Aeryck bings up a good point SanChonino

Remember that it is SanChochino, who said the Bible was not infallible. I think the word that is being considered should be 'innerancy', because 'inspiration' cannot be proved. Personally I would love to explore the historicity, as it is such a big topic at the moment, but I am happy to sit back, while you guys consider this passage and that passage. Not that I am not going to participate, for I did a little course in Biblical Criticizm a year or so ago, but this requires patience and research and I am more interested in the arguments for and against the third quest.

Shalom,
Aeryck.

Error? Help me see what you are talking about.

Hamartano,
SanChochino, will need to consort with Kali and a pot of 'erbal, before attempting to prove that the Bible is infallible.



Patiently waiting,
Aeryck.

"To attempt a theological definition of the Scripture is no easy matter. This results from its unique origin and character. All Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore all our human definitions will remain inadequate. Just because it is divine, it arises above our knowledge, and we shall never fully realize “what is the breadth and length and height and depth” (Eph. 3:18). This applies also to its authority and infallibility. Its authority is much greater than we are able to express in human words. But at the same time we have to acknowledge that this Word of God has entered so very much into the human and has so identified itself with it that we shall always again stand before the question as to what the unassailably divine and what the relativity of the human in Scripture mean concretely. We stand before a very deep and mysterious task, transferring thoughts from the life and the world of persons of two thousand years ago and more to the world of today. Here lies the great question of hermeneutics, with which many today are engaged very intensively."

It appears Ridderbos has hit the nail squarely upon its head.... it may be as Carmel- for he is a god; either he is talking, or is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth and must be awaked.

If only left to the discussion with the unlearned, Ridderbos maybe right, the discussion has no value.

Peace while you patiently wait.
.H.

If only left to the discussion with the unlearned, Ridderbos maybe right, the discussion has no value.

Hamartano,

This is definitely THE POINT!
Scholars trying to blunt the Sword of the Spirit, find their own arguments blunted and themselves needing to become theologians (howbeit evil ones) caught up in an arm wrestling match with the uniquely inspired word of GOD. Even the brilliant Einstein unleashed a Lion's Roar from the physical map, that was so horrific that it destroyed the lives of millions. So catastrophic will be the end of those who think that they can match their minds with the mind of God, without any consequences. His word is as fire, and can one hold it to ones breast without being burned ?

Peace wihle you patiently wait.

His peace is like no other.

Aeryck.

I would have figured SanChonino would have gathered his minions against the truth of God's Word by now. It may be that the wrestling match is not what one would choose, unless he / she finds joy in such folly.

How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, except their Rock had sold them, and the LORD had shut them up? For their rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies themselves being judges. And ye shall chase your enemies, and they shall fall before you by the sword. And five of you shall chase an hundred, and an hundred of you shall put ten thousand to flight: and your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.

Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might. Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God: .... your enemies shall fall before you by the sword.


.H.

I could have written what you said here exactly except for the fact I've been studying this bible now for about 35 years and still for the life of me can't find a mistake or contradiction anywhere. It all fits together like a warm glove to a cold hand. Everything is all wrapped up and covered quite nicely. I too have gone my way shaking my head in amazement at times to see exactly how perfectly it all fits together.

I could have written what you said here exactly except for the fact I've been studying this bible now for about 35 years and still for the life of me can't find a mistake or contradiction anywhere. It all fits together like a warm glove to a cold hand. Everything is all wrapped up and covered quite nicely. I too have gone my way shaking my head in amazement at times to see exactly how perfectly it all fits together.

When I consider His ways are not our ways and His thoughts are not our thoughts and see how He has chosen to reveal Himself to His creation through the Word of God, it is the most amazing thing for my simple mind. I would to God KFC every one see this same truth. Thanks for your post and Merry Christmas.

.H.

Hi Hamartano and KFC,

I began studying the Bible in 1976, and as time progressed the roles switched. I have learned from studying B.C. that one has to get ones attitude sorted out before one attempts to consider difficult passages, or one might end up doing what so many unbelievers do and that is only reading to find fault. After what I know now, the errors are in us, and measured against the Scriptures we will eventually find ourselves either being humbled and agreeing with God or proudly walking away and covering up with a religion of our own making, what was exposed. The earnest student of B.C. and there are quite a few outstanding scholars are either trying to create a new Bible and a new Jesus, or they are humbled by the sheer volume of manuscripts both young (not so young copies) and old (not so old). The deeper one goes into these studies the deeper His studies go into us and it is inevitable, hence the scholars soon begin to fall on either side of the equation. Some reject the Bible and try to present a mystical Christ, with no apparent historical background; others allow the Sword of the Spirit, this Scripture that is inspired of God, to change our lives.

Dr Donald Carson has continually amazed me, and especially with his studies about the use of OT passages by the NT writers. It was a bone of contention for the Rabbis but this scholar spent years going through each and ever quotation and exploring the context as it was drawn from in the OT. He especially worked on Matthew and Hebrews and I have listened to a few lectures and have been thoroughly amazed at what sort of dedication the NT writers had.

The current trend to attack the Pauline writings has also come out of the cabbage patch of various scholars, from the Jesus Seminar etc, who seem to have painted themselves into a corner and now want to reject the historical Christ and the gospel in favour of some general Christ principle. It is clear that they want us to believe that Paul was not accurately portraying the Jewish beliefs and the whole thing ends up stinking like the Papal idea of the doctrine of justification.

The following lecture, I found quite inspiring.

Apologetics.com – The Historical Jesus, or the Jesus of faith.

Aeryck.

Aeryck posts:

Aeryck,

There is only one true doctrine of justification. It’s either the Catholic doctrine (we are justified by a faith that worketh by charity) or that of Martin Luther (we are justified by “Faith alone”). If you believe Luther’s, then you must also believe that Christ didn’t keep His promise to be with His Church at least for 1500 years until Luther, an apostate monk, came along and founded Protestantism upon a distortion of Romans 1:17 and a falsification of 3:28.

You talk about the current trend attacking St. Paul's writings and then cite a link in which Matt Slick attacks Catholicism by lamely defending Luther's impudent perversion of St. Paul's writing to the Romans 3:28. Go figure!

After citing a few Biblical passages, Slick concludes, "Therefore, we are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone." Slick follows Luther’s teaching: that there is only one requirement: believing that God has already pardoned all our sins. One who believes in Christ as his personal Savior becomes a “believer”, and is therefore "saved”. “Saved” by his confidence...THIS Luther labeled “faith” and called his new system of salvation, “faith alone”, Sola Fides.

Even though St.John says that nothing defiled will enter Heaven, Luther and Calvin taught that Christ died to save us IN our sins; that we are saved by “faith alone”. But this isn’t the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. Luther was wrong in holding that justification was a purely external process. When the merits of Christ's Redemption were applied to the soul, no internal change took place in the sinner; he did not thereby become any better than he was before. His sin's were merely covered by Christ's merits, which were imputed to him as though they were his own. This fundamental heresy has no warrant in either the Gospels or Epistles of St. Paul, St. John or St. Peter.

Luther's teaching that faith alone justifies was condemned by the Council of Trent for good reason...becasue it clearly contradicts and cannot be reconciled with Scripture. "Faith" with Luther meant a man's confidence that his sins has been forgiven by God for Christ's sake, whereas Christ and His apostles always taught that faith implied the acceptance of all of God's revelation on His word St.Mark 1:15, 16:16; St.Luke 18:8; 24:25-28; St. John 11:25-27; Rom. 3:22-25; 9: 30-33; Eph. 3:8-12; Heb. 11:6.

What does Protestantism teach of the supernatural (divine) virtues of faith, hope and charity? Now all this might be “stinking” to you, Aeryck, but this is what Catholicism teaches of the gifts of faith, hope and charity and how they relate to justification. Faith is the divine virtue by which we firmly believe the truths which God has revealed. Hope is the divine virtue by which we firmly believe God will give us eternal life and the means to obtain it. Charity is the divine virtue by which we love God above all things for His Own sake, and our neighbor as ourselves for the love of God.

To grasp the proper place of the virtue of faith, we must first understand what is meant by justification which derives its name from the Latin meaning, to make just. The Council of Trent a assigned the faith the only correct status in the process of justification by declaring it to be the beginning, the foundation and the root at the front of the whole process. The Redeemer Himself made belief in His teaching a necessary condition for salvation when He solemnly commanded His Apostles to preach the Gospel to the whole world. “He that believeth and is baptized....”

By faith for over 2,000 years, the Church understands a firm belief in all those revealed truths which form the body of Revelation, written and unwritten, and demands other acts of preparation for justification, as our sanctification is an on-going process. Faith is the beginning of salvation because no one can be converted to God unless he recognizes Him as his supernatural end and aim. It is the foundation as well, because upon faith all the other predisposing acts rests securely.

St. Paul tells us that we are not saved by faith alone rather we are "justified by a faith that worketh by charity" Gal. 5:6. It’s true that faith is the root of all justification and the beginning and foundation of man’s salvation.” Other dispositions are required, for faith necessarily leads to action. We must not only believe, but we must hope, repent, and love. “We are saved by hope” Rom. 8:24. “Do penance and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins.” Acts. 2:38. “If I have all faith so as to move mountains and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.” 1Cor. 13:2.


Trent said that justification is not merely the remission of sin, but the sanctification and renovation of the interior man by his voluntary acceptance of graces and gifts; where unjust is made just; the enemy is a friend, that he be made the heir according to the hope of everlasting life” Titus 3:7.

So we are not merely reputed just (by a legal fiction), but are so in name and fact, receiving in ourselves everyone according to his measure, the justice which the Holy Spirit divides according as to His will 1Cor. 11:11 and according to everyone’s disposition and cooperation. For although no one can be just unless the merits of Christ's Passion be communicated to him.
In the act of justification, with the remission of his sins, the man receives all at once, through Christ on whom he is ingrafted, the infused gifts of faith, hope and charity For faith without hope or charity, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His Body.

St.John describes the grace produced by justification as a new life, really communicated to the faithful, 3:5; 7:52; 15:5, implying freedom from sin, 8:34-36, and a divine peace that in Christ will overcome the world. 14:27; 16:33. St.Paul calls our justification the resurrection of the soul, Col. 3:1, making us the adopted Sons of God, “heirs of God” and “joint heirs with Christ.” Rom, 8:16-17. He identifies it with our regeneration and renovation by the Holy Spirit Titus 3:5, and in a parallelism between Adam and Christ, He shows that Christ imparts justice to our souls just as truly as Adam transmitted Original Sin Rom. 5:19.


So, there is a process or progression if you will of justification, from faith to fear, from fear to hope, hope to incipient charity, and from incipient charity to contrition of sins with a firm purpose of amendment. Since a real conversion is inconceivable without faith and contrition, the sinner has been transformed from the state of sin to that of justification or sanctifying grace. With this, the state of habitual holiness and sonship of God begins.


Last but not least, consider Christ’s own use of the words justification which is clear He is not using it in the Protestant sense of a one-time act. St. Matt. 12:36-37, Christ says, “But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Here, Christ mentions the judgment that each man must face at the end of time for the works he did on earth. This in itself is a big problem for Matt Slick’s theology, since a salvation based upon “faith alone” would have no room for a final judgment based upon works. Although Christ’s words imply the requirement of faith, His focal point is that it is the individual’s works that justify or condemn him. Not only that, but no bad works escape His scrutiny since the verse specifies that He will judge “every careless word”.


So just as Matt Slick tries to pooh, pooh St.James, he would also have to pooh, pooh Christ, for St. James takes seriously what Christ teaches---that our works play a primary role in determining our justification.

So, Aeryck, once again, there is only one true doctrine of justification....and it is preserved in the Catholic doctrine and has been ever since Apostolic times. Your calling it “stinking” doesn’t change it one teeny, tiny bit.

To entrap no, to think yes. It wasn't loaded. Only a question to make you think.

You call yourself learned, then you of all people should have known that the Pharisees used the Oral Law (see Mishna) against Jesus not the WRITTEN law (Torah). My question was about the written Word and birthdays. So your comparison of me with the Scribes and Pharisees is fundamentally baseless.

I asked you a question regarding birthdays. I WAS actually interested in starting a dialog with you about this but I think instead it may have revealed your heart. Your following up with



This is hardly an olive branch.

Thanks for your response Lula, you may want to read the Roman Catholic reply and response to that. What did you think of the radio discussion at Apologetics.com radio ?

A-D, your question was loaded.

Aeryck

Negative Aeryck. Questions are usually said to be loaded if they make a false presupposition. Unless you show me a false presupposition I disagree.

I think Rhetorical question would be better suited.

I said, "Until you actually begin to own your questions, by presenting what you know, you will simply be viewed as another 'Great Pretender'."

You are quite welcome...however, I note that you haven't answered my question or addressed any of my points.



Nah, this piece adds nothing to the discussion. It's just more Slick on Slick. St.Paul wrote to the Galations about guys like him. 1:8 and also to Timothy 1:3; 6:3. To even begun to be taken as credible, the Catholic would be named.

Besides, I've given an adequate refutation of Slick's take on Luther's unbiblical notion of justification by "faith alone".


Lula posts:

Because truth requires consistency and GOd has a right to be believed when He reveals a definite doctrine. No one who understands the NT could entertain loose ideas on this subject. It's quite evident from the NT, that differences in doctrines do matter very much.


Aeryck, please don't brush off Christ’s own use of the words justification. It's clear He is not using it in the Protestant sense of a one-time act. St. Matt. 12:36-37, Christ says, “But I tell you that men will have to give an account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken. For by your words you will be justified and by your words you will be condemned.” Here, Christ mentions the judgment that each man must face at the end of time for the works he did on earth. This in itself is a big problem for Matt Slick’s theology, since a salvation based upon “faith alone” would have no room for a final judgment based upon works. Although Christ’s words imply the requirement of faith, His focal point is that it is the individual’s works that justify or condemn him. Not only that, but no bad works escape His scrutiny since the verse specifies that He will judge “every careless word”.

What does Christ say in St. Matt. 12: 36-37 mean to you? It sure supports the Chruch's doctrine of justification to me.

And then connect that with this:

In St.John 14:16, Christ promises to send the Holy Ghost as an invisible source of light and strength upon His Church. While the HS will operate within the souls of Christ's disciples, the very promise that He will abide forever shows that Christ is speaking of a gift to be granted to the Chruch collectively, and to remain with the Church until the end of time. When Christ spoke the HS was was already dwelling in the souls of the Apostles as individuals but not yet dwelling in them as a group, knitting them together in the Chruch they had yet to form. For this purpose the HS was sent upon them collectively on Pentecost Sunday. It must be insisted upon that while the HS dwelling within the souls of individuals disciples of Christ, His teaching is never at variance with that of the Church.

The same Holy Spirit works both in the Church and in individual souls. That's why there is only one true doctrine of justification. What the Chruch says to our ears, the HS of Truth says to our hearts. The same wind which fills the sails of the ship provides for the breathing of the passengers. If a man says that the HS within him tells him something quite opposed to the teaching of the Church, then such a man is mistaking his own vain fancies for the voice of God. That is why Christ said, "If a man will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as a heathen." St.Matt. 18:17.

Christianity a la carte simply will not do. A Christian can't take bits and pieces of only what he chooses of the Gospel. Christ's religion must be all or nothing.

YAY for our side!!
---non-associated unaffiliated nondenominational disunited uncongregated fishbelly heathens

You are quite welcome...however, I note that you haven't answered my question or addressed any of my points.

Lula,
Often the term love is blind applies to religion, and certainly when one blindly asserts that one's religion is the only right one and ergo. it's beliefs are the only right ones. I appreciate that you would like answers to your questions and responses to your points, but I am tired of going up and down the various arguments with you, only to discover that you retreat into your cocoon. It is time to be a butterfly and fly, fly, fly...free to Jesus, for whom the Son sets free is free indeed. I have only referred you to Matt Slick in the hope that you might join his forum and take all your questions and points there, instead of doing what you have always done and that is making every thread where there is the slightest reference to your religion, the topic of conversation. http://www.carm.org

Aeyrck.

Kingbee's quote of Lula's quote of Jesus' words....'let him be to thee as a heathen'

Kingbee's quote of .......: 'non-associated unaffiliated nondenominational disunited uncongregated fishbelly heathens'

The fervent spirit of Apollos doth encounter the Spirit of God. NOT!

Aeryck.

Carm is a great site. I used to be on his site alot when I first found it a few years ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure I already introduced Lula to this site as well.

I love Lula tons, but I agree that you can only go over things so much until you realize it's not going to make a difference anyhow. Lula and I've gone over the same subjects over and over for nought.

Lula loves her Catholic church and in her eyes they hold all the answers and no matter what else is said everything is first sifted thru that organization before she'll believe it. I also would love to see her break free of the hold they have on her and "come out and be separate" says the Lord.

Even so, I do appreciate her loyalty to what she belives. She's not a lukewarm Catholic...that's for sure.

If she's HIS, in the long run, it doesn't matter what building she worships in. If HE wants her out, He'll call her out.

Lula and I've gone over the same subjects over and over for nought.

KFC,
I came to this conclusion awhile ago. In fact it had nothing to do with chats with Lula, but chats with a LDS Bishop. It is either the sanctifying graces or the completed work of Christ, anything else is just pointless argumentation. Seeing that it is only God that can open the ears and eyes of the heart, one can only discuss this a few times and then the rest is over to the peradventure of God.

Thanks for your insightful words,
Aeryck.

Lula posts:

Aeryck posts:

You are "tired" of going up and down the various arguments with me, only to discover I retreat into my cocoon, Really?

Well, it seems that the focus of this discussion has taken a side step. Rather than discuss whether or not there is one true doctrine on justification, the focus has been changed to my Catholicity.

First, I'm about to enter my first JU year anniversary at discussing (mostly on the religion segment) and I've never been known to retreat or duck from a discussion into my "cocoon" whatever that is. While I don't want to dwell on a sore subject, you, Aeryck, on the other hand, time and again, have retreated from discussion by either deleting posts or the entire forum...so let's say no more about this.

Aeryck posts:

I quite agree with you on this point right up until this very last assertion of yours.

Do you honestly expect to make an assertion against Catholicism such as this and not have to defend it. The difficulty lies somewhere in your court of ideas, not mine.

LW nailed it.



You sent me to Matt Slick and I rebutted his premise giving more than adequate reasons why he's wrong. I answered with....St.Matt. 12:36-37.

Aeryck posts:

Christ taught the truth with authority and promised to safeguard it until the end of time. He chose to do so by means of an infallible Church...and he who wants the religion of Christ must belong to His Church once they learn of it. To understand this, contrast this with Christ and some mere philosopher like Aristotle. When Aristotle was dead, his teaching so coherent, intellectual and positive fell into the hands of diverse disciples who dragged it in all directions and finally degraded it to rank materialism. Now, Christ knowing what was in man, took precautions against such distortions and destructrion of His teachings. He organized and guaranteed His Church from the doctrinal as well as from the practical point of view. He was the Light. When He ascended into Heaven, He left His Church to to continue His mission, to shine, not with a light of its own, but with His Light, as infalliably reliable in matters of doctrine and morals as Himself. All religions, including Protestantism, which conflict with the CC therefore are mistaken.

KFC posts:

The CC has no "hold" over me. I can come and go free as the wind. Why would I ever want to leave Christ's Church where I receive His precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity? Christ prayed for unity, not to come out and be separate.

Aeryck posts # 143

Aeryck,
It is vain to talk of flying free to Jesus, but deny His Church. The CC has authority under the guidance of the HOly Spirit and Christ supports it. "Tell the Church" He says, "and if a man will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen."

I assume by your statement here that you conceive yourself in butterfly stage and have flown to Jesus. OK. In my langauage that means you've bought into Protestantism which is really religous individualism. It gives to each the right of private judgment and self-management. It's thousands of churches and diverse doctrines are limited only to national considerations. By its very principles, Protestantism ends up in diversity and an infinite numbering of varying doctrines according to the individual "butterfly" outlook.

There is only one truth and one Holy Spirit, the giver of Truth. Each Protestant minister really represents only his own views. The Salvation Army says Baptism isn't necessary; the Baptists say it is but only for adults; the Anglican Church says it's necessary even for infants. Are all these equally giving the truth to mankind in the name of Christ? Since answering my questions is tiring, I'll do so. It is impossible.

The Church regards Christ's religious society as a basic unit, a society through Christ and under His protection, which gives and regulates Divine gifts of faith, hope and charity. Catholicism, by it's divine nature, is an agent of unity, rigid as life in its eternal laws, yet as adjustable

What does Jesus, Who is the Way, the Truth and the Life, mean when He says "Tell the Church, and if a man will not hear the Church, let him be as a heathen"?

St.Paul says something that is true of all of us. "I can do all things in Him who strengthens me." So, I advise prayer, earnest, fervent, confident and persevering and God will give us the graces we need..all we have to do is ask and we shall receive...and accept what we have been so graciously offered...in His Precious and Holy Name.

LW posts #145

I think I understand what you're saying...and agree as far as our being fully assured without doubt that God is faithful. He has things all under control including those of nature such as the sun coming up in the East and going down in the West. This gives us the virtue of hope. After today, there will be a tomorrow...in which to live life

Faith is the beginning of our reception of the gift of salvation. When we speak of being "saved" or of our salvation, we are speaking of life eternal, which is a gift of God through Christ. My point all along is that it is not an unconditional gift. After the Fall of man God had no obligation to offer us eternal happiness, and therefore His doing so was a sheer gift. Christ laid down certain conditions involving good works and we are not necessarily compelled to fulfill them. The Protestant full assurance of salvation becomes a chimera, as also does its peculiar idea that for salvation we have only to "accept Jesus as our Savior" ie "faith alone". Our life in faith through acts of charity (good works) is a progression toward our sanctification. With the help of His grace, we are to work out our own salvation by good works in fear and trembling lest we ourselves should fail to do our part.

Is it easy to work out our salvation by doing good works? No, it's not necessarily, but like Christ, we must carry our own Cross as we live in this valley of tears called the world...with the full assurance that no matter what, the sun will come up tomorrow.


The most important point to all this is that enough grace will be given to enable us to save our souls..but we must want to cooperate with Christ's saving act. Our Lord tells us clearly that God will adjust His demands according to the actual responsibility of each individual. And that responsibility varies is shown in His parable of the talents, five being given to one man, two to another, and one to a third.

Lw, I think there is some evidence from the Catholic Encyclopedia that supports your opinion.

"Sunday

Sunday (Day of the Sun), as the name of the first day of the week, is derived from Egyptian astrology. The seven planets, known to us as Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, the Sun, Venus, Mercury, and the Moon, each had an hour of the day assigned to them, and the planet which was regent during the first hour of any day of the week gave its name to that day (see CALENDAR). During the first and second century the week of seven days was introduced into Rome from Egypt, and the Roman names of the planets were given to each successive day. The Teutonic nations seem to have adopted the week as a division of time from the Romans, but they changed the Roman names into those of corresponding Teutonic deities. Hence the dies Solis became Sunday (German, Sonntag). Sunday was the first day of the week according to the Jewish method of reckoning, but for Christians it began to take the place of the Jewish Sabbath in Apostolic times as the day set apart for the public and solemn worship of God. (WWW Link

Just as one example.

"

The larger point, however, was that (in my opinion) your God, your 'Jesus' IS the Sun, and that the majority of Christian beliefs, stories, and traditions were taken directly from various sun worshipping cults that predated them.

"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handy work. Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge. [There is] no speech nor language, [where] their voice is not heard. Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, Which [is] as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, [and] rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race. His going forth [is] from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it: and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof."

Your doctrine is close whip but you have misunderstood the Psalmist. He is not saying that Jesus is the sun, but the sun declares His glory, the glory of the only begotten full of grace an truth.

If you will study out the Word of Truth you will find that He became flesh and dwelt among us...... the sun never became flesh. He took upon Himself flesh and blood that He might die for your sin and mine. The sun, this did not do. It couldn't it is the creation, He was the Creator.

"God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of [his] glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;"

The Creator becoming part of His creation, not the SUN but the SON...... that He might taste death for every man and woman.

During the first and second century the week of seven days was introduced into Rome from Egypt, and the Roman names of the planets were given to each successive day.

"Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made."

Just think adventure-dude if Rome would have only believed the Word of God they would have known the seventh day long before the first and second century. There is much this feeble creation can learn from God's Word. If only he / she would humble themselves before it.

"For the word of God [is] quick, and powerful, and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and [is] a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart. Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight: but all things [are] naked and opened unto the eyes of him with whom we have to do. "

There seems to be a lot of reading of material that has little or no value. The scriptures contain material that has eternal consequences.

"Study to show thyself approved unto God a workman / workwoman that needeth not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of Truth."

hamartano