The Conspiracy To Twist Bible Verses To Suit Their Antigay Agenda - Romans 1:26-27

page: 10
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Indeed. I would argue that it is possible to love someone and not like them nor have to be accepting of their actions; however, with all due respect, that was not the point of my post. I am questioning the fact that how can one call the Bible a book about loving one another right after quoting Leviticus, which states that homosexuals should be put to death. Perhaps I am being cynical, or am I the only one who's seeing these contradictions? In my opinion, the Bible cannot be a book about love when it is encouraging others to kill one another.

Yes, in 2Ti 3:1-5 it says to simply turn away. Now in 1Co 5:1-5 it essentially states that those who have sinned and are tempted by the flesh can and will be expunged from the church. How is this just turning away and letting them be? Perhaps a Christian cannot judge a man's actions and it is only up to the church to do so, but is that Christian not part of the church? Does the Christian not follow what the church tells her to do? In a silly example: what if I were to be part of an organization that had a text that said all who have blonde hair are considered weird and should be outcasted. Even though I am told to love everyone as myself in this organization and do not feel that having blonde hair is a big deal, I am still being instructed to outcast a fellow human simply for being "different" so long as I am part of this organization. This begs the question: why be in it if I don't feel the way they do about said situation?


Translation: unrepentant people are to be put out of the flock, excommunicated, until they show repentance and cease their sinful actions. Allowing them to remain in the flock puts the rest of the flock in danger of thinking that such actions are acceptable.


This rings of a holier than thou outlook and it helps to strengthen my belief of what might be going on: be like us, do what we say, follow the book, do not go outside the box or you shall be punished. "Us" and "we" being the clergy. It is almost as if those who are not in the inner circle are considered a threat and a poison to those who are in it - all in the name of "protecting" the flock. Is this not the root of discrimination?

In regards to 1Mat 18:15 -18, it states: "Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother." Why not follow this advice and if she refuses to listen just let it be, take the advice from the first passage and turn away, instead of: "But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." which in a sense states that if she refuses to hear you out and continues to "sin" then you are granted the right to bring the attention to more people, to the church, and to look at said person as nothing but a heathen or publican. How is this just turning away? What makes this right ... because Christ said so himself? I just remembered something that made me chuckle ... someone once told me that there is a hell because it said so in the Bible and that it is true because Jesus said so ... it's in red. So because the text is in red that must mean it's 100% fact?

In closing, I can quote the Bible as well and use the quotes to justify my beliefs. That does not make it right, though. When you look at the Bible as 100% fact and do not criticize it then it can mislead people into thinking that - for example - discrimination is fine and dandy because Christ said so himself in the holy book.


[edit on 25-7-2009 by Zacaretas]




posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
You know what, I have run into you on other threads, I know your type, There will come a day that you will curse God, because he absolutely proves to you that he exists and his bible was/is true, but you will be cursing in absolute defiance when you are forced to acknowledge his existence.


I know who I am, and I know my Creator Being. I have known my maker in this life, and in others. Through the cycle of ages and through the great forgetting of mankind, I have known my maker. I am as the sword that cleaves the spirit.

You won't find a bigger believer than I, but your book has been tainted and corrupted with the intent to do so over thousands of years.



Why? Because an epiphany will hit you like a ton of bricks as to what that means for you, and your going to be very angry.


Christ is my brother, savior, and another who walked the path of Gods divine grace upon earth. The Creator has always worked through manifestations of itself, in this age and in past.



Ezekiel 25:16

17And I will execute great vengeance upon them with wrathful rebukes and chastisements, and they shall know (understand and realize) that I am the Lord, when I lay My vengeance upon them.



My Makers compassion and fortitude exceed yours ability to make vengeance and wrath upon others. There shall be war someday, but it won't be for the reasons you think.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


That's definitely not the same thing at all. Figure of speech that is impossible and (if we accept what you say) a figure of speech which is a order to do something quite possible. If it is a figure of speech, one requires an outside set of knowledge to "know" it is a figure of speech in the first place - as you demonstrated. What about the unfortunate ones, who were not so lucky like you to find that "oh wait actually no he's just 'saying' that to show us a point". Nowhere in the bible does it show us information that confirms that. You had to link to a contrived idea *conceived by man ofcourse* that excused you out of actually following that order. If all it comes down to is what we "know" and "don't know", then where is the divine in that? That's a pretty useless god if his "word" can't even be accepted without our own interpretation because some things stand out as completely ridiculous - as in the stoning of one's daughter should she not be a virgin (I don't care if your not Jewish, I don't see many Jews following this, plus it's the same god).
Too bad all you can do is keep telling us it is a metaphor, because it is pretty apparent that is a written directive in the bible, and your metaphor definition comes from a source outside the bible



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue
Hi, TheColdDragon,


Well, hello Sezsue. Cordial greetings and peace be upon you, and gracious thanks for the warm affirmation.



I was curious. How do you know? Is it because YOU are a linguistic expert?


I know some other languages, Japanese foremost amongst them. Others I've spoken and associated with know German and other languages. When I speak of translation across time, I also refer to my study of historical literature and mythologies and how translations affect interpretations. As example, there is some contention as to the origin of the Celtic tribes largely due to the most accessible records and translations which have likely been corrupted by western Christian Influences. Purely as example.

Christians throughout time have not been unmolested or influenced in their beliefs, and just by sheerly placing one interpretation next to the other you will see minor lingual drift even NOW, from books printed only years apart.



No one has any excuse to just assume anything now days, because we have the internet to be able to do some research.


And as you shouldn't, even the wise must caution their minds against the folly of false wisdom; I would not ask you to take my word on anything.



In Daniel, it says in the time of the end, knowledge will be greatly increased, and implies the future generation at that time will be able to find out what Daniel was told was closed to him.

Can we just take the first piece of information that supports our views though? NO!!!

If I go to Richard Dawkins website, of course THERE, I will find out that the Bible has been thoroughly corrupted. But he is an atheist, so he has an agenda. He wants to bring people over to his point of view. I read what he has to say, though, because I want to be exposed to both sides.


I am not a fan of Dawkins, and have not read much of his work. Seeing as how I am not an atheist, but not entirely what one would term a common day Christian, I can see Dawkins side of things in a general sense. I've seen some interviews conducted by Dawkins, and the man seems a bit too sure and egotistical for my comfort.



HOWEVER, there is plenty of documentation that states that, except for a few words here and there, the ancient documents and current Bibles are practically the same.

The following article is refuting the LDS church's stance on the Bible. I have no agenda against the LDS church in referencing this article. This was just one of many I could have used, and was one of the first in the list.





ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

Strict regulations were enforced in the copying of Old Testament scriptures. An authentic specimen had to be used, and copyists weren't allowed to deviate from it in any way. Nothing was permitted to be written down from memory, not even a dot. If any mistakes were made, the faulty copies were either burned or buried, as was every document that showed any sign of wear. Many other precautions were also taken, some even more elaborate than these, such as the counting of every letter on each page. So it's unlikely that errors would have crept into the copying of the Old Testament.

It doesn't make sense to imagine for one moment that people who were so fanatically fastidious about the accuracy of their scriptures, and so in awe of them, would adulterate them or hack out great big portions of them. Nor would they permit others to do so. Those Jewish folk guarded their scriptures jealously and reverentially. Don't forget that the primitive church was completely Jewish, and a large number of the early church consisted of converted Jews, all of whom had this very same reverence for scripture.

In 1947 an Arab shepherd boy discovered a vast quantity of ancient manuscripts in some caves, which became known as the Dead Sea Scrolls. They pre-dated anything we'd previously possessed, and included portions of every Old Testament book except Esther. Many of the scrolls were in fragments, but those they have pieced together agree with our modern Bibles.





ACCURACY OF OUR COPIES OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

As we've learned more about ancient biblical languages we have been able to translate them more precisely. But this hasn't changed the actual meaning of the content in any way.

We possess more than 3,000 New Testament manuscripts dating from the fourth century. A few of these have minor variations. However, as most of them do agree, it's an easy matter to sort out which are the reliable texts.

Some copies of John's writings dating from 200 AD have come to light. They agree with our Bibles. We also have the writings of the apostolic fathers and the church fathers. (The apostolic fathers were the disciples of the apostles, and the church fathers were the disciples of the apostolic fathers.) Their combined writings contain the entire New Testament, except sixteen verses, which are only the introductions to the epistles. And their versions of the New Testament scriptures agree with our modern translations. Furthermore, besides these, there were literally thousands of other early Christian writings citing verses from the Bible, that agree with our Bibles of today. So we can rest assured that our modern New Testament is in line with the original writings.


Agree does not mean the dialogues are the same, only that people can interpret them to "Agree" with what they already know.



(Ravi K. Zacharias, page 162, "Can Man Live Without God? " Word Publishing, 1994.)


Taken from a book and publisher of religious bent, I don't doubt this would be the conclusion.



Because of the overwhelming evidence available, it is unlikely that errors could have crept into our versions of either the Old or New Testaments.


Is the Bible corrupted?

Having read your quotes, as per usual they pay attention to the ancient documents which agree with their interpretations, while ignoring most of the other Dead Sea Scrolls and the Apocryphal teachings such as Gospel of Thomas, etc. A lot of these documents were found side by side, or around the same time in the same area, but a lot of them aren't sanctioned church teachings. They aren't considered "The Word of God" because they weren't included in the consolidation during the Council of Nycea when the bible was formalized.

This brings about the perception that "The Word of God" is only God's word when the Church says it is, and isn't when the church doesn't.



God Bless

[edit on 25-7-2009 by sezsue]


And may the Maker watch over you as well, friend.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by TheColdDragon]

[edit on 25-7-2009 by TheColdDragon]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by TheColdDragon
 


Hi TheColdDragon/

The WORD of God is indeed correct!
What is the SEPTUAGINT!

''For this complete edition,
Morris contributed study notes on the book of Isaiah.
“It took a long time,” Morris said.
“It’s an important book of the Old Testament, with so many Messianic prophecies.” It also includes notes he contributed for the book of Romans that had been in the earlier edition,
as well as the glossary he developed, which has been retained and updated.

Yancey writes,
“When we read the Old Testament,
we read the Bible Jesus read and used.”
“The early Christian church used the Greek version of the Scriptures,” Morris said in an interview in his study at St. George.
“This Greek version was called the Septuagint,
for the Greek word for ‘70,’ the number of scholars Ptolemy hired about 200 or 300 B. C. to translate the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.”


In order to understand and read the Scrptures,one must also be shown the foundations first?
If the foundations are not CORRECT,then all else will fail..just like a house built on poor foundations, it will begin to FALL!
A historical account of the SEPTUAGINT VERSION




HE Greek version of the Old Testament commonly known as the Septuagint (...) is a version of a Hebrew text earlier by about a millennium than the earliest dated Hebrew manuscript extant (916 AD), a version, in particular, prior to the formal rabbinical revision of the Hebrew which took place early in the 2nd century AD. (...) It is, moreover, a pioneering work; there was probably no precedent in the world's history for a series of translations from one language into another on so extensive a scale...
Of The Seventy


If the foundations are accurate and properly done,then all else will stand!

As Jesus Christ also said to His Apostles regarding the Church....
TIMOTHY Chapter 3:15
15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God,
which is the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth.
16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

And all manner regarding as to how a Bishop should be is in Scrpture.

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


Colddragon makes an interesting point that I would like to bring up in regards to our other conversation - that you say Catholics aren't Christians. The bible you so fervently hold in divine glory was put together by Catholics - ie: Pope Alexander and the other first Roman leaders who founded the Catholic Church. So either you are a fake "christian" as well, or you are simply mislead. You worship the Catholic bible - not the evangelical bible, or the baptist one.
I would like to see how you worm your way out of this one. Over on my post you seemed to truly believe Catholics are NOT Christians, and yet, Catholics decided what you believe or do not believe because they oversaw the construction of the modern bible and the exclusion of specific texts. Evangelicals and Born-agains did not exist back then. You are slandering the very thing you believe in. How ironic is that? Talk about "biting the hand that feeds". Catholics are the reason your religion exists...



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


www.bible.ca...



The following list give a summation of what we have been trying to emphasize. If the Bible is a Catholic book,
* 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
* 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
* 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
* 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11). * 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
* 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Ex. 20:4-5).
* 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Col. 2:12).
* 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
* 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).
* 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
* 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
* 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
* 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
* 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


You can't change history my friend - the fact remains: your bible is Catholic by nature. The first Catholics put it together and thus you believe as they do

www.davidmacd.com... (I can find links too
:lol


"Evangelicals who assert that Catholics are not Christian will have a hard time standing on that, because they accept the authority of the Catholic Church every time they pick up the Bible. The history of the Bible is here.

Any time spent studying the Church Fathers will make it abundantly clear that early Christian beliefs were Catholic. Their complete unity over the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist is only one example."

[edit on 25-7-2009 by makinho21]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


The Bible is not Catholic or else it would mention a pope, a confessional, praying to Mary, etc. If it's a Catholic Bible it should have Catholic things in it, which it doesn't.

If you don't read the Bible as a believer it will seem foolish. If you read the Bible as a believer it will show you the truth. I believe the Bible is the Word of God and that it's been preserved throughout history; I don't get hung up on who put it together.



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by helen670
reply to post by pdpayne0418
 


Hi pdpayne/

The Greek Septuagint (Old Testament) has been around alot longer then the TRANSLATED versions of the later falsified Bibles.
The actual Greek word is as it is written.
It HAS NOT been changed!
Blue_jay33 has the Greek correct!



Um, we don't have an original version of the Greek Septuagint, and even if we did, it is a translation from the Hebrew, with its own problems natural to translations from one language to another. But aside from this, (1) both this verse and the other from Leviticus (18:22) appear in a holiness code that applied to Israel rather than to gentile Christians in an age of grace. (2) Both occur in the clear context of opposition to the practices of the local fertility god Moloch; verse 21 sets the stage for this one by forbidding people from allowing their children to be burned in sacrifice to Moloch, verse 23 prohibits intercourse with animals (the idol of Moloch was in the form of a bull with a man’s head and shoulders, so this verse too may refer to idol worship). (3) At the time, in order to get a conviction, Jewish law required four (male) witnesses, so whatever the action condemned in Leviticus was, it was likely a public event (there are no instances recorded in the Talmud of anyone being brought before the Sanhedrin and charged with homosexual activity). Worship of other gods provided a context where sex is very public, and there are 59 other places in the Bible where the worship of other gods is called an abomination (in the KJV). How could these two verses not apply to temple prostitution?

Peace,
Daniel

[edit on 25-7-2009 by pdpayne0418]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by sezsue
reply to post by pdpayne0418
Hi pdpayne,

I just wanted to say, WOW.

Your responses remind me of John Matrix's responses regarding whether or not it's fornication or adultery if the married couple agree to share themselves with other people outside the marriage.

Before you ever made the statement that you were going to the Gay Pride parade (or was that a joke) I figured you were homosexual, because of the statements you were making.


I stated I was queer from the get go, and I attend a seminary which looks down on the student agreeing with everything the prof says.

Peace,
Daniel

[edit on 25-7-2009 by pdpayne0418]



posted on Jul, 25 2009 @ 07:10 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


Hi/

Of Course the Bible is UNIVERSAL by nature!
CATHOLIC actually means UNIVERSAL and you have that correct!

ICXC NIKA
helen



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zacaretas
Perhaps I am being cynical, or am I the only one who's seeing these contradictions? In my opinion, the Bible cannot be a book about love when it is encouraging others to kill one another


Obviously I am not effectively explaining why many of the old testament commands do not apply, so let me post quotes from others which hopefully explain it more concisely then I can:


Universal and Limited Commands
Not all commands recorded in the Bible were for the whole human race. The command to observe the Passover feast annually (Exodus 12:14) was never an obligation to any but the Hebrew nation. On the other hand, the call to repent of personal sin is a requirement of all men everywhere (Acts 17:30).
Christ once issued this directive: “Tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with power from on high” (Luke 24:49). That obligation was certainly not universal, but only to the apostles. However, the responsibility to be immersed in order to receive salvation is as universal as the ability to believe in the Lord (Mark 16:15-16).
One must carefully consider the context of Bible commands to know whether or not the individual injunction is required of him or her.
Temporal and Permanent Commands
Not all commands listed in the Scriptures were intended to last forever. The divine command, “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy” (Exodus 20:8) was operative only so long as the law of Moses was in effect.
The Mosaic system was a “schoolmaster” to prepare the Jewish nation (and through them the Gentiles as well) for the coming of the Messiah. When Christ had accomplished his holy mission, that law (hence, the sabbath command) expired (Galatians 3:24-25). Those who attempt Sabbath observance today are looking in vain to an obsolete law.
The imperative, “Desire spiritual gifts” (1 Corinthians 14:1), would surely not be applicable in this age, since spiritual gifts have long since passed from the church’s possession (cf. 1 Corinthians 13:8ff).
On the other hand, when Jesus, with reference to marriage, charged, “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Matthew 19:6), he issued a prohibitive that would be binding throughout the Christian era. New Testament marriage regulations are designed to last as long as the institution itself prevails.
Commands of the Bible must be carefully analyzed. When it is determined that they apply to us, we must humbly submit to them.


In the Bible, God gives different types of commands. Some of those commands (and you've quoted from some of them) are specifically for the nation of Israel at a specific point in time. Other commands are specifically for the nation of Israel in general. Others are to all people. Some are specific to individuals.

When the Bible says "Go to Nineveh," why do all believers not travel to that city? Because that command is directed at one person: Jonah. When the Bible says "put to death men and women, children and infants", he is directing the nation of Israel, at one specific point in its history, to deal with the Amalekites, their enemies. (The Israelites did not obey this command, and it created great misery for them later.) When the Bible says "love one another," it is making a statement to all of Christ's followers, for all of time.

Context is key. The Bible is part history, part guide for living, part revealed truth. Only a moron would take a history book and attempt to follow it as if it were an instruction manual.



Originally posted by Zacaretas
Yes, in 2Ti 3:1-5 it says to simply turn away. Now in 1Co 5:1-5 it essentially states that those who have sinned and are tempted by the flesh can and will be expunged from the church. How is this just turning away and letting them be?

Turning away means shunning them, so they are turned away from the flock until they change their behavior. You do not allow them to remain in the church to tempt others into similar sin. You know how human nature is, if you let one person get away with something then others start to think that maybe its ok to do as well.


Originally posted by Zacaretas
Perhaps a Christian cannot judge a man's actions and it is only up to the church to do so, but is that Christian not part of the church?

Christians are allowed to judge from peoples actions whether they are the type of people that they should associate with. In order to punish someone for their actions a ruling body (Church/Government) must be involved. This is the same way that God allows Governments to fight just wars and have capital punishment, yet if you as an individual killed someone it would be murder. The rules are different for a ruling body then they are for an individual. We are to accept that the governing body is in power under the authority of God, and we are to follow their rules unless they directly conflict with Gods.

Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Matthew 22:21

The offending person in the example above was part of the church, but was excommunicated, if they repent then as Christians we should forgive them and allow them back in the flock.

BTW, other religions besides Christianity deal with offenders in the exact same way. I have spent time around the American Indians, for example, and have seen them shun someone.


Originally posted by Zacaretas
Does the Christian not follow what the church tells her to do? In a silly example: what if I were to be part of an organization that had a text that said all who have blonde hair are considered weird and should be outcasted. Even though I am told to love everyone as myself in this organization and do not feel that having blonde hair is a big deal, I am still being instructed to outcast a fellow human simply for being "different" so long as I am part of this organization. This begs the question: why be in it if I don't feel the way they do about said situation?

I do not know of anything that is beyond your control (race, sex, hair color) that would get you excommunicated from a church, that is not how the rules work. Its actions/beliefs that get you kicked out. There are some rules that only apply to certain groups (Men, Women, Jews, Gentiles, etc), but they are clearly spelled out, and often there are exceptions made in favor of the group. For example Gentiles do not have to follow anywhere near the amount of rules that Jews do. There is also an aspect of predestination in religion, that God predestines certain people certain ways. That may not sound fair, but we are not seeing it from Gods perspective.

Its late, and I hope that makes sense...
Tougher question then you might have even realized, and I don't know if that was a completely sufficient answer to it.



Originally posted by Zacaretas
This rings of a holier than thou outlook and it helps to strengthen my belief of what might be going on: be like us, do what we say, follow the book, do not go outside the box or you shall be punished. "Us" and "we" being the clergy.

No... What it does is sets rules of acceptable behavior. I have never even felt the slightest pressure that I was going to be excommunicated, and I have been far from a saint. You really have to be doing something that is seriously wrong on a constant basis to show that you are not repentant for your sins. The Clergy do not set the rules, they are simply the messengers, the rules come from God.


Originally posted by Zacaretas
It is almost as if those who are not in the inner circle are considered a threat and a poison to those who are in it - all in the name of "protecting" the flock. Is this not the root of discrimination?

You are making this out to be way more dramatic then it is. I have only even known one person who was excommunicated in my entire life, and that was from the Roman Catholic Church over a divorce. Its actually way more about protecting the flock then anything else, simply because the church cannot read your mind to see what you are doing in private. If you are openly sinning for the congregation to see, then you are endangering the flock, and they can remove you from it.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Zacaretas
 



Originally posted by Zacaretas
Why not follow this advice and if she refuses to listen just let it be, take the advice from the first passage and turn away, instead of: But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican." which in a sense states that if she refuses to hear you out and continues to "sin" then you are granted the right to bring the attention to more people, to the church, and to look at said person as nothing but a heathen or publican.

Well first off, back then you did not have a Church on every corner, so if you were shunning your brother the congregation was going to notice it, since you would both belonged to the same church. Secondly it shows how much that you care about that person that you tried to bring in outside help to remedy the situation. I mean, would you let a family member sit if they were bleeding to death, or would you summon help. Bringing in others not only helps justify that you did everything that you could, but it also bring in others to help with the problem.


Originally posted by Zacaretas
someone once told me that there is a hell because it said so in the Bible and that it is true because Jesus said so ... it's in red. So because the text is in red that must mean it's 100% fact?

I would consider things that Christ said of the highest import, however, your friend is both right and wrong. Hell is not in the Bible, its only in translations of the Bible. Not all Christians have the gifts to study the bible to that level though, some have the faith of a child and remain on baby food.

If this does not make sense, please let me know, I have been up well over 24 hours at this point...
I hope that I addressed all your points.



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by makinho21
The bible you so fervently hold in divine glory was put together by Catholics - ie: Pope Alexander and the other first Roman leaders who founded the Catholic Church. So either you are a fake "christian" as well, or you are simply mislead. You worship the Catholic bible - not the evangelical bible, or the baptist one.
I would like to see how you worm your way out of this one.


Well its pretty easy to get out of this one, because you took your information from the DiVinci Code (or some similar Christian hate source), which was a fictional book, and has nothing to do with reality. The Old Testament of the Bible was based on the Septuagint, which dates to 356-323 BC (Before Christ), and 21 of the 27 new testament books are quoted in Irenaeus “Against Heresies”, which was completed in 180 AD. That is 92 years before the BIRTH of Constantine the Great in 272 AD, 145 years before the First Council of Nicaea in 325 AD, and 874 years before The Great Schism of 1054 AD that marked the official beginning of the modern Roman Catholic Church.

[edit on 7/26/2009 by defcon5]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:26 PM
link   
reply to post by defcon5
 


Are you mad? "[I] took my information from the Da Vinci Code?" Where does that even apply to what I was saying - no you are completely and utterly wrong; I never mentioned the Da Vinci Code, and I am referring to the New Testament only. I should have been more specific about it, but anyone with a bit of logic about them would realize this when I am talking about the putting together of the books that apply to Jesus (which means NT). I don't know why you commented, other than to try and sound smart, but to state "I got my information from the Da Vinci Code" doesn't help your case along. It it FACT that early Catholic leaders held the Synod of Hippo where they decided (with the guidance of Pope Athanasius) which books would become the NT, which is why anyone trying to claim "Catholics are not Christian" are completely mislead. I used religious sources and it is known history. I don't believe you can really dispute that, but I'm sure you will try. Maybe the Da Vinci Code put me up to it eh?

www.davidmacd.com...
en.allexperts.com...
enjoy



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 


So explain why most, if not all, Catholic ideas aren't in the Bible.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Totakeke]



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 05:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Totakeke
 


I am not catholic, and I don't know why it doesn't say that. From what I read the Catholic claim is that in the scripture of Mark, Jesus proclaims Paul as the rock of the church - which is specifically referring to the Catholic Church, seeing as how "St. Paul" is recognized as the Catholic founder. Now let me repeat, I am not Catholic, so I am just regurgitating what Catholics claim.
www.davidmacd.com...
"W. F. Albright, one of the best known Protestant theologians of this century, in his Anchor Bible Commentary, says:

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church....To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence.

All of the early Church interpreted Peter as the Rock also. For example, Tertullian said:

Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth? (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret, 220 A.D.)"

As to your proposition Mary is not to be worshipped and She is not important to Christians, obviously Catholics have something different to say:
"The Bible actually has quite a bit to say about Mary, both explicitly in the New Testament and implicitly (prophetically) in the Old Testament. In the New Testament Mary is present at almost every major event in the life of Jesus:

* His conception (Luke 1:2)
* His development in the womb, including the fetal development of John the Baptist (Lk 1:43)
* His birth (Lk 2:7)
* Offering Him to God (Lk 2:22)
* Early childhood (Lk 2:22-38)
* His confirmation at 12 years old (Lk 2:49)
* His start in public ministry and the first of his miracles, which she instigated. (Wedding at Cana Jn 2:3)
* His death on Calvary (Jn 19:26)
* The birth of the Church at the Pentecost (Acts 1:14).

I hardly think of these as a "few tiny references." Mary's role is infinitely greater than Jabez who won so much attention from some Evangelicals."
www.davidmacd.com...

However, I don't really care - I am not religious, and the fact that Christians constantly berate and dispute between themselves (as you are doing) shows me that no matter how hard Christians try to present their religion as a uniform, unchanging, unwavering substance - as if that demonstrates its "divinity" anyways - it is quite the opposite. Followers of the same teachings and principles fighting and bashing each other just because they don't see eye to eye. I'm sure Jesus would be proud...



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:09 PM
link   
Talk about hijacking. Wasn't this thread supposed to be about Romans 1:26-27? It's veered off into some kind of Catholic vs. Protestant thread.

Peace,
Daniel



posted on Jul, 26 2009 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by makinho21
 




As to your proposition Mary is not to be worshipped and She is not important to Christians, obviously Catholics have something different to say:


I never said she wasn't important; she certainly is. But she isn't supposed to be prayed to or worshipped. In fact, worshipping Mary, which Catholics do, is idolatry and breaks the first commandment.

The only true Christianity is the one that follows what's written in the Bible and nothing else. There's nothing in the Bible about worshipping Mary or praying to her, confessionals, nuns, priests, popes, purgatory, or that Christ's death wasn't enough to pay for our sins.

[edit on 26-7-2009 by Totakeke]





top topics
 
9
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum