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 bible is not

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 05:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Lucid Lunacy

You say: "it's simply historical", and that's it? That's your comeback?

I just gave you a historical reference to the use of the term "The Catholic Church", used loosely in a text written less than one generation removed from Jesus. It's written in a way that implies it was part of everyday usage in the early church, even while some of the apostles were alive! You can't refute this, Because you are wrong, it's that simple.

Edit to ad....ANY time you see a writing of an early church father, or even in Acts, or even from the mouth of Jesus, when the word "church" is found, in your mind, mentally place the word "catholic" right next to it. There was NO need for any of these people to actually use the clarifier "catholic" when speaking of Jesus' church. Why? Because there was no need, no reason whatsoever to compare it with any other followers of Christ! There was only the one, true church. This is elementary.

It was not named "The Catholic Church" simply to delineate it from the schismatic offshoots that would occur 1400 years later. It's a self given name that is self explanatory.

Additionally, yes there were heretics, even in those early years, as people hashed out exactly what is was they believed. They even gave themselves names. Remember there was no New Testament yet to draw from. It was for these early objections that the Councils were called. Who had the final word? The authority? Peter. And Peter's successors, the popes. The Vicar of Christ on earth smacked them down. Their whacky ideas died, and The Catholic Church marched on.



edit on 6-11-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)

edit on 6-11-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)




posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman




Just because you go to church, read a bible, pray maybe even a Deacon.
It means nothing if you dont submit to God


Check out my signature! LOL......From the mouths of babes!

Everyone has their own idea of what is and what is not a Christian. But I'll tell you one thing, a taco is not a Christian!

edit on 6-11-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

"everyone has their own idea"...

Relativism. For me, this is becoming a dirty word. It's evil.

There IS such a thing as objective truth. Subjective truths are often (and should be) irrelevant. This is why God, and by extension, mankind...has the concept of Authority.

Every effective organization has levels of Authority. Top down. Pecking order. It's common sense, and it works. The top? God. The bottom? You.

Society, left to the whim of subjective truth, would devolve into mayhem, and eventually dissolve. A good example? Traffic lights. We all bow to a single Authority. (Well, usually, lol, there's grey areas, the yellow one, lol)

Subjective truth? Protestantism/40,000+
Objective Truth? Catholicism/ 1
edit on 6-11-2015 by Ignatian because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




"everyone has their own idea"...

Relativism. For me, this is becoming a dirty word. It's evil.


This is the bases for your universal "Catholicism":

19 For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the more.

20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law;

21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law.

22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.



There IS such a thing as objective truth.


No there isn't. There is only the viewpoint of the observer.



Subjective truths are often (and should be) irrelevant. This is why God, and by extension, mankind...has the concept of Authority.


So, God is irrelevant? So, because in your mind subjective truth exists, but is irrelevant, mankind has a concept of authority? Sorry man, I'm not following you.


edit on 6-11-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Raggedyman

The bible is a vague collection of desert superstitions and stories about stories.

If the bible wasn't written for unbelievers, how does anyone become a christian? childhood indoctrination?

And saying something is 'spiritual' is the same as saying it's 'mysterious', a one-size-fits-all answer that explains absolutely nothing at all...



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:13 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Objective Truth: 2 plus 2 will ALWAYS equal 4. A red light means EVERYone must stop. Murder is always wrong, killing is not always wrong.

Subjective Truth CAN be wrong. Our feelings are good examples. Sometimes we are dead wrong about our own truths. This is a fact of life, I wish more people could face up to. Yes, we are wrong about many of our impressions. Example: racism.

It's because of the inherent flaws in subjective truth (our feeeeeelings), that there is a need for Authority for the benefit of the common good.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Prezbo369

......"A one size fits all answer that explains absolutely nothing."

Of course, it can't be explained, that's why it's "mysterious".



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:19 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




Objective Truth: 2 plus 2 will ALWAYS equal 4. A red light means EVERYone must stop. Murder is always wrong, killing is not always wrong.


None of those things are objective "truths". They're temporal observations from a viewpoint. And yes, there are paradoxes in reality where 2 + 2 doesn't equal 4.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

"Paradoxes in reality".....that's gibberish.

Reality is what's real. There IS such a "thing."

2+2=4. ALWAYS and everywhere. For everyone at any time.

A true relativist, SOMEtimes, 2 plus 2 does NOT equal 4. Okie dokie. "Could you hold on a second?"

*dials up for the straighjacket*. *making little twirling motions by my ear with a single finger, while rolling eyes in circles"



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:43 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




"Paradoxes in reality".....that's gibberish.

Reality is what's real. There IS such a "thing."



LOL

Says the guy who insists that there's a God, but there's only ONE God, who is THREE!



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ignatian
a reply to: Prezbo369

......"A one size fits all answer that explains absolutely nothing."

Of course, it can't be explained, that's why it's "mysterious".


The OP is using 'spiritual' as an explanation for his/her interpretation of the bible and people's lack of belief in it.

The OP is not saying it's unexplainable......just that it's 'spiritual', and I'm saying that to use that word to explain anything is pointless as it's completely useless.


Murder is always wrong


Given the chance, wouldn't you have pushed Hitler off a cliff before he had the chance to carry out the 'final solution'?



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: windword




2 + 2 will ALWAYS equal 4.


Let me give you a simple example of how this too, is observation and perspective, with an easier explanation: 1 + 1 doesn't always equal 2.

I have a line, one line _______________

Now, I have another line, a separate line ________________

When I "add" them together: __________________________________________________ I get one line, not two.


edit on 6-11-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 08:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Raggedyman
The rules in the nt are only applicable to Christians
Anyone can read it, doesn't mean anyone can understand it


Not true at all. Basically, what you're really saying is that if someone doesn't understand as you do, then they don't really get it. From what I was always taught in church, the bible's teachings are mostly parables meant to be interpreted by the individual in whatever way fits their life at the moment. The same bible story can mean one thing when someone is 18 and another when they are 50.

Understanding of the bible is subjective, not objective.


I am sure there were many popes that were not Christian, you being a deacon proves nothing to me
It's not about positions you hold in the church, it's about the heart


My heart was in it at the time. You don't have to believe that, but it doesn't change the fact.


I am not saying who can and can't read the bible, what I am saying is that many of the secular understandings that people apply to it are incorrect, it is a spiritual book.

Jesus was not a communist, he was not political, Jesus cared about people. He wanted Christians to care about others as well


You have no right to say whose understanding of the bible is correct or not, just because you interpret the bible one way and someone else interprets it another. You are using the "Appeal to Authority" logical fallacy, here, saying that only authorities on the subject--Christians, in your assessment--can properly understand the bible.

It's quite a simple case to make that Christians may have tunnel vision due to their faith and beliefs and be missing some things that outsiders can see. While the bible is not a congress of books filled with absolutes, there are certainly absolutes in the Christian faith that are derived from the bible, and it's absolutely possible that those of us on the outside of the faith bubble can see the problems with these absolutes.

And I already said that Jesus was not a communist, so your last point doesn't apply to me.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:09 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Oh yeah, you want a paradox? Try and comprehend The Trinity, and good luck. There's no analogy or metaphor I've ever heard that can help fully wrap my brain around it. Truly a mystery, but not a deal breaker.

For me (subjectively), the existence of God is an objective reality, Truth. The fact that we all question, ponder, lose sleep...over the existence of God, actually proves that there is a God.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 09:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian

Your continual denial of early Christianity and the true origins of Catholicism is laughable, my friend.

I gave you information. Other members here gave you info. Why have you not explored it?? That's on you, not me.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 03:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Ignatian




Try and comprehend The Trinity, and good luck.


That's because, mathematically,geometrically and spatially, a three sided object/thing can't exist in our reality.

That's why the Hebrew God is a four fold figure. Their god can actually exist. The trinity is an attempt to de-Judaize and truncate the Hebrew idea of God.



See....No three sided object!



edit on 6-11-2015 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 03:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Dr1Akula


What you are talking about is not exactly early Christians (in today's meaning) they were messianic Jews hiding in caves and migrating into Egypt, Rome, Greece etc. running away from the Romans who destroyed their land and persecuted them.

They were militant and did violent acts of revolution against Romans (and pagans in general), who send a lot of them Messianic Jew rebels to the lions. (supposed christian persecutions, and martyrs) They were called messianic because in their secret synagogues they spread the message of a Messiah who has come to free them from Roman tyranny. That's why there are so many stories of different Messiahs at that time. It gave inspiration and morality to them. They were gaining people from other ethnicities also suppressed by Roman Occupation.

I agree somewhat with your post but not completely.
The first congregation of James the Just (Brother of Jesus) was the congregation formed on Pentecost and in the upper room as described in Acts. You are correct as you say this movement was known as Messianic Jews. This first congregation was described as those who believed Jesus was the Messiah and therefore named as Messianic. At this time and for well over three decades they did not hide in caves or any such sort of secrecy. They were openly known by the Orthodox Jews as well as the Romans and practiced their belief in the room of the last supper.

I believe you have jumped a little history in your post. The Messianic movement openly practiced their religion in Jerusalem till shortly before the sacking of Jerusalem in 70 CE. That is a historical fact. James and his congregation did flee Jerusalem shortly (several years) before the revolution of 70 CE and fled to the wilderness of Pella. About three years later James and his congregation returned to Jerusalem and rebuilt the structure of the upper room and resumed their Messianic Synagogue. I believe it was in the era of the movement to Pella that you should reference them as living in caves but certainly not before or after the revolution of 70 CE.

James nor his Apostolic congregation approved or participated in the revolution of 70 CE. That most certainly would not be of Jesus' or James teachings and is not historically true.



There were no Christians outside Roman Christianity, They were messianic rebel Jews not ''Christians'' and their Messiah was supposed to save them from the Romans ,save Judea and rebuild their temple. through militant actions and war just like David did in the past.

Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

As you can see this was long before the Romans formed their Christian organization. This name was given unto the Greeks and not the Jews. By Greeks is meant the people who were influenced by the Greek language and culture. As was stated before, the Messianic Jews of James did not accept any suggestion of the influence of the Greek culture which did include the Roman culture. Some would reference this as Gentile influence.

I totally disagree as to your statement "Messianic Rebels" as though to infer that James and his congregation would kill to survive when in fact they fled to Pella before any conflict took place. If that is what you have meant then it most certainly is not true.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 07:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Akragon


Its not my fault a good portion of Christianity don't know their own book... that is what I've found in my experience with Christians and it is extensive Lets just say lately I've had a short fuse when it comes to fanatics of Christianity... for good reason

A short fuse is very dangerous. Play safe and get longer fuses.

No Akragon it is not your fault that many people do not understand the bible of their choice. But being such a scholar in the scriptures you might want to teach the less fortunate than yourself. Your post that I commented on was not reflective of your vast knowledge which you infer that you have.



You know, IF Christians didn't tell people the bible is meant to be taken literally... or the whole "every word is from God" shtick... secularist wouldn't attempt to read it in such a fashion In any case non religious people seem to know more about the bible then religionists do anyways

You do know what a religionist is? Its a judgment from you to many people that you have never met or ever will meet. Wipe the egg off your face and get a life.



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: Seede
a reply to: Dr1Akula
Act 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

As you can see this was long before the Romans formed their Christian organization. This name was given unto the Greeks and not the Jews. By Greeks is meant the people who were influenced by the Greek language and culture. As was stated before, the Messianic Jews of James did not accept any suggestion of the influence of the Greek culture which did include the Roman culture. Some would reference this as Gentile influence.


Evidence? the book of acts is not historical evidence,
It was written in Greek decades later. We don't even know it's author it was supposed to be written by Luke but that was given much later also

Christian is a Greek word and what Romans used for their Christian organization, based on the Greek Gospels.
Jewish Christians didn't existed. (at least not as christians)

Previous Jewish Messianic Groups and Churches followed the law of Moses and their prophecy of a Messiah.
Not Christ, not Jesus,
Also there is no historical evidence of Jesus existence let alone of who was his brother.

Greeks were polytheists, and didn't cared about any Jewish traditions, they really meant nothing to them,
And for a good reason, by Jewish Religion Greeks were the most sinful shameless nation on Earth.
Until the Byzantium at the 4rth century came where it forced Christianity on them with merciless persecutions, tortures and total destruction of the Ancient Greek monuments, books,etc. just like every other Pagan Nation in the new Roman Empire.
So no Greek Christians prior to that, no evidence at all!
So since ''the Messianic Jews of James did not accept any suggestion of the influence of the Greek culture'' where are the Aramaic gospels?
Where is the evidence of Christians before 65-70 ad apart from imperial roman propaganda of Josephus?


The New Testament Christ was created by Romans with the Greek Gospels which were a copy of Mythra-ism in order to give
some moral and pacifistic qualities with their fake epistles to the Messianic groups.
There is no evidence that the supposed first church of James was about the Christ we know today,
Back then no info, the book of acts come later and it's not even a historical account.
At first didn't even believed he was God or the Holy trinity which is the base of the Roman Church,
because that was blasphemy for the early messianic Jews,
All they had was the story of Mythras circulating around from at least 1000 years before Christ, adapting to Messianic needs.

Gospels come out around the 70ad exactly when the Jews were prosecuted and flee to foreign lands,

they served the purpose of messianic guidance to counter the violent revolution by the enemies of Rome.

No evidence of the Gospels prior to that so no Greek or Roman Christians, just Messianic Jews.
edit on FriFri, 06 Nov 2015 23:17:15 -06001PMk000000Fridaypm by Dr1Akula because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 6 2015 @ 11:16 PM
link   
a reply to: Seede


A short fuse is very dangerous. Play safe and get longer fuses.


no more dangerous then a Fanatical "religionist"... I would even say less so


You do know what a religionist is?


a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot.


Its a judgment from you to many people that you have never met or ever will meet. Wipe the egg off your face and get a life.


I have a life, that's why I steer clear of such people for the most part... unless they come to me about such things

And that is much more then just an opinion... fanatical religion is a disease... a plague on this world

Always has been, and always will be until the very moment it is wiped from the face of this planet

And thank you but I do try my best to educate Christians in their own doctrine... but beating a dead horse gets most people nowhere... but I still try for the sake of hope




new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join