Is bible idolatry a sin?

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 4d7594817ae9b94⋯.jpg (73.62 KB, 1280x767, 1280:767, Biblical-wisdom.jpg)

Is bible idolatry a sin? Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:01:26 1447ae No.758119

John 16:13

>Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come

Jesus said the Holy Spirit will come to guide us to all truth. He didn't say that a book of scripture would be compiled and then appointed to that task. When you claim that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God, aren't you placing the bible in the place of God, making it into an idol?

>2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

Timothy says all scripture is profitable, nit just the scripture that some church leaders appointed by a pagan emporer a few hundred years later decided was profitable.

>Jude 14 And about these also Enoch, in the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied, saying, "Behold, the Lord came with many thousands of His holy ones

The book of Jude is considered scripture, and Jude quoted the book of Enoch as scripture.

>Hebrews 11:5 - By faith Enoch was translated that he should not see death; and was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had this testimony, that he pleased God

Again, the apostle Paul clearly refers to Enoch as a saint. Why does the bible not include the book of Enoch? The children of Israel had the book of Enoch even before Moses wrote the ten commandments. What gave the early church founders the right to do an about face and claim the book of Enoch was no longer scripture? Were they lying or were they decieved when they claimed the bible was the complete and infallible word of God?

More importantly, how many different schisms has Christianity been divided into? Too many to count, and what is the root cause of all those divisions? The bible. Each one claiming that the bible says something a little different and using the excuse of dedication to a book to excuse the sin of dividing the body of Christ into opposing factions.

The idea that the bible is the complete and infallible word of God is idolatry, and that can be shown by the fruits of the bible- a hopelessly divided and eternally quarreling church. The bible contains important scripture, but the idolatry of the bible is the worship of that scripture as a substitute for the leading and teaching of the Holy Spirit.

Bible worship is a sin.

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:06:54 cf4cbb No.758121

>>758119

>the scripture that some church leaders appointed by a pagan emporer

t.never studied in the construction of the canon but willing to listen to conspiracy theorists.

Oh, BTW the canon wasn't the topic of the council of Nicaea. Anyone who intellectually honest would recognize that.

sage

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:09:20 66e6d3 No.758125

File: 9ebbc896ffe28a3⋯.jpg (50.82 KB, 496x960, 31:60, 3007fcfa3b3e04cafbfc309555….jpg)

>big bad constantine meme

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:10:06 8b6873 No.758127

That book of scripture, it could be argued, was the product of the Holy Spirit's guidance. I don't think you can differentiate HE who guides and the thing He guides towards.. in this case, it's one and the same.

But *whom* He guided is just as important: The Bible didn't come from the skies or get jotted down from tablets like Joseph Smith. The scriptures were always handed down to the church. Simply speaking.

Now assuming that is so, perhaps people can give some respect to the one the Holy Spirit guided in this. What else did the Holy Spirit guide the church in? THAT is the real question. I think all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox hold up scripture, but the Protestants somehow want to dismiss the original stewards of scripture. That the Holy Spirit ONLY guided them in this, and then throw out everything else the orthodox councils stood up for. They've never explained why they do this. Why they think the Holy Spirit guides the canon.. but basically nothing else, and let the church fall into disrepair.. until 1517.

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:22:21 1fa0bb No.758135

Nobody besides Steven Anderson even gets close to saying things that could be interpreted as viewing the book as God, and even the argument that he does is a mischaracterization.

The Bible is God's holy word. If it isn't, it's worthless and self contradictory.

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:23:07 cf4cbb No.758136

>>758127

>Now assuming that is so, perhaps people can give some respect to the one the Holy Spirit guided in this. What else did the Holy Spirit guide the church in? THAT is the real question. I think all Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox hold up scripture, but the Protestants somehow want to dismiss the original stewards of scripture. That the Holy Spirit ONLY guided them in this, and then throw out everything else the orthodox councils stood up for. They've never explained why they do this.

Funny that's pretty much the accusation Protestants made against Catholics whenever the latter claims that we need their church for the construction of the canon, rather than relying on the H.Spirit for guidance.

>Why they think the Holy Spirit guides the canon.. but basically nothing else, and let the church fall into disrepair.. until 1517.

You have to understand that the western world before the council of Trent never fully accepted the apocryphal books as canon, mainly because the most popular theologian commentaries said they weren't canon, and that the reformers relied on the church father as sources to revise their canon (namely St.Jerome)

Christanon 01/19/19 (Sat) 02:52:59 1447ae No.758161

>>758121

>willing to listen to conspiracy theorists.

It's not a conspiracy theory to say the Roman emperor Constantine ordered the council of Nicaea. That's just established history. And Constantine didn't even get baptized as a Christian until many years later when he was on his deathbed.

>Oh, BTW the canon wasn't the topic of the council of Nicaea.

That depends on what canon you are referring to. canon law, or the ability to infallibly declare Christian doctrine and religion was the subject of the council of Nicaea. They canonized the bible at the later date. The bible only became canon as a result of the decision at Nicaea that their ecumenical councils were infallible, and thus the bible itself infallible via that power they had arrogantly seized for themselves. It was at that point that they seized the role of the Holy Spirit and declared that they, rather than the Spirit of God, would lead men to all truth.

>>758127

> That the Holy Spirit ONLY guided them in this, and then throw out everything else the orthodox councils stood up for.

You make a sound point. The bible itself never declares that it is complete or infallible. That statement is found in ecumenical councils. In order to accept it, you'd have to accept the authority of those councils. If you reject the ability of those councils to declare canon, then the completeness and infallibility of the bible is part of that canon you would have to reject.