It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The pope condemns personal relationship with Christ

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:50 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Wifibrains
He did NOT say ANYTHING about a cadre of be-robed old men, nor about those men presiding over his people as conduits for worship, nor about those men holding sway over a massive amount of wealth, despite vows of poverty, and the needs of the people they are supposed to protect, NOR did He mention anything about creating a government like system, let alone a nation state, based on a corrupted version of His message to his people.


But he does talk about them extensively in Mathew 23. Heres some of what Jesus says about these Jewish "robed" men:


So obey and do everything they tell you to do. But do not do what they do. They say what should be done, but they do it not.

4 They make heavy loads and put them on people's backs. But they themselves will not put up even one finger to help carry the loads.

5 They do all their work to be seen by people. They wear bigger and bigger boxes with God's word in. And they make wider and wider borders on their gowns.

6 They want to sit in the best places at the feasts. They want to have the front seats in the meeting houses.

7 They want people to greet them in the market, and to call them "Teacher".


The rest of the chapter here
www.biblegateway.com...:1-36




posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

They tried to contain consciousness but it has escaped... With the crown. Lol



edit on 5-7-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Tucket

Well nothing much changes does it?

What a rotten and disappointing state of affairs.
I know that many people were hoping that this Francis fellow would, despite being a part of a hateful regime of lies, be a better representative for the positive machinations of the wider church, than previous Popes have been. But it appears as if, despite his every effort to display a benevolent face to the public, his intentions are as toxic and cancerous as all who have passed before him in the role he occupies.

Again I say, this is very disappointing.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:07 AM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In regards to the actual topic at hand, i am in agreement with TrueBrit.

I am also of the position that the philosophical and religious values as espoused by Jesus, were dissimilar to the perverted 'Christianity' we have today. Look at any legitimate historical record and one is able to see that modern Christianity has little resemblance to the original teachings of Jesus. As such, i would not put much stock into any Christian church, and that definitely includes the Roman Catholic Church.

I'm just going to leave this here:


To understand Jesus, Aslan argues in Zealot, it’s necessary to understand that culture and the zeal that was at its core. Drawing on a well-established body of scholarship, Aslan paints a vivid, accessible portrait of Jesus as a Jewish nationalist, “a zealous revolutionary swept up, as all Jews of the era were, in the religious and political turmoil of first-century Palestine.” He knows that, even now, this idea will come to many Christian readers as a shock: The real Jesus, he writes, “bears little resemblance to the image of the gentle shepherd cultivated by the early Christian community.”

...

The paradox of writing about Jesus is that we can only form an idea of him from the scriptures we have, yet we can only evaluate the scriptures if we have an idea of what he must have been like. Aslan marches boldly into this vicious circle, guided by the certainty that the real Jesus must have been, above all, a Jewish zealot. He was a figure like “the Egyptian,” or the rabbi Judas, or for that matter John the Baptist: a religious virtuoso who played on the familiar tropes of Jewish grievance to ignite a mass movement. “The new world order he envisioned,” Aslan writes at characteristically high volume, “was so radical, so dangerous, so revolutionary, that Rome’s only conceivable response would be to arrest and execute [his followers] for sedition.”

There is much to be said for this point of view, and Aslan’s reading of the Gospels helps to clarify some of their ambiguities. Take, for instance, the moment when Jesus is asked, “Is it lawful to pay the tribute to Caesar or not?” In response, he takes a coin and asks whose picture is on it. “It is Caesar’s,” comes the reply; to which Jesus says, “Render therefore unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.” At least, that is how the King James Bible translates his words; and in this form, their message seems to be a kind of political quietism. Keep paying taxes, Jesus seems to advise, and obey the government, since money and worldly affairs are the government’s concern. But entrust your soul, which is what really counts, to God.

Aslan, however, shows that the same passage can be translated quite differently: “Well, then, give back to Caesar the property that belongs to Caesar, and give back to God the property that belongs to God.” Read this way, Jesus sounds much more like a zealot, demanding that the land and people of Israel—which are God’s property—be returned to God and freed from Roman control. It is sayings like this, Aslan writes, that led Jesus to be labeled a “bandit”—a term that was used for all sorts of popular revolutionaries in Judea. When Jesus was crucified next to two “bandits,” then, we should not understand this to mean thieves, as though the Romans were devising an insult to Jesus. Rather, he was crucified next to fellow rebels, whose crime, like his, was agitating for Jewish independence.


www.tabletmag.com...
edit on 5-7-2014 by daaskapital because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:09 AM
link   
Additionally, fundamental tenets of modern Christianity find basis on the apostle Paul, who was influential in actually constructing the direction of which Christianity would take (even though he actually never met Jesus):


Visit any church service, Roman Catholic, Protestant or Greek Orthodox, and it is the apostle Paul and his ideas that are central -- in the hymns, the creeds, the sermons, the invocation and benediction, and of course, the rituals of baptism and the Holy Communion or Mass. Whether birth, baptism, confirmation, marriage or death, it is predominantly Paul who is evoked to express meaning and significance.

The fundamental doctrinal tenets of Christianity, namely that Christ is God "born in the flesh," that his sacrificial death atones for the sins of humankind, and that his resurrection from the dead guarantees eternal life to all who believe, can be traced back to Paul -- not to Jesus. Indeed, the spiritual union with Christ through baptism, as well as the "communion" with his body and blood through the sacred meal of bread and wine, also trace back to Paul. This is the Christianity most familiar to us, with the creeds and confessions that separated it from Judaism and put it on the road to becoming a new religion.

Paul never met Jesus. The chronological facts are undisputed. Jesus of Nazareth was crucified during the reign of Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor or prefect of Judea, in April, A.D. 30. As best we can determine it was not until seven years after Jesus' death, around A.D. 37, that Paul reports his initial apparition of "Christ," whom he identifies with Jesus raised from the dead. He asks his followers when challenged for his credentials: "Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?" equating his visionary experience with that of those who had known Jesus face-to-face (1 Corinthians 9:1). Paul's claim to have "seen" Jesus, as well as the teachings he says he received directly from Jesus, came after Jesus' lifetime, and can be categorized as subjective clairvoyant experiences (Galatians 1:12, 18; 2:1; 2 Corinthians 12:1-10). These "revelations" were not a one-time experience of "conversion," but a phenomenon that continued over the course of Paul's life. Paul confesses that he does not comprehend the nature of these ecstatic spiritual experiences, whether they were "in the body, or out of the body" but he believed that the voice he heard, the figure he saw and the messages he received were encounters with the heavenly Christ (2 Corinthians 12:2-3).

It was a full decade after Jesus' death that Paul first met Peter in Jerusalem (whom he calls Cephas, his Aramaic name), and had a brief audience with James, the brother of Jesus, and leader of the Jesus movement (Galatians 1:18-23). Paul subsequently operated independently of the original apostles, preaching and teaching what he calls his "Gospel," in Asia Minor for another 10 years before making a return trip to Jerusalem around A.D. 50. It was only then, 20 years after Jesus' death, that he encountered James and Peter again in Jerusalem and met for the first time the rest of the original apostles of Jesus (Galatians 2:1). This rather extraordinary chronological gap is a surprise to many. It is one of the key factors in understanding Paul and his message.


www.huffingtonpost.com...

As a result of the above, one would be foolish to take for granted, what any organised Christian church has to say about both, their own importance, and the religion itself.
edit on 5-7-2014 by daaskapital because: link



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:16 AM
link   
a reply to: daaskapital

I also agree with truebrit... And yourself...

However, it could also be a warped understanding, adding to the warped translation, that twists the meaning further.

The good thing about a warped understanding, is it bends both ways, and can help to straighten the scripture rather than further distort it.



edit on 5-7-2014 by Wifibrains because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   
a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Your correct on that assessment. I was raised catholic and I've always had problems having to go through a priest to confess my sins rather than going directly to God. You're also not expected to receive communion if your sins haven't been absolved by a priest in a confession booth. What makes priests so special? They're human just like us and they sin just like us. How many priests and ministers have been caught with their hand in the cookie jar?

I no longer follow the catholic religion or any religion for that matter. Having been an alter boy growing up, I've seen the hypocrisy in the catholic religion. I also think there's a lot of hypocrisy in other religions. I believe there is a God, but I stop short having someone else who is no more special than me to tell me how to lead a good and proper life.

I believe the pope is following his Catholic faith. I don't agree with what he's saying, but I wouldn't go as far as calling his satanic. His catholic faith controls his beliefs just like other religions. He has done some things which I feel is more caring and down to earth than other popes who were in the position before him.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: masqua


To presume a personal relationship is easier but dangerous. The mindset creates a feeling of superiority over others and from that false notion comes the judgement and condemnation of others.


Because it's only okay for Jesus to do that kind of thing, right? Feels remarkably like a double standard.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
The Dictator of God has got his progressive shoelaces in a knot and is starting to trip up.

Pope Francis assures atheists: You don’t have to believe in God to go to heaven


In comments likely to enhance his progressive reputation, Pope Francis has written a long, open letter to the founder of La Repubblica newspaper, Eugenio Scalfari, stating that non-believers would be forgiven by God if they followed their consciences.

The pope would truly make a statement to me if he was also able to separate church and wealth. He must realize that faithers generally look up for guidance, inspiration, and communion but never think to learn anything from the poor, weak and meager. Most see themselves as salvationists, who prey on these folks. "I can help you! Read this pamphlet. Repent!" His so called power would diminish quickly without the grand illusion. Some that are down on their luck, homeless, poor or not driven by status are living outside the bubble and can teach us some truly profound things.

Atheist 'mega-churches' take root across US, world


The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life released a study last year that found 20 percent of Americans say they have no religious affiliation, an increase from 15 percent in the last five years. Pew researchers stressed, however, that the category also encompassed majorities of people who said they believed in God but had no ties with organized religion and people who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious."

All the same nonsense, wasted money and cultish endeavors. I guess for every action, there is an equal or opposite reaction.


If this picture represented both Believers and Non-Believers, I would most happily stand outside by myself. My conscious gets cramped in tight spaces so I would prefer to stay out of church. Just walk your own path and be good to people!



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wifibrains

From the cover shot of the video, I assumed I'd see Pope Francis giving a speech. Instead I got a video of some random person scrolling through an article while giving you his commentary in an ominous voice.
This is what the world has come to. We can't think for ourselves, we can't read for ourselves, we need someone to interpret a text through video.

This is why I so very much hate it when videos are presented as "proof" of something on ATS. They are so incredibly easy to twist and manipulate.

Why not just link the article he is talking about directly? Or better yet, an official transcript of the speech from the Vatican?



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: babloyi




From the cover shot of the video, I assumed I'd see Pope Francis giving a speech. Instead I got a video of some random person scrolling through an article while giving you his commentary in an ominous voice.


Me too!



This is what the world has come to. We can't think for ourselves, we can't read for ourselves, we need someone to interpret a text through video.

This is why I so very much hate it when videos are presented as "proof" of something on ATS.

They are so incredibly easy to twist and manipulate. Why not just link the article he is talking about directly?


Here you go...

www.wucnews.com...


Or better yet, an official transcript of the speech from the Vatican?


Maybe you could fetch the relevant part, copy and paste it here, walking the talk, so to speak.

Sorry the source in my thread was not up to your high standards... I'll admit... There was not much effort put into the op overall. Maybe nextime we can both up our game.


Peace.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:38 AM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains


Besides his own Catholic dogma, I think he is referring to all those phony protestant ministers running around lying that Christ speaks to them, pretending to heal. So many of them have been caught scamming and just taking loads of money for “Christ” that ends up in their piggy bank



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:45 AM
link   
a reply to: FlyersFan

BS

Why would I want to have anything to do with a corrupt origination to be in a relationship with Jesus?

Im pretty sure Jesus spits on the catholic and protestant church s, Associating with the main denominations and small hate groups will take you further from Christ not closer.

Remember the church brought crusades, Inquisitions, Burning of "hertics", wealth accumulation off the backs of the poor, corruption, political back stabbing, wars and pedophile rings.

To hell with the pope, the catholic church, the church of england ect



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 10:51 AM
link   
It's just yet another one of those unnecessary "middlemen", trying to convince useful idiots that they are needed. While the people with half a brain, will find their way to the source, and piss on the "middlemen".



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: AfterInfinity

Lemmie put it this way... a teacher at the front of a class is giving lessons on proper etiquette.

The student's reactions vary in two ways:

1) They listen, learn and apply the principles taught to themselves.

2) They use the principles learned to teach others (in this case evangelism).

In the first case, they are applying what they've learned to their own lives and, in the second, they are substituting themselves as an amateurish authority and applying what they think they've learned to others.

What we don't need are millions of 'pseudo' Jesus characters. imho.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Wifibrains

originally posted by: Wifibrains
Here you go...

www.wucnews.com...

The link you provided sources the information to another website, surely it'd be better to link that? Especially since I'm not sure how much trust I should put in "Wake Up Call News" as a news source, considering it seems a bit wacky (has main topic sections like "Depopulation" and "Conspiracies" with sub-sections like "Lucifer" and "Satanism, and links to sister-site Killuminati News).

Here is the original link:
Church is essential for faith; there are no 'free agents,' pope says



originally posted by: Wifibrains
Maybe you could fetch the relevant part, copy and paste it here, walking the talk, so to speak.

POPE FRANCIS - GENERAL AUDIENCE - St. Peter's Square - Wednesday, 25 June 2014
Can't get a more direct and authentic source than the website of the Holy See.
The relevant section is a bit long, so I don't think it'd be wise to post the whole thing here. Anybody who wants an unbiased read of what the Pope said can get it from there, though.



originally posted by: Wifibrains
Sorry the source in my thread was not up to your high standards... I'll admit... There was not much effort put into the op overall. Maybe nextime we can both up our game.


Peace.

For me personally, what the Pope says about a personal relationship with Jesus is absolutely irrelevant. I suppose my entire first post in this thread may have been a bit off-topic, I just felt I needed to air it. It took me 5 minutes to get those 2 links.

If something is worth saying, it is worth saying right, no?
Carry on!
edit on 5-7-2014 by babloyi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:30 AM
link   


2) They use the principles learned to teach others (in this case evangelism).

In the first case, they are applying what they've learned to their own lives and, in the second, they are substituting themselves as an amateurish authority and applying what they think they've learned to others.

What we don't need are millions of 'pseudo' Jesus characters. imho.



Except we are supposed to be open and honest about our walks with faith. I talk about what mine means to me all the time in conversations on the subject. I would call that witnessing.

Does that make me a "pseudo-Jesus?"

If we don't talk about faith with others, if we don't talk about the Gospels and what they mean to us, then the Gospels die out because each of us walks alone in the dark and the Word won't live. I'm pretty sure this is not what Christ intended when He gathered together Disciples and made them "fishers of men."

Of course, 1 Timothy also says there is One God and one mediator between God and man, Christ Jesus.

So, I wonder how Catholics ( and other denominations) square that with their own practices sometimes.



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:33 AM
link   
a reply to: babloyi

I usually enjoy your posts, Baloyi. Agree or disagree, they are usually well reasoned and informed.

Unfortunately, you are being unreasonable here.

It clearly makes it much more difficult to misquote the Pope for the purpose of derision or obfuscation if his actual words were printed in the OP.

You're obviously looking for a ridiculous standard and should be ashamed of yourself.

Eric


edit on 5-7-2014 by EricD because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
A personal relationship with Jesus, or God, and personal faith and spirituality is extremely dangerous

For the church






posted on Jul, 5 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
Does that make me a "pseudo-Jesus?"


Yup... kinda.


If we don't talk about faith with others, if we don't talk about the Gospels and what they mean to us, then the Gospels die out because each of us walks alone in the dark and the Word won't live. I'm pretty sure this is not what Christ intended when He gathered together Disciples and made them "fishers of men."


You'd never need to 'walk alone' because there's always lots of minsters to go around who have gone to seminary school, learned the basics of the religion and found to be good teachers. There's also lots of 'self-appointed' ministers who never became educated in theology but, through falsified documentation, profess to be educated and go on to teach their own brand and interpretation.

My personal opinion about evangelism is that it uses amateurs... all one needs to do is go door to door with the good book in hand and and try to convert the thinking of others. No educated background like seminary school required. I find this to be even more disruptive in a community than some false minister railing on about 'God's Wrath' in a tent revival situation.







 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join