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.

 

Why 'YOU' Should be careful with what Bible you get.

page: 3
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Well, if it says the exact same thing I said, then why should I read it? Seems I looked inside my heart and soul and found the "right" path anyway.

I don't need a book to tell me how to live my life, nor do I need one to tell me right from wrong. My conscious tells me that.


Just to see for yourself it says that. And to find out that you and the Bible may be in agreement about more things than you think. And it might not say everything that people have TOLD you it says. So, you know who's BSin you about it, and who's not.

Obviously if religion is a form of control, and that's what you're worried about, well then someone is going to try to control you or others with it. Maybe even people you care about. The Bible is actually the antidote. If you know what it says, and what they're saying about the Bible isn't true you may be able to point that out and stop someone you care about from being controlled.

The Bible is actually pretty anti-authority. Jesus was anti-religion. I mean if you think about it, when was the Catholic Church its most powerful and most controlling? During the time when they wouldn't let their members READ the Bible! Hell that caused the dark ages if you ask me. People not reading the thing. They weren't allowed to.

It was only after the Bible was retranslated and read again that people realized the Church was BS and starting breaking away from its authority. If you know your Bible it should be just about impossible to be controlled by anyone. Even angels don't have authority.

So, why would you let some man have authority over you? Even though it's a best seller, few actually read their Bible. The only people being controlled by religion, are people that have never read the Bible. It says don't let yourself be controlled by anyone. To not have two masters.

The people and cults that use religion to control NEVER use the Bible to do so. They usually use some prophet like Warren Jeffs to tell you what it says or some authority figure like the Pope. But the Bible says Jesus is the only authority and that Jesus is the LAST prophet. So, why do people listen to Warren Jeffs? Why do they listen to the
Pope? Because they haven't read their Bible.

This is also why so many cults have EXTRA Biblical material that they teach out of and almost never use the Bible. Like the writings of Ellen White. But what does the Bible say? It says DON'T ADD ANYTHING TO THE BIBLE and so forth. The only other way they could even try to control you is by holding your sins against you and saying you need to do such and such because you're an evil sinner. But the Bible teaches there's NOTHING you can do to save yourself. All that can be done to save you has already been done by Jesus for you. You can just turn around and say, no that's okay. I don't need to do anything. Jesus already took care of that for me.

If you read your Bible, well then once an invisible man in the sky becomes your authority, it's pretty hard to be controlled by anyone. You just turn around and say look, I don't listen to you, I listen to God. So, to say religion is controlling? Sure, but what's that got to do with the Bible? Once you know what it actually says, it's just about impossible to be controlled by anyone.


edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by tncryptogal
I recently saw a bumper sticker that read: "If it ain't King James 1611, it ain't Bible!" And I wonder to myself, where these people think King James got his source material from? You'd be surprised at how many people believe Jesus was white and spoke English around here. Saying he's a Jew will get you yelled at and/or slapped.


That's weird though cause I have a King James Bible and I looked in it, and it also says Jesus was a Jew. So whoever is slapping you or yelling at you? It has nothing to do with what Bible they're using and it has nothing to do with the King James Bible.

Those people are just idiots or just never read it.
edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Well, if it says the exact same thing I said, then why should I read it? Seems I looked inside my heart and soul and found the "right" path anyway.

I don't need a book to tell me how to live my life, nor do I need one to tell me right from wrong. My conscious tells me that.


Just to see for yourself it says that. And to find out that you and the Bible may be in agreement about more things than you think. And it might not say everything that people have TOLD you it says. So, you know who's BSin you about it, and who's not.

Obviously if religion is a form of control, and that's what you're worried about, well then someone is going to try to control you or others with it. Maybe even people you care about. The Bible is actually the antidote. If you know what it says, and what they're saying about the Bible isn't true you may be able to point that out and stop someone you care about from being controlled.

The Bible is actually pretty anti-authority. Jesus was anti-religion. I mean if you think about it, when was the Catholic Church its most powerful and most controlling? During the time when they wouldn't let their members READ the Bible! Hell that caused the dark ages if you ask me. People not reading the thing. They weren't allowed to.

It was only after the Bible was retranslated and read again that people realized the Church was BS and starting breaking away from its authority. If you know your Bible it should be just about impossible to be controlled by anyone. Even angels don't have authority.

So, why would you let some man have authority over you? Even though it's a best seller, few actually read their Bible. The only people being controlled by religion, are people that have never read the Bible. It says don't let yourself be controlled by anyone. To not have two masters.

The people and cults that use religion to control NEVER use the Bible to do so. They usually use some prophet like Warren Jeffs to tell you what it says or some authority figure like the Pope. But the Bible says Jesus is the only authority and that Jesus is the LAST prophet. So, why do people listen to Warren Jeffs? Why do they listen to the
Pope? Because they haven't read their Bible.

This is also why so many cults have EXTRA Biblical material that they teach out of and almost never use the Bible. Like the writings of Ellen White. But what does the Bible say? It says DON'T ADD ANYTHING TO THE BIBLE and so forth. The only other way they could even try to control you is by holding your sins against you and saying you need to do such and such because you're an evil sinner. But the Bible teaches there's NOTHING you can do to save yourself. All that can be done to save you has already been done by Jesus for you. You can just turn around and say, no that's okay. I don't need to do anything. Jesus already took care of that for me.

If you read your Bible, well then once an invisible man in the sky becomes your authority, it's pretty hard to be controlled by anyone. You just turn around and say look, I don't listen to you, I listen to God. So, to say religion is controlling? Sure, but what's that got to do with the Bible? Once you know what it actually says, it's just about impossible to be controlled by anyone.


edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


First, the Bible is a Catholic book. Give me the men, the dates after
1517 who put together the Canon? They didn't. You deny the Church
who gave you your authority. Silly, not so smart thing to do.

You know, the excuse "religion is about control." Religions are man-made
so the true faith, the RCC gets hit with this accusation the most.

It's lame. How is there any "control" involved? The people saying it aren't
keeping any of the teachings of the true faith. It's easier, to live without
any faith, no requirements. They don't get that the requirements make you happy and help you get to Heaven.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 10:32 PM
link   
"The Bible is actually pretty anti-authority. Jesus was anti-religion. I mean if you think about it, when was the Catholic Church its most powerful and most controlling? During the time when they wouldn't let their members READ the Bible! XXX that caused the dark ages if you ask me. People not reading the thing. They weren't allowed to.

It was only after the Bible was retranslated and read again that people realized the Church was BS and starting breaking away from its authority. If you know your Bible it should be just about impossible to be controlled by anyone. Even angels don't have authority."

That's right, the Bible is not our authority. Scripture states the Church is
our authority, she decided the Canon, the Church is the pillar and foundation of Truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

The Church never kept anyone from reading Scripture. The Bible was
assembled in 383 A.D. There were no way to mass print Scripture.
It was hand written. What year did the printing press come along?

It was admitted the Canon is Catholic but they got it wrong and it took
Protestants 12 centuries later to interpret that Catholic book, Holy
Scripture. Do you think anyone with even the smallest amount of logic believes this?

Do this, ask, try to discover. What did the first Christians believe? What did the Christians taught by the first Christians believe? All those centuries before the Protestant revolt. The heretical teachings came after the revolt from the minds of men.

The Remnant is Roman Catholic. Get ready for the Great Warning, God
is going to make it very clear. Come to faith everyone, it's God's desire.



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Please stop taking Bible verses out of context. You might do well to view the videos I posted.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Now notice this part.

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Now who appeared in the flesh? Did a church building appear in the flesh? Did the Vatican appear in the flesh? No, Jesus appeared in the flesh. So we're talking about Jesus here. Not a building or the Pope. Notice it says that believers are the church of the living God. Not a building. A church can only have authority if it's rooted in Jesus. If not, it has no authority because it has lost its very reason for having authority to begin with.

If you didn't read the part RIGHT UNDER what you posted and couldn't see that it was talking about Jesus and not the Pope, you perhaps need to read again. It says right there that Jesus is " the mystery from which true godliness springs".

Now the Pope is fine and all as long as he's in agreement with Jesus. But if not, we cannot have two masters. We have to listen to Jesus instead because it says right here in what you posted. Jesus is " the pillar and foundation of the truth"

Thanks for posting. You just proved my point.
edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:08 PM
link   
Emerald tablets for the win.


P.s. the letter j wasn't even around till like 500 years or so ago probably more.
edit on 3-1-2012 by PatriotAct because: p.s.

edit on 3-1-2012 by PatriotAct because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 3 2012 @ 11:12 PM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 



First, the Bible is a Catholic book.


I don't understand your question. What do you mean by Catholic book?
edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe
 



First, the Bible is a Catholic book.


I don't understand your question. What do you mean by Catholic book?
edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


tinfoilman, everyone loves the tinman,

It was a statement. History shows, and modern history ( the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls) show Pope Damasus made the correct choices in 382 A.D. deciding the Canon. Pride makes people doubt but by God's authority given to the Holy Father inspiring him, He was right. The Canon hasn't changed to this day.

The usual one or two sentence rebuttal Protestants use to cover early Church history (33 A.D. to 1517) naming someone, this one person, they think makes it look legit, the rest are "well known" Roman Catholics. One man, Constantine and then even more ridiculous, they mention Nicea, Catholic Councils? Nicea has nothing to do with Protestant beliefs. It's because Protestantism began in the 16th century, Christian history before the Protestant revolt is Roman Catholic.

Outlined, briefly, we can know, the first Christians and those to follow kept track.

How the Canon of the Bible (the official catalogue of inspired books) was officially declared.

All books that were considered for the Cannon, but not included were called Apocrypha, and thus declared not inspired.

362 A.D. Catholic Church's Council of Rome defines the Canon of Holy Scripture.
382 Pope Damasus issues a listing of the present OT and NT Canon of 73 books
383 Saint Jerome translates the Latin Vulgate from Greek & Hebrew
393 Council of Hippo (North Africa) approves the present Canon of 73 books
397 Council of Constantinople produces first bound Bible (the Vulgate: previously, all
were separate books)
397 Council of Carthage (North Africa) approves the same OT and NT canon
405 Pope Saint Innocent I approves the Canon again and closes it (with 73 books)



blessings,


colbe



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe
 


Please stop taking Bible verses out of context. You might do well to view the videos I posted.

14 Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, 15 if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:
He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Now notice this part.

He appeared in the flesh,
was vindicated by the Spirit,[d]
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory.

Now who appeared in the flesh? Did a church building appear in the flesh? Did the Vatican appear in the flesh? No, Jesus appeared in the flesh. So we're talking about Jesus here. Not a building or the Pope. Notice it says that believers are the church of the living God. Not a building. A church can only have authority if it's rooted in Jesus. If not, it has no authority because it has lost its very reason for having authority to begin with.

If you didn't read the part RIGHT UNDER what you posted and couldn't see that it was talking about Jesus and not the Pope, you perhaps need to read again. It says right there that Jesus is " the mystery from which true godliness springs".

Now the Pope is fine and all as long as he's in agreement with Jesus. But if not, we cannot have two masters. We have to listen to Jesus instead because it says right here in what you posted. Jesus is " the pillar and foundation of the truth"

Thanks for posting. You just proved my point.
edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


You're dear tinfoilman,

God established an authority in the New Covenant so we can know, the Church.

You accept God's chosen holy men as His leaders in the Old Covenant.
Our Lord named "a leader" in the New Covenant. A leader of His Church (Matt 16:18), Peter. And his successors.

The teachings of Christ have been passed down (Apostolic succession), the oral and the written, the Magisterial teachings of the Church and don't forget the prophetic given many saints.

God's authority on the earth, is the Church, the RCC.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 02:48 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Okay we mostly agree then. All I was saying is if you have someone you call prophet that might be okay or if you follow the Pope that's okay.

I wasn't saying I'm anti-catholic or don't go to church or that it's a false church. I'm not really taking sides here. I was just saying it's much harder to control people if they know the Bible themselves and make sure their prophet/pastor/priest/Pope or whatever is lining up with what it says. And if the Pope is getting his information from where he says he is, it should always line up. God's word should always line up with God's word. So, if you like the Pope that's cool, but the Bible allows us to go straight to the source anyway.

But the thing I was really saying is that someone may try to control you with what the Bible says, but once you know what it says that's much harder. Cause you just end up with someone that turns the other cheek, believes in Jesus, loves his neighbor and and so on. Not really useful for a cult leader.

That's why people that use religion to control people almost never, if ever, use the straight up Bible and nothing else. They usually have added some other material that doesn't line up with the Bible to their teachings and they focus on that and not the Bible. And that's a red flag is all I was saying.
edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 03:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe
 


Okay we mostly agree then. All I was saying is if you have someone you call prophet that might be okay or if you follow the Pope that's okay.

I wasn't saying I'm anti-catholic or don't go to church or that it's a false church. I'm not really taking sides here. I was just saying it's much harder to control people if they know the Bible themselves and make sure their prophet/pastor/priest/Pope or whatever is lining up with what it says. And if the Pope is getting his information from where he says he is, it should always line up. God's word should always line up with God's word. So, if you like the Pope that's cool, but the Bible allows us to go straight to the source anyway.

But the thing I was really saying is that someone may try to control you with what the Bible says, but once you know what it says that's much harder. Cause you just end up with someone that turns the other cheek, believes in Jesus, loves his neighbor and and so on. Not really useful for a cult leader.

That's why people that use religion to control people almost never, if ever, use the straight up Bible and nothing else. They usually have added some other material that doesn't line up with the Bible to their teachings and they focus on that and not the Bible. And that's a red flag is all I was saying.
edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


tinfoilman, you're so nice....

Your freedom and my freedom comes in knowing the correct interpretation of Scripture.

The heresy that anyone can interpret Scripture has led to 30,000 plus
sects!

There is a word for it, I am blank to name it right now. God has given the gift to interpret Scripture to the Church, the RCC. Read the Douay-Rheims Catholic Bible. Forget new English translations. The footnotes will help you "see" why the Church teaches what she does.

www.drbo.org...

tinfoilman, not one verse in Scripture, the entire Bible, conflicts with another if you go by the Church, her interpretation of Scripture.

I can direct you to a great Scripture scholar, John Salza. He has a
website called Scripture Catholic with subjects listed and Scripture verses
to back up these faith subjects, Church interpretations. You will learn
much...

www.scripturecatholic.com...



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by colbe
Cough, cough....

The King James Bible has 30,000 changes to it. Scripture says don't
alter any words in Scripture.



No, you misunderstood. The Book of Revelations said not to alter ITS scripture. The other 65 books in the Bible were written by someone else at some other time.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 04:20 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Well you would be correct if I was gonna take sides and say the CC is infallible and the one true church and all that good stuff. But like I said, I wasn't taking sides on that fight. That being, I wasn't going to say which church I thought was right or wrong. Not at this time anyway.

I mean what did the Pope say? "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI."
www.zenit.org...

Even if he lacks faith? Are we sure that's correct?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

But how are we to believe in Jesus if we don't believe the Bible??? Tricky tricky.

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the father, but by me".

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

1 John 5:11 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

Now I'm not saying the Pope is wrong. I could literally argue from both sides. I'm just using this as example.

But are we sure the people working at the church are ALWAYS the ones giving the right reading? Maybe, but I don't know. Never hurts to double check.

Like I said in my opinion there's always an easy way to double check your interpertation. Simply ask yourself, who's God in this story? Is God God, or am I God?

Now, let's ask about what the Pope is saying. You can be saved without faith, as long as you keep alive the desire for the transcendent with a pure conscious? Is that true?

Let's ask who's God in this story. Is God God? Is God the one saving me by HIS actions? Or am I God? Am I the one saving myself by MY actions? Well it sounds like I'm saving myself doesn't it? All that matters is that I MYSELF keep alive the desire for the transcendent with a pure conscious? Doesn't matter what Jesus does right?

Or the opposite view is that God is God and I am man. Therefore NOTHING I can do can save me. Even if I kept alive the desire for the transcendent right? Because a man can't save himself. Only what Jesus has already done 2000 thousand years ago can save me. So then it doesn't matter if my conscious is pure. All that matters is if Jesus died on the cross or not? Well did he? What do you believe? Nothing if your faith doesn't matter right?

Like I said, that's what I always see it come down to. That's the simple test. Simply ask, who's doing all the work here? Who's saving who? Am I saving myself, or have I already been saved by God?

Now like I said, I can't tell you which to believe. The faith vs works thing, well that's an argument that's been going on since the start.

You just have to decide for yourself if you think you can save yourself or not and then pick one. But once you've picked one, it's pretty easy to find the interpretation that matches with what you believe.

I really only believe there are two readings of the Bible regardless of the 30,000 sects. When you get to the end you either believe you can save yourself, or you believe that only Jesus can save you. Every time the topic comes up the argument seems to fit in one or the other camps.

EDIT:
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. 27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

Also, did Jesus tells us to seek after only peace? Or does he want us to seek after him? Who's correct here? Jesus, or the Pope?
edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaryStillToe

Originally posted by colbe
Cough, cough....

The King James Bible has 30,000 changes to it. Scripture says don't
alter any words in Scripture.



No, you misunderstood. The Book of Revelations said not to alter ITS scripture. The other 65 books in the Bible were written by someone else at some other time.


Mary, I like your name.

I learned something. This admonition in Revelation 12:18 goes further than "don't change Scripture." It means
don't add to or change God's revelation given to man. The words in John's Revelation 12:18 are almost identical to the words in the Old Testament, Deuteronomy 4:2.

There is more to God's revelation than the written Word. Christ's teachings were first passed down orally. There
is an oral Tradition, not all of Jesus' teachings are written in Scripture. And for 2000 years, we have the Magisterial teachings of the Church and the prophetic.

All the heresies are additions, false teachings of men.


Deuteronomy 4:2
You shall not add to the word that I speak to you, neither shall you take away from it: keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by amazed
reply to post by tinfoilman
 


Well, if it says the exact same thing I said, then why should I read it? Seems I looked inside my heart and soul and found the "right" path anyway.

I don't need a book to tell me how to live my life, nor do I need one to tell me right from wrong. My conscious tells me that.



Yes, you are right. A book cannot build a relationship wtih God and neither can ancestry as is so well documented by the constant failures of the ancient hebrews and israelites in the Old Testament.

Noah did not have a Bible and neither did Abraham nor Moses. They communicated with God directly through their conscience and it was counted for them as righteousness.


Romans 2:13-15

13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another



People following mainstream Christian leaders need to open their eyes to the truth. Going around trying to convince everyone that they need to read this or that or say some special words is a waste of time.

There are people who have never heard of Jesus, never opened a Bible who are more righteous in God's eyes than some Christians who read their Bible daily. Christian is a self appointed title, which often proves meaningless. A person can never know whether God will consider them righteous or not because it's not their choice to make, it's God's.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by tinfoilman
reply to post by colbe
 


Well you would be correct if I was gonna take sides and say the CC is infallible and the one true church and all that good stuff. But like I said, I wasn't taking sides on that fight. That being, I wasn't going to say which church I thought was right or wrong. Not at this time anyway.

I mean what did the Pope say? "Whoever seeks peace and the good of the community with a pure conscience, and keeps alive the desire for the transcendent, will be saved even if he lacks biblical faith, says Benedict XVI."

www.zenit.org...

Even if he lacks faith? Are we sure that's correct?

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

But how are we to believe in Jesus if we don't believe the Bible??? Tricky tricky.

John 14:6 "I am the way, the truth, and the life: No man cometh unto the father, but by me".

Acts 4:12 "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

1 John 2:23 "Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also."

1 John 5:11 "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son."

Now I'm not saying the Pope is wrong. I could literally argue from both sides. I'm just using this as example.

But are we sure the people working at the church are ALWAYS the ones giving the right reading? Maybe, but I don't know. Never hurts to double check.

Like I said in my opinion there's always an easy way to double check your interpertation. Simply ask yourself, who's God in this story? Is God God, or am I God?

Now, let's ask about what the Pope is saying. You can be saved without faith, as long as you keep alive the desire for the transcendent with a pure conscious? Is that true?

Let's ask who's God in this story. Is God God? Is God the one saving me by HIS actions? Or am I God? Am I the one saving myself by MY actions? Well it sounds like I'm saving myself doesn't it? All that matters is that I MYSELF keep alive the desire for the transcendent with a pure conscious? Doesn't matter what Jesus does right?

Or the opposite view is that God is God and I am man. Therefore NOTHING I can do can save me. Even if I kept alive the desire for the transcendent right? Because a man can't save himself. Only what Jesus has already done 2000 thousand years ago can save me. So then it doesn't matter if my conscious is pure. All that matters is if Jesus died on the cross or not? Well did he? What do you believe? Nothing if your faith doesn't matter right?

Like I said, that's what I always see it come down to. That's the simple test. Simply ask, who's doing all the work here? Who's saving who? Am I saving myself, or have I already been saved by God?

Now like I said, I can't tell you which to believe. The faith vs works thing, well that's an argument that's been going on since the start.

You just have to decide for yourself if you think you can save yourself or not and then pick one. But once you've picked one, it's pretty easy to find the interpretation that matches with what you believe.

Like I said, I really only believe there are two readings of the Bible regardless of the 30,000 sects. When you get to the end you either believe you can save yourself, or you believe that only Jesus can save you. Every time the topic comes up the argument seems to fit in one or the other....
edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)


tinfoilman,

Hmmm. You think the only requirement is choosing one or the other, choose a side?

There is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Scripture states this. So it fits Jesus established one Church.
All the rest are heretical sects.

Questioning the Holy Father with your interpretation of his words is pretty Protestant of you. It's irritating when disbelievers try to use the faith, the leader of the faith to prove their heretical beliefs to be true. Shsssssss.

"Will be saved" is nowhere in the Transcript of the Pope's words. It's somebody's paraphrase.

We are judged by God on the light we are given, on what we know. That's God being just. If you reject the
true faith, good luck to you.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indenu
Firstly, I'd like to say if there is another thread like this, feel free to delete or whatever the Moderators like to do.



The NKJV ( New King James Version ) which is showned above is the ancient symbol for the pagan trinity, not the Christian Trinity. Use of number symbols ( like this 666 ) can be traced back to Pythagoras ( 582 B.C ), initiate into the Egyptian mysteries. The symbol was popularized again by satanist Aleister Crowley ( circa 1900 ) for the royal Arch ( Lucifer) for the 3rd degree of the York Order of Masonry the arms and feet, while repeating the names of the ancient pagan trinity. The NKJV's symbol can be seen on satanic rock group albums like Led Zepplin, as well as on New Age bestsellers like The Aquarian Conspiracy.Remember Acts 17:29 "[W]e ought not to think that the Godhead is like (anything)... graven by art..."

NKJV Demotes Jesus Christ
Acts - NKJV ( New King James Version) - KJV ( Original King James Version )
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke 13:8 - Sir - Lord

Matt. 18:26 - before him saying, Master - and worshipped him, saying, Lord

Matt. 20:20 - kneeling down - worshipping him

Gen. 22:8 - God will provide for himself the lamb - God will provide himself a lamb

John 8:35 - A son - The son

Col. 2:2 - The mystery of God, both of the Father and of the Christ - The mystery of God and of the Father and of Christ ( Trinity )

Matt. 8:19 - Teacher - Master

Matt. 19:16 - Good Teacher - Good Master

Isa 66:5 - Omit - he shall appear

Matt 23:8 - One is your Teacher, the Christ - one is your Master, even Christ

Matt. 23:10 - And do not be called Teachers for One is your Teacher, the Christ - Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NKJV COPIES JEHOVAH WITNESS VERSION
( Demotes Jesus Christ )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts - NKJV - KJV

Acts 3:13 - His Servant Jesus - Hes Son Jesus

Acts 3:26 - His Servent Jesus - His Son Jesus

Acts 4:27 - Holy Servant Jesus - Holy Child Jesus

Acts 4:30 - Holy Servant Jesus - Holy Child Jesus

Col. 1:15 - the firstborn over all creation - the firstborn of every creature

Mark 2:15 - OMITTED - Jesus

Heb. 4:8 - Joshua - Jesus

Acts 7:45 - Joshua - Jesus

2 Thes 3:5 - Patience of Christ - Patient waiting for Christ
----------------------------------------------------------------------
( Demotes Trinity )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Acts 17:29 - Divine Nature - Godhead

Phil. 4:20 - our God and Father - God and our Father

Rev. 1:6 His God and Father - God and his Father

Col. 3:17 - God the Father through Him - God and the Father by him

John 14:16 - Helper - Comforter

John 14:26 - Helper - Comforter

John 15:26 - Helper - Comforter

John 16:7 - Helper - Comforter
----------------------------------------------------------------------
( Works / Progressive Salvation )
----------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Cor. 11:1 - Imitate Christ - Followers of Christ

Rom. 3:3 - faithfulness - faith

Rom, 11:30,32 - disobedient... disobedience - not believed...unbelief

Rev. 19:8 - righteous acts of the saints - righteousness of saints

1 Cor. 1:18 - are being saved - are saved

2 Cor. 2:15 - are being saved - are saved

Eph. 2:8 - have been saved - are . . . saved
----------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW KING JAMES Omissions

NKJV omits the word "Lord" 66 times
NKJV omits the word "God" 51 times
NKJV omits the word "heaven" 50 times
NKJV omits the word "repent" 44 times
NKJV omits the word "blood" 23 times
NKJV omits the word "hell" 22 times
NKJV omits the word "Jehovah" entirely.
NKJV omits the word "new testament" entirely.
NKJV omits the word "damnation" entirely
NKJV omits the word "devils" entirely
NKJV ignored the KJV Textus Receptus over 1,200 times.
NKJV replaced the KJV Hebrew ( ben Chayyim ) with the corrupt stuttgart edition ( Ben Asher) Old Testament.

( I'll do another post about NKJV, I dont want to bore anyone with something that they dont want to look at )







edit on 3-1-2012 by Indenu because: Needed to add what NKJV and KJV ment



Did you forget this?




posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Here's to hoping not a single one of you raise your children with your religious nonsense and bickering. Instead I hope that you all understand what nonsense this religion thing is before you suppress more people in the name of whatever religion you have. Stop being naive.



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:04 AM
link   
reply to post by colbe
 


Well it is a false paraphrase? Not that that's important. What's important is that you agree with me that if the Pope had said that, it would have been a false teaching and we both agree it's a false teaching.

Now, let's for the sake of argument say the Pope really did say it. If you listened to the Pope as an authority figure, would you now be a believer in a false teaching? But notice how my method shows it's a false teaching regardless of who says it, Pope or not? So which is better?

Yes if you believe in the Bible there are only two sides. God's and the Devil's. Assuming that false teachings exist, then every false teaching would actually just be the "Doctrine of the Devils" in one form or another right? If that hypothesis is correct, then every false teaching MIGHT have patterns to pick up on and I believe it does. Unless you believe there are no false teachings?

But remember, I'm not taking sides. So, there's no reason to attack me. I'm just trying to show that even if you believe in the CC, there can still be a way to read the Bible correctly. After all, did the Jews read the OT wrong the whole time before the Pope came along?

But I'm confused. Are you saying that even if I believe in Jesus I'll go to Hell as long as I'm not Catholic? Are you trying to convince me to believe in Jesus or the CC?

Or if not, do you agree with this guy and think that no matter what religion you are, you can be saved by Jesus? Which one is right?



Do you just need Jesus, or do you HAVE to be Catholic too?

edit on 4-1-2012 by tinfoilman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 4 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by InfoKartel
Here's to hoping not a single one of you raise your children with your religious nonsense and bickering. Instead I hope that you all understand what nonsense this religion thing is before you suppress more people in the name of whatever religion you have. Stop being naive.


Well I was raised an Atheist, so I don't know if that's really gonna help. But anyway, I wouldn't force anything on them. They're gonna have to make up their own mind. All I usually tell people is the story IF they ask, and tell them I think it's true. If they think it's true that's up to them. If they don't think it's true well there's nothing I can do about that.

After all it says they would have to believe in it anyway. Me believing it for them if they didn't, wouldn't get them into Heaven anyway. Probably why half my friends are Atheists. Half believe, half don't. What are you gonna do?



new topics

top topics



 
16
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join