merely a collection of words on pages. Its essential truth has long been transmitted by mouth since even before the ancient scribes of Israel began to lay it to parchment. As St. Paul tells us, it can be transmitted via mouth and even via an observation of the Universe. Whether written or by word of mouth the same biblical truth can and has been transmitted through the ages. But whether essential truth has been transmitted that is extra-biblical is a thing not supported in the Scriptures. And this is important, as Christ told the Apostles His Spirit would give them all truth. Those Apostles wrote the Bible. We may debate whether only part of the essential truth is contained in the Scriptures, and one can debate quite effectively whether any allegedly extra-biblical truth has been faithfully transmitted through history. But all followers of Christ accept that the Apostles left the truth within the pages of the Scriptures. I turn, therefore, here to find the truth essential for salvation and a vibrant life. We also see in the Scriptures when St. Paul visited the Jews at Berea they did not bow to his apostolic authority, merely accepting his words on that basis. They searched the Scriptures each day to see if what St. Paul said was true. Now the important point here is that these Bereans did not at that time have the New Testament. The implication here is that had they discovered in St. Paul's words something not contained in the Old Testament, they would have rejected his message. The Hebrew Scriptures were the scales by which St. Paul's words were measured, and instead of the Scriptures scorning this use of the Bible, claiming Church authority sufficient for one to accept such an obviously radical message as that no doubt preached by Paul, the Scriptures laud the Bereans for their use of the Bible to check up on St. Paul. I do nothing less when encountering Roman decrees that are radically different from either the Old or New Testament message. I will then leave the field with this. Everyone must die and face the Creator alone. And whether one accepts the decrees of an authoritarian system or those of a system wherein it is made obvious one is ultimately responsible for one's own thoughts, the fact is this: One Must Choose for Oneself Which Way One Should Go. It is virtually impossible to not to choose. I am not interested in criticising those who choose to follow Rome. I say, similar to Paul's treatment of meat sacrificed to idols, that each man should be settled in his own mind. On the other hand I cannot concern myself with the many eternal anathemas of Rome or any of its genuflecting acolytes either. I must be true to my God as best as integrity dictates. I trust He will not let falter one who so mindlessly turns to Him.