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.

 

Catholic Church No Longer Sewars By Truth of the Bible

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
And I thought that I was the one that had to reveal the Anti-christ. Guess they were willing to self reveal. Call me crazy but we are in the end times.

Telling the truth about the problems in the bible isn't 'evil' and doesn't make someone the 'antichrist. The FACTS and TRUTH are that the bible is full of contradictions and errors. That's just the TRUTH.

Examples -
- TWO different creation myth stories.
- Noahs Ark never happened. It was a myth stolen from the Summerian legends and changed.
- The Psalms weren't all written by David. Akhenaten wrote many of them to his pagan sun god a long while before David was even around. They are carved into ancient walls in Egypt that pre-date David.

Telling those truths doesn't make someone the 'antichrist'. Saying that it does just makes you sound like the Muslims who get all irate when people point out the many, many errors and problems with the Qu'ran.




posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by followtheevidence
WOW. The article states specifically that they refute the book of Revelations ...

Revelations was never really widely accepted. It took a long time and even now it's considered irrelevant because it's so vague and questionable.

New testament Period (30-160) Revelation - Not Canonical
Irenaeus to Origen (160-250) First accepted only by Clement of Alexandria
Origen to Nacaea (250-325) Disputed especially in the East.
Council of Nicea (325) Accepted by the council but continued to be rejected by many members. Rejected by Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Gregory Nazianzen.

The reason why it reminds you of Daniel is because the writer was well versed in Daniel. This was an old man, living in exile, not healthy or well fed, his head full of scripture. Was he having 'visions' or just dementia dreams filled with what was in his head ... and being a 'good jew' he had Daniel and religion filling his head.

Revelation is unimportant and irrelevant when it comes to salvation.
No one can agree on what it means ... if it indeed means anything at all.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Communicationwillfreeus
What do they say about all the archeological evidence that has been found and correlates with the bible.?

What do you mean? Where's the evidence of the Garden of Eden? Where's the evidence of Noahs Ark? A world wide flood .. probably .. but Noahs' Ark? Nope. Sure .. some of the old testament stories are true. But some aren't. And like I said before - the archeological evidence says that David isn't the true author of all those Psalms ... Akhenaton in Egypt, BEFORE DAVID, was.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
The Church is not teaching that the Bible contains errors.

It has always taught that the bible has truth as well as allegory, myth, etc.
It has always taught that parts of it (some old testament parts) shouldn't be taken literally.
At least, that's what I've heard over the past 50 years coming out of the church.

If the bible was the absolute truth ... then the world would be 6,000 years old.
We know for a fact it isn't. Therefore, the Catholic church is correct when it says
that the bible isn't the literal truth all the time. THEY are stating the truth of the matter.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by charles1952
The Church is not teaching that the Bible contains errors.

It has always taught that the bible has truth as well as allegory, myth, etc.
It has always taught that parts of it (some old testament parts) shouldn't be taken literally.
At least, that's what I've heard over the past 50 years coming out of the church.

If the bible was the absolute truth ... then the world would be 6,000 years old.
We know for a fact it isn't. Therefore, the Catholic church is correct when it says
that the bible isn't the literal truth all the time. THEY are stating the truth of the matter.


But we don't know that the world is over 6000 years old. Everything that you have been told about the age of the earth is in support of evolution something that is also not a fact. The creation account and a young earth is every bit as scientifically possible as the old earth and evolution.

God says it one way and man says it another way, and since both are possible. I trust God.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 09:45 PM
link   

2 Tim 4:3 "For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."


So the R.C.C. wishes to change the words in the bible so that it's contemporary believers can feel more accepted by the rest of mankind...

Looks like Timotheus had them in mind.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by lonewolf19792000
 

I'm confused, as I usually am.

Why do you think the R.C.C. wants to change the words of the Bible? Do you think they're changing doctrines? Are you referring to a few Bishops in the UK publishing a paper seven years ago that has been criticised as being opposed to Church teachings?

Sorry, please explain.



posted on Jan, 11 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 


A priest also explained the same thing to me years ago. He said that no one priest or man has all the answers, all humans make mistakes including priests and we are all looking for the same answers in life. He choose the path of Christianity and he finds peace in it. He encourages others to try to find peace in it and he said that trying to take the words of the bible literally will only confuse and frustrate, you have to look for the deeper lesson or meaning of gods word...if you cannot find the spiritual value the first time you read it, then take a break, experience more in life, come back and reread it and see what you find then. He said he never stops reading the bible and finding new spiritual meaning in it.

He also explained catholic confession to me which was really interesting to me because up until then I thought confession was something catholics did as a "get out of jail free" type thing. It is not....when you confess your wrongs/sins to god, you have to truly be repentant in your heart.....and god will know if you are faking the funk, no matter how many hail Mary's you count out.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 09:03 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Thank you charles for pointing this out. I would be very confused if the Church taught, especially with regards to original sin. If they taught this then that would mean the gates of hell prevailed.



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 11:47 AM
link   
Well, please tell all the folks that put this document together they really shouldn't have spoken for the Roman Catholic Church. It goes against the Roman Catholic theology.


The document called 'The Gift of Scripture' (GS) describes itself as “A teaching document of the Bishops' Conferences of England and Wales, and of Scotland.” It was approved for publication by those Conferences and is dated July 6 of 2005. Scripture quotations within that document are generally from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible. The Foreword is signed by Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor, Archbishop of Westminster and by Keith Cardinal O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh.

Since this teaching document is issued by a group of local Bishops, not by the Pope, and not by the body of Bishops led by the Pope, it can only have the teaching authority of the fallible Ordinary Magisterium, not of the infallible Sacred Magisterium. The document does contain some true teaching about the Bible, along with a few grievous errors against the faith. For its fallibility is not found in subtlety. Unlike the vast majority of other documents in the Church, which also fall under the Ordinary Magisterium, this document contains clear contradictions of established Catholic doctrine. In addition, there is a particular type of rhetoric in this document that is frequently used by those who detract from the authority and infallibility of the Bible.



A Critical Review of the Document "The Gift of Scripture"

Hey, this is old news - 2005. Just because England, Scotland and Wales Church leaders want to propagate errors please don't assume the Church throughout the world went along with it



posted on Jan, 13 2012 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by sad_eyed_lady
 





Hey, this is old news - 2005. Just because England, Scotland and Wales Church leaders want to propagate errors please don't assume the Church throughout the world went along with it


That depends heavily on if they were actually teaching this idea to other people and as the article stated it was used as a teaching aid, so it could easily be the case. People teaching other people is how the gospel of Jesus originally spread, and this could spread the same way. Seven years down the road and into our current time this could be all over the world by now.
edit on 13-1-2012 by lonewolf19792000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 06:49 AM
link   
Never mind.
edit on 14-1-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sacgamer25
But we don't know that the world is over 6000 years old.

Oldest Human Remains Found - 400,000 years old
Oldest Pottery Found - 18,000 years old
Worlds oldest building - 10,000 years old
Oldest Fossil Found - 3.4 Billion Years old


I trust God.

God and the Old Testament are two different things.
edit on 1/14/2012 by FlyersFan because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonewolf19792000
So the R.C.C. wishes to change the words in the bible ....

They aren't changing the words of the bible.
They are stating that it is not an accurate historical document. Which is the truth.

Example - Which creation myth in Genesis is correct? Both can't be.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Wow, just wow. The Catholic Church is trying to be all things to all people in it's reinvention of itself. Kinda amusing really.

Here, in this newly released commercial, at 49 seconds, the Church claims "Guided by the Holy Spirit, WE compiled the Bible." So, the Holy Spirit must be the one at fault here?




posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
Here, in this newly released commercial, at 49 seconds, the Church claims "Guided by the Holy Spirit, WE compiled the Bible." So, the Holy Spirit must be the one at fault here?

Spot on. The Catholic Church put the bible together. They say it is the work of The Holy Spirit. At the same time they admit that the bible has errors. (you kind of have to admit that .. it's pretty darn obvious). So yes .. your conclusion is correct ... If you put it all together then it would seem that the Holy Spirit screwed up.



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:51 PM
link   
The Catholic Church was the sole organization at the time which could launch a program of this magnitude, to compile a Bible.
They collected and copied and collated it.
They did not produce the original scource documents.
They only inherited copies of them from an older time.
Before the organization calling themselves, the Catholic Church, came into existence.
edit on 14-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:07 PM
link   
reply to post by sacgamer25
 



I trust God.


Which God, exactly, would that be? I count 18 Gods in the KJV Bible, and guess what? Almost all of them insist on being called "Lord." And then there are the thousands of other God throughout Earth's 8.6 Billion year history. I'll tell you what I trust, I trust what I see.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The Catholic Church was the sole organization at the time which could launch a program of this magnitude, to compile a Bible.
They collected and copied and collated it.
They did not produce the original scource documents.
They only inherited copies of them from an older time.
Before the organization calling themselves, the Catholic Church, came into existence.
edit on 14-1-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)


I think you're missing the fact that the bible cannot interpret itself. The Catholic Church had the authority to compile it and decide what is true and what is false because they've inherited apostolic authority.



posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by 547000
 

I think you're missing the fact that the bible cannot interpret itself. The Catholic Church had the authority to compile it and decide what is true and what is false because they've inherited apostolic authority.

You are missing my point.
"The Church" did it because no one else had the ability to do it.
The biblical scholars who had the expertise to do this work were, wait for it . . Catholic.
So it was not The Catholic Church as if it was some weird monolithic entity who was this big brain that did this thing.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join