Like I said, I will try to have an actual response next weekend. I won't be able to debate with both of you at the same time while I'm trying to work.
And in the meantime I'd encourage you to read Hislop. The gnostic tradition is not new and it did not develop post-Christ. It is an expression of the same system presented by the Serpent to Eve. We're getting bogged down in "tradition" when my point is not against tradition itself but in the Catholic church's habit of supplanting the Scripture with traditions that hearken back to the gnostic path offered by Lucifer and are in conflict with the Scripture.
You both claim the age of the Catholic church as if it's unassailable and I dispute that. The promise of the savior was presented in Genesis and it is consistent throughout all the Scriptures. It's harder to get any older than that.
I also am not terribly inclined to continue when thoroughly documented facets of history that are very pertinent to this discussion, such as the history of the Catholic church's suppression the reading of the Bible in the common tongue and the persecution of those who dared to do so, are handwaved away.
I want to present my case, backed in Scripture that the ritual/tradition added to the Bible by the Catholic church are the same as the Banylonian mysteries condemned in the text. I will try to use only the Scripture and simple historical facts and avoid philosophizing. At this point, as @PS appears to me to be following the same gnostic tradition I'm condemning, I don't know of this is just a waste of all of our time. I doubt my arguments, even if based only in Scripture would sway him as he clearly places a great deal of merit in the thoughts of men.
I'll read more this week. If you feel it might be edifying to you, ping me next weekend and we can continue.
>I don't know of this is just a waste of all of our time.
I think this all depends on how you categorize what we're doing. If this is hyper-competitive to you, and when you say you want to defend your position, you truly feel like a proper defense is what this is, it might not be worth it. Of course, we'd both read whatever you write, and think about it carefully. If that's all it takes to justify things, you can be assured of that.
I'd encourage you to think about this a lot less formally. It's just conversation, really. I know there is a way to situate this in religious terms of apologetics, and all of that, but I refrain from doing that, and it's kept up PS's and my ability to talk about controversial things, and to have pretty deep disagreements, for over a year now.
>The gnostic tradition is not new and it did not develop post-Christ. It is an expression of the same system presented by the Serpent to Eve.
Ah, but we see here where you are betraying Sola Scriptura! The gnosticism I am speaking about is the historical gnosticism. You are talking about projecting a thought process (or worldview, which is satanic in origin) onto the Genesis story itself. Think about this for just a moment. Did Genesis call what the serpent said, gnosticism? Did the Bible outlay this system of thought and give it a name and describe it in terms of a dialectical practice?
No, it didn't. Gnostic is not an adjective that appears anywhere in the Bible to describe a thought process or a group of people. So where did it come from, and moreover, if this isn't the word of God, how can you possibly use it in argument or make any claims about it?
>The promise of the savior was presented in Genesis and it is consistent throughout all the Scriptures. It's harder to get any older than that.
Where is the promise of the savior Jesus Christ present in Genesis straightforwardly? It would have to appear in completely literal, straightforward terms, otherwise, to get there would mean some kind of deeper interpretation of the Bible, over and above what is given by the words, in and of themselves.
Perhaps you say that you can get the complete and proper interpretation of Genesis from other parts of the Bible.
Does Genesis instruct you, literally in the words themselves, on where to go elsewhere in the Bible? Like the indexes at the bottom of a newspaper - "continued on A2". Sometimes, we do see this, once we get to the New Testament, where Jesus for example will use words directly from OT scripture.
But consider this historically. The NT is later than the OT, but we consider the OT to be divine revelation. On this account, if Genesis does not contain - again, straightforwardly in the words - the direct reference to the coming Christ, then it could only be that this interpretation was revealed later with the new testament, which made it possible. But that NECESSARILY means that interpretation is required, and that not every human being can just approach a Bible and gather the fullness of its meaning and implication from the text by itself.
I just wanted to make these points before I leave you alone. I understand you are not able to reply until the week is over.
(post is archived)