The Catholic religion blatantly defies God and his teachings. leads its members to perdition...why?

Originally posted by EricD
I'm sort of wondering where the conspiracy is here, but I guess everything in your post boils down to the key word 'knowingly'.

Welcome to what I consider to be the biggest conspiracy in all of religion. The fact that the Roman Church knowingly sought to hide the interpretation of prophecy. They were so successful at it, that now the majority of all Christians follow either Futurism or Preterism, and not the Historicism that was intended by their original Protestant Founders. All of this was done simply because the Church realized they were very specifically spelled out as being one of the “bad guys” in prophecy, and that the Roman Tradition of them ingesting the beliefs of previously conquered societies, their worldliness, and their quest for power, set them squarely in that position.


[edit on 11/8/2007 by defcon5]

reply to post by defcon5

excellent posts. it is clear you have done much research.

reply to post by icybreeze


Thank you. I find Religious History, Theology, and Eschatology to all be fascinating subjects for some reason. I also do believe that the substitution of Preterism and Futurism, as the main schools of prophetic interpretation, to be a very substantial conspiracy in religion. As a matter of fact, it is most likely the biggest conspiracy within the church, EVER. To me it is the “Great Deception” mentioned in the Bible. At the moment, most of the Protestants are following Futurism, not even realizing that it was written by the Roman Catholic Church, and endorsed by the Zionists. This is a major problem in that both Futurism and Preterism hide who the final beast is and how the “Mark” comes into existence. The funniest part is that after foisting Futurism on the Protestants, the Roman Catholics now follow Preterism and themselves reject Futurism. The only reason that Futurism has become so prominent is because it supports the rebuilding of Israel and the Temple, thus it was pushed in the media by those who support Zionism. I don’t think it’s a very big secret who controls most of the media in this country.

Good choice of topics, IMHO.

reply to post by icybreeze


exactly, most of it is metaphor and parable...
hell, the claimed son of god does speak in parables often...

All our minds are as closed to each others' points of view as they can be, so I'm not sure there is any point in stating my own mind. But anyway...

To me the innumberable threads all along these same lines are adequately addressed by stating that scripture is not the source of Christian doctrine. Christ is that source. History testifies to his (or somebody!) establishing of a church loing before that church itself started putting anything at all in writing. He spoke to his apostles, and they spoke to others. Christ did not write to them, did not extablish a manual. The Bible is at root "testament" (look the word up) to history and faith, not source code itself.

The argument for conspiracy is to me as stupid as accusing a manufacturer of a digital watch of conspiracy because they advise you to do something that is at odds with what seems to be in their (many times translated, copied, recopied) instruction manual that they issued several decades ago.

Just..... well..... gah!

Cheers.

Rob.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

yes but the intention of the OP was to question why the Catholic religion knowingly does opposite of what the bible says..not mere interpretations but blatant acts. please see the examples i listed in the OP. when Jesus says no one can reach the Father but through me, he means just that. or call no one else "father" and the priest wants us to call him father..?

reply to post by d60944

let me try to understand your point here, are you saying that the bible should not be used to guide religion only what Jesus actually spoke? and how do we know what he spoke if not through the Bible?

reply to post by d60944


The problem here is that the Roman Catholic Church was not the source who put the Bible in writing, that is a misconception which was widely spread by both the Gnostics, and the book/movie “The De Vinci Code” (which is heavily slanted toward Gnosticism). The main books of the Bible existed and were endorsed long before Constantine and the Council of Nicaea, which are commonly accused to manufacturing them. It is patently obvious that the Roman Catholic Church was unable to alter their “instruction manual” as they were unable to change the contents during the Protestant Reformation, which would have put a rapid end to that Reformation. The Preexistence of Scripture to the Roman Catholic church allowed Martin Luther to show the abuses in the interpretations of the Roman Catholic Church, and thus escape the clutches of the Inquisition.

Let me put this a bit clearer.
The Roman Catholic Church is the only mainline Church I know of who actually got caught "red handed", altering the interpretation of scripture to suit their own purpose, in a court of law (the Diet of Worms):

"Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason — I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other — my conscience is captive to the word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.

Here I stand. I can do no other. God help me. Amen”
Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by icybreeze
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

yes but the intention of the OP was to question why the Catholic religion knowingly does opposite of what the bible says..not mere interpretations but blatant acts. please see the examples i listed in the OP. when Jesus says no one can reach the Father but through me, he means just that. or call no one else "father" and the priest wants us to call him father..?

To take that very example, I can't answer until the question is dismantled a bit. I don't believe that it would make any sense to have a proscription on there mere use of a word, for the sake only of that word: The issue is what he meant an original word conjunct with the Hebraic word "abba" - I don't have my Greek to hand so I don't know how even that ends up getting translated whenit appears in the Gospels (and then - what did the Greek choice of translation word mean at the time that that translation happened too?, etc.). What nuances and meanings did this have in the context? Do you actually know? I don't. The question is that are these meanings and nuances the same as now? When we call a priest "father" do we mean it in the same way as when when we call our dad "father"? And do we mean that (even) in the way as when we might call god "father"? To baldly simplify to textual absolutes devoid of meaning is certainly contrary to the spirit that Jesus seems to be proclaiming in the gospels (i.e. about missing the point of the law by adhering to the dead letter of it).

Cheers.

Rob.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by d60944]

Originally posted by icybreeze
reply to post by EricD

 

Yes they knowingly disobey God's commands. My question is "why?" is to purposely mislead? "why?"

disobey gods commands according to who? I wasn't aware of a definitive record of god's commands, other than the 10 commandments... hence the need for all these religions.

Originally posted by icybreeze
reply to post by d60944

 

let me try to understand your point here, are you saying that the bible should not be used to guide religion only what Jesus actually spoke? and how do we know what he spoke if not through the Bible?

This is the very problem that confronted the early church, a few centuries after the destruction of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. There were at that time many mutsually conflicting writings claiming some pedigree and some authority. Some were followed by some groups, others by others. There had been an ongoing semi-academic argument about which scriptures were valid long before the church council that finally settled the matter. The point of convening a council was to appeal to homogeneity. The reasoning being that the more divergent churches that held a similar belief the more likely it is that that belief was authentic. Seems pretty sounds reasoning. A broad survey of commentators on the various texts was looked at and any that appearred to be "heterodox" (= against the majority/average) were decided as not central. and were not insluded as canonical.

how do we know what he spoke if not through the Bible?

You only know that what Jesus spoke (as given in the Bible) because of the witness of the actual apostolic tradition that asserted the validity of those documents that ended up in the Bible (and rejected those others). Whether you agree with the authority of that decision (i.e. you agree with the concept of an authoritative [apostolic] tradition), or the authority of the texts, that is the historical result.

The early church would not have gone to so much trouble about it if it didnt think that the witness of scripture was important, so of course I don't mean that the book is mere history. It is testament, meaning witness to the whole sweep of the faith. History, theology, ethics, philosophy. But still testimony, and not the actual transcendent source of that very faith itself.

Cheers.

Rob.

reply to post by d60944

regardless of what language you read it in father means father, you remind me of an attorney trying to get his client off on a technicality.
gray, gray, gray when it is really in black and white.

Originally posted by d60944
The issue is what he meant an original word conjunct with the Hebraic word "abba" - I don't have my Greek to hand so I don't know how even that ends up getting translated whenit appears in the Gospels (and then - what did the Greek choice of translation word mean at the time that that translation happened too?, etc.). What nuances and meanings did this have in the context? Do you actually know? I don't. The question is that are these meanings and nuances the same as now? When we call a priest "father" do we mean it in the same way as when when we call our dad "father"? And do we mean that (even) in the way as when we might call god "father"?

All you have to do to find the original meaning is get a Strongs Concordance. Claiming that there is a descrepency in the interpritation based on changes in linguistics does not have much fondation as there are sources outside the religious community who provide such translations, and those translations are openly availiable to anyone who wants to seek them out. In this instance here is Father:

Mat 23:9 And2532 call2564 no3361 man your5216 father3962 upon1909 the3588 earth:1093 for1063 one1520 is2076 your5216 Father,3962 which3588 is in1722 heaven.3772

G3962
πατήρ
patēr
pat-ayr'
Apparently a primary word; a “father” (literally or figuratively, near or more remote): - father, parent.

Mar 14:36 And2532 he said,3004 Abba,5 Father,3962 all things3956 are possible1415 unto thee;4671 take away3911 this5124 cup4221 from575 me:1700 nevertheless235 not3756 what5101 I1473 will,2309 but235 what5101 thou4771 wilt.

G5
Ἀββᾶ
Abba
ab-bah'
Of Chaldee origin [H2]; father (as a vocative): - Abba.

Thanks for that - just what was needed.

But this does not address the implication of the word itself.

Is it wrong for my neice to call her daddy "father"?

And now, to start quoting from well-known apologetics sites....

We find in the New Testament:

Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham"
Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

Jesus also says we must call no man "teacher":

"But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

However, we also find:

"For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth" (1 Tim. 2:7); "For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher" (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: "God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers" (1 Cor. 12:28); and "his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers" (Eph. 4:11).

I'll stop as I can't be bothered. More here: www.catholic.com...

Basically tired adherence to the "magic word" father is silly. :-)

Cheers.

Rob.

Originally posted by scientist
other than the 10 commandments... hence the need for all these religions.

fine, using the ten cmmandments lets see how many the Catholic church disobeys...

#2 thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image (all you got to do is look inside a Catholic church and see all those saints they pray to)

ok they blatantly disobey one..not too bad...

Originally posted by d60944
a few centuries after the destruction of the apostolic church in Jerusalem. There were at that time many mutsually conflicting writings claiming some pedigree and some authority. Some were followed by some groups, others by others.

It is true that some Greek Gnosis did creep into some scripture for a time, but God saw to it that this was weeded out by folks who kept the integrity of the scripture based on their contact with the original authors and Apostles:

Irenaeus relates how and when he became a Christian and in his letter to Florinus stated that he saw and heard him personally in lower Asia; in particular he heard the account of Polycarp's discussion with John the Evangelist and with others who had seen Jesus. Irenaeus also reports that Polycarp was converted to Christianity by apostles, was consecrated a bishop and communicated with many who had seen Jesus. He repeatedly emphasizes the very great age of Polycarp.

He lived in an age after the deaths of the apostles, when a variety of interpretations of the sayings of Jesus were being preached. His role was to authenticate orthodox teachings through his reputed connection with the apostle John. Surviving accounts of the bravery of this very old man in the face of death by burning at the stake added credence to his words.

Originally posted by d60944
There had been an ongoing semi-academic argument about which scriptures were valid long before the church council that finally settled the matter.

Please don’t tell me you’re going to spew that “De Vinci Code” fiction about how the council of Nicaea created the Bible.

Irenaeus (Greek: Ειρηναίος), (b. 2nd century; d. end of 2nd/beginning of 3rd century) was bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, which is now Lyon, France. His writings were formative in the early development of Christian theology, and he is recognized as a saint by both the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church; both consider him a Father of the Church. He was a notable early Christian apologist. He was also a disciple of Polycarp, who was said to be a disciple of John the Evangelist. His feast day is 28 June.
The purpose of Against Heresies was to refute the teachings of various Gnostic groups; apparently, several Greek merchants had begun an oratorial campaign praising the pursuit of "gnosis" in Irenaeus' bishopric. Until the discovery of the Library of Nag Hammadi in 1945, Against Heresies was the best-surviving description of Gnosticism. According to some biblical scholars, the findings at Nag Hammadi have shown Irenaeus' description of Gnosticism to be largely inaccurate and polemic in nature.

Irenaeus was an important figure defending the four main Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John in the New Testament in 170, stating in his Against Heresies:

But it is not possible that the Gospels can be either more or fewer in number than they are. For since there are four zones of the world in which we live, and four principal winds, while the church has been scattered throughout the world, and since the "pillar and ground" of the church is the Gospel and the spirit of life, it is fitting that she should have four pillars, breathing incorruption on every side, and vivifying human afresh. From this fact, it is evident that the Logos, the fashioner demiourgos of all, he that sits on the cherubim and holds all things together, when he was manifested to humanity, gave us the gospel under four forms but bound together by one spirit.

Thus Irenaeus was the first Christian writer to list all four of the now-canonical Gospels as divinely inspired, possibly in reaction to Marcion's edited version of the Gospel of Luke, which he (Marcion) asserted was the one and only true gospel.[6][9] Irenaeus was also the first to assert that the Gospel of John was written by John the apostle[10], and that the Gospel of Luke was written by Luke, the companion of Paul[11]. (The gospels themselves are anonymous.)

Originally posted by d60944
A broad survey of commentators on the various texts was looked at and any that appearred to be "heterodox" (= against the majority/average) were decided as not central. and were not insluded as canonical.

The only time I know of this occurring was in the instance of Arianism:

However, there is evidence that very widely differing views of the nature of Christ were held by Christian believers in the Early Church. Only after the dispute over Arius politicized the debate and a "catholic" or general solution to the debate was sought, with a great majority holding to the trinitarian position, was the Arian position declared to be heterodox.

I would take the majority opinion of the people such as Irenaeus as the true intention of the word over that of someone such as Arius who had no contact with the original authors, but rather from Lucian who was expelled from the chruch of Antioch after rewritting the gospels.

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by d60944
There had been an ongoing semi-academic argument about which scriptures were valid long before the church council that finally settled the matter.

Please don’t tell me you’re going to spew that “De Vinci Code” fiction about how the council of Nicaea created the Bible.

No, I mean, broadly, this: en.wikipedia.org...

A general orthodoxy that the four established Gospels were the ones to be regarded as authentic, but by nio means settled by unanimous agreement.

Well a quick warning first:

Thou shalt not repost the entire post before you, lest the mods shall descend upon you with the warn button, and there will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Book of the Mod’s 1:10

Well, it looks like the warning was a bit too late, sorry.

Originally posted by d60944
But this does not address the implication of the word itself.
Is it wrong for my neice to call her daddy "father"?

Well you must read the entire context in which this is quoted from to understand it, not simply one verse.

Mat 23:7 And greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.
Mat 23:8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.
Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.
Mat 23:10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

We can see here that it related specifically to calling religious leaders father, in this instance rabbi’s, and the use of titles such as these among the Church.

[edit on 11/8/2007 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
Well a quick warning first:

Thou shalt not repost the entire post before you, lest the mods shall descend upon you with the warn button, and there will be great weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Book of the Mod’s 1:10

Well, it looks like the warning was a bit too late, sorry.

I got one of them too..... ironic given that the idea of people quoting other people over and over touches on what we're discussing :-)

Although abuot reading in context - yes absolutely. And you will see my other post, subsequent to the one you quoted, starts putting it into the context of the entire NT, not just that smaller passage.

Too tired for more tonight: maybe tomorrow. Hope I don't wake up to the worst soggy news from Eastern England.

Best wishes.

Rob.

[edit on 8-11-2007 by d60944]