Did the Pope just say unless your Catholic....

[2ndAmendment]

What if the Bible contradicts the Bible? Its been asked and ignored many times. If the Bible is the "Absolute Truth" (as someone stated) and the Bible is not wrong (as you stated) how do you justify the beliefs when contradictions are found and pointed out?
Whenever problems with the Bible are discussed, the issues are excused as mistranslations. (because accepting an error in the Bible would be uncomfortable) but logically you should then ask what else has been "mistranslated". Then logically you should ask how can you "Absolutely" believe something that you know has errors and mistranslations.

This isnt a dig at you 2a, i would really like to understand the reasoning.

Let alone there are new Gospels that have been found, and were purposely kept out of the (accepted) Bible, because they contradicted what they wanted to establish during the Council of Nicea.

If the Bible is "Absolute" then those Gospels are also "Absolute" and as such, bring more problems and contradictions, since one of them talks about her Marriage to Jesus (the Man) and the other talks about Jesus telling Judas it was his desitiny to betray him (kinda throws a wrench in the free will argument)

There are no contradictions in the Bible if you read the scripture in context. Only when verses are selected and read out of context are there seeming contradictions.

The "gospels" were rejected by the early church as being false or fiction. Do you accept what a Democrat says about Republicans as truth or visa versa? Of course not. The Christians did and do not accept what non-Christians say and write about God or Christians. Only those of the Spirit understand the things of the Spirit.

 

[Radiant1]

I think you are the deceitful one, literally. I was praying and this was revealed to me. You have chosen the user name Radiant1 -> Radiant one -> Lucifer -> satan.

I find it interesting that you come pretty much out of nowhere and set Christian against Christian. May Jesus rebuke you, or if you are human and misguided, give you guidance.

You can't be serious. Does this mean you also think anyone named Luke, including the gospel writer, or Lucy is satan as well? You prefer to think of me as satan in order to ignore reason and logic. Your choice, so be it.

I didn't come out of nowhere. I usually avoid posting to the religion forum; however, I have felt it necessary to correct you when you mistake Catholic teaching. If you see that as pitting Christian against Christian then stop speaking for the Catholic Church, speak for yourself only, and you will hear no more from me.

By all means continue to pray. If you are a righteous man it will availeth much.

May God bless and keep you always.



JMJ

 

[Radiant1]

Second Vatican Council "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", October 28, 1965.

Ah, Nostra Aetate. I invite everyone to read it. There is nothing in that document that would imply that Christ was only one way to the Kingdom of God as you stated. Once again you mistake Catholic teaching and proclaim it as truth, and once again I have need to correct you and would kindly ask you to only speak for yourself. You truly have need to cease, this is getting tiresome as I'm sure you would agree.



JMJ

 

[2ndAmendment]

Ah, Nostra Aetate. I invite everyone to read it. There is nothing in that document that would imply that Christ was only one way to the Kingdom of God as you stated. Once again you mistake Catholic teaching and proclaim it as truth, and once again I have need to correct you and would kindly ask you to only speak for yourself. You truly have need to cease, this is getting tiresome as I'm sure you would agree.



JMJ

That was my point. The Second Vatican council said that Christ was not the only way, and the Bible, Jesus, Himself, proclaims that He is the only way.

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.

But thanks for playing, Lucifer.

 

[2ndAmendment]

You can't be serious. Does this mean you also think anyone named Luke, including the gospel writer, or Lucy is satan as well? You prefer to think of me as satan in order to ignore reason and logic. Your choice, so be it.

Nothing against Luke or Lucy. The Radiant one is Lucifer. You should have been aware of that. Your choice of user name was no one's choice but yours; free will. You promote Catholicism. I choose to raise Jesus up through the posting of scripture most of the time. I believe being a Christian far outweighs being a member of any denomination. Jesus, Y'shua, is First above all. Everything else is vanity.

I didn't come out of nowhere. I usually avoid posting to the religion forum; however, I have felt it necessary to correct you when you mistake Catholic teaching. If you see that as pitting Christian against Christian then stop speaking for the Catholic Church, speak for yourself only, and you will hear no more from me.

By all means continue to pray. If you are a righteous man it will availeth much.

May God bless and keep you always.



JMJ

I pray often. And yes, I see you as setting Christian on Christian as I see anyone who promotes a denomination rather than the Savior. Christians should proclaim Christ as Savior and Lord of all for all to accept. I don't care if you genuflect before an alter or dip you fingers in some water and cross yourself. I find those things trivial by comparison to Jesus. A Christian should be a Christian first and a Methodist or Lutheran or Pentecostal or Baptist or Catholic second. Christ unites us; the names of churches divide us.

God bless or rebuke you depending on who you really are.

 

[Radiant1]

Seems to me I remember a recent Pope saying Christ was only one way to the kingdom of God; .

Could you cite a source please? Thnx.

Second Vatican Council "Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions", October 28, 1965.

Ah, Nostra Aetate. I invite everyone to read it. There is nothing in that document that would imply that Christ was only one way to the Kingdom of God as you stated. Once again you mistake Catholic teaching and proclaim it as truth, and once again I have need to correct you and would kindly ask you to only speak for yourself. You truly have need to cease, this is getting tiresome as I'm sure you would agree.

That was my point. The Second Vatican council said that Christ was not the only way, and the Bible, Jesus, Himself, proclaims that He is the only way.

Wrong again, Nostra Aetate does not say that. 2A, you must not be reading for comprehension. Calm yourself down, take a deep breath and re-read our exchange above and/or the document. By stating "...was only one way" implies there is another way and that is not the case, as Nostra Aetate part 4 paragraph 8 states:

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

May God bless and keep you always.




JMJ

 

[ItalianScallion]

Correct. Nor does the first Christian Church, i.e. the Catholic Church, teach that. Being a Catholic doesn't assure salvation, we merely have the tools to obtain it if we so wish. We still work out our salvation with fear and trembling; afterall, "once saved always saved" is not found in Scripture or Tradition.

It's not there if you don't want to see it my friend. What about (Ephesians 1v13), (Hebrews 7 v 25) & (1 Peter 1 vs 4 and 23)? Please read the ENTIRE Bible and leave the man made stuff out. If we must work to STAY saved, then grace isn't working and Jesus can't keep us saved. God doesn't save us to be lost then re-saved again. If we're truly saved, we'll stay that way. If not, then we're like Judas, who looked & acted the part but wasn't really saved.

 

[ItalianScallion]

Why would Jesus and the Apostles think that? Was the Bible only written for you and me, or was it written for a 2000 year-old audience that was confined to a geographical area the size of Vermont?

Nucklesack, is it you or your refusal to listen? You & I have been over this many times. The Apostles DID have trouble understanding Jesus MANY times. Until they were filled with the Holy Spirit, they had trouble with SOME of His teachings. That's the way it is with the Bible even today.

Does it matter that I can not understand or believe the bible, as long as a first century Palestinian could? And what about the problem with a reverse analysis of the situation? How many first century palestinians believed in the gospels? And how many people believe in it today? If the bible made more sense to people in first century palestine than it makes to people today, then why didn't virtually all first century palestinians believe in it? They had all the tools to understand it. It should have made perfect sense to them. They had no reason to doubt it, compared to the reasons we have today. So what gives?

They did NOT have "all the tools to understand it". I've said this before. They did understand SOME of it but it takes a saved person with the Holy Spirits' guidance to understand other teachings. Just accept this buddy! Like the mustard seed I explained before. It was not that Jesus didn't know what the smallest seed He created was. It meant that this was the smallest seed that the farmers KNEW OF up until that time. Jesus used the examples of farmers, shepherds & fisherman, etc., so His teachings would stick in their minds.

The Bible contradicts itself, I've asked this before, and still waiting to hear, If the errors are due to translation, and there are errors, how can you trust the trustworthiness of the Book if the translation isnt trustworthy? If my misintepretation of the bible is due to laguange barriers, then why didn't people who spoke and read the languages it was written in immediately believe in it?

It has nothing to do with language barriers. It has everything to do with God not allowing everyone who doubts Him to understand His Word. He knows that some people will ALWAYS doubt and slander His Word, so He won't reveal more than is necessary to them. Remember the Jews saying "show us a sign from heaven?" Jesus was that sign and they WOULDN'T believe in Him so He said "no sign will be given to you..." (Matthew 12v38 on)

See this is one of the issues, and you yourself is causing the contradiction. Do you (ItallianScallion) follow the Bible that was created/crafted/edited during the Council of Nicea? You are, unless you include the Gospels that were NOT included, because they contradicted the .... "Theme" the Council was attempting to portray. So, since you are following a "Revised" edition, you are NOT following/reading/believing in an ABSOLUTE edition of the Bible. The only difference between the Gospels included in your (edited) Bible and the Gospels that werent included, is a council OF MEN, got together and DECIDED the story they wanted to portray about Jesus. Because the Gospels that were not included didnt follow the theme, they were left out. If the Bible is ABSOLUTE, then those Gospels are also ABSOLUTE, yet you continue to ignore them.

I still want to meet you and talk. This is so slow and tedious (but you're worth it!) To answer this last issue, All we have today is a copy of a copy BUT God is powerful enough to preserve His Word throughout the centuries. These men you speak of were men led by God's Holy Spirit to discern what was truth and what was error. God led them to see that the 14 Apocryphal books were laced with errors and that some of them weren't even written by the authors whose names were on them! As far as your contradiction issue goes, think of this. If I asked 4 people to look at my house and write a general description of it, do you think all 4 will say the exact same thing? NO. Will all 4 be right? YES. Will there be differences? YES but NONE will be wrong. So it is with the Gospels. 2 men were eyewitnesses and 2 were recounting the stories from a CREDIBLE source. Mark learned from Peter (an eyewitness) & Luke from Paul (heavily influenced by God). Matthew & John were eyewitnesses to Jesus.

 

[2ndAmendment]

Wrong again, Nostra Aetate does not say that. 2A, you must not be reading for comprehension. Calm yourself down, take a deep breath and re-read our exchange above and/or the document. By stating "...was only one way" implies there is another way and that is not the case, as Nostra Aetate part 4 paragraph 8 states:

Besides, as the Church has always held and holds now, Christ underwent His passion and death freely, because of the sins of men and out of infinite love, in order that all may reach salvation. It is, therefore, the burden of the Church's preaching to proclaim the cross of Christ as the sign of God's all-embracing love and as the fountain from which every grace flows.

May God bless and keep you always.




JMJ

You are the one that has comprehension problems.

I think it best that we not communicate any more. We will not agree on Catholic doctrine. You are blinded by tradition and will not read the Truth of the Bible. The scribes and Pharasees had the same problem and Jesus told them so.

Mark 7:1-9

1The Pharisees and some of the scribes gathered around Him when they had come from Jerusalem,

2and had seen that some of His disciples were eating their bread with impure hands, that is, unwashed.

3(For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they carefully wash their hands, thus observing the traditions of the elders;

4and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)

5The Pharisees and the scribes asked Him, "Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat their bread with impure hands?"

6And He said to them, "Rightly did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:
'THIS PEOPLE HONORS ME WITH THEIR LIPS,
BUT THEIR HEART IS FAR AWAY FROM ME.
7'BUT IN VAIN DO THEY WORSHIP ME,
TEACHING AS DOCTRINES THE PRECEPTS OF MEN.'

8"Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to the tradition of men."

9He was also saying to them, "You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.

The Bible says that as the last days approach it will happen.

1 Timothy 4:1-3

1But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,

2by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,

3men who forbid marriage and advocate abstaining from foods which God has created to be gratefully shared in by those who believe and know the truth.

God bless or rebuke you according to His discernment, Lucifer.

 

[Ha_Satan]

God bless or rebuke you according to His discernment, Lucifer.

I highly doubt that she could possibly be "Lucifer." The king of Babylon, as it was written thousands of years ago, is long dead. How can a dead man post on a message board?

 

[Ha_Satan]

I think you are the deceitful one, literally. I was praying and this was revealed to me. You have chosen the user name Radiant1 -> Radiant one -> Lucifer -> satan.

Lucifer doesn't equal satan. Lucifer is latin for "Morning Star." "Satan" actually means nothing in Hebrew alone, it requires an article such as "ha." "Ha Satan" means "The Challenger." Obviously, "morning star" and "the challenger" don't mean the same thing. Would you like me to get into the context?

Funny... You put so much faith in a bunch of guys sitting around a table debating what writings go into a book. Believing in a prophet is one thing. Believing in a group of them sitting around a table is irrational.

 

[PsyOps]

Believing in a prophet is one thing. Believing in a group of them sitting around a table is irrational.

Perhaps you could expound on this a little. It seems a bit contradictory to say it’s one thing to believe in “a” (one) prophet, but to believe in a group of them is irrational? How so?

 

[Ha_Satan]

Perhaps you could expound on this a little. It seems a bit contradictory to say it’s one thing to believe in “a” (one) prophet, but to believe in a group of them is irrational? How so?

First, you have to understand the Tanakh's and the bible's creation. There are thousands of scripts that have been written over the years. Not just by "apostles" or "prophets," but by oral historians as well. Deciding which scripts were to be put into these books, were not done by YHWH, or even a messenger, or prophet. They were done by a bunch of men sitting around table, judging the validity and truth of each- feel free to look it up. Beyond the 10 commandments, nothing is directly from YWHW and is thus subject to the biases and limitations of men.

Sure, there were quite a few prophets. However, when have you seen more than one prophet simultaneously? Prophets are leaders as much as visionaries and no two chiefs ever agree on exactly which direction to take the Indians. Not to mention, in order for there to be one to begin with, several things MUST be true- including the majority of Israelites being in one nation. At the time of the bible's creation, this wasn't so. Feel free to look that up as well.

Now... If you'd like to put that much faith in a group of men- this isn't even mentioning the obvious translation barriers- be my guest. Though, I suggest you look into the history of things before simply regarding a book handed to you as the only absolute truth.

 

[PsyOps]

First, you have to understand the Tanakh's and the bible's creation. There are thousands of scripts that have been written over the years. Not just by "apostles" or "prophets," but by oral historians as well. Deciding which scripts were to be put into these books, were not done by YHWH, or even a messenger, or prophet. They were done by a bunch of men sitting around table, judging the validity and truth of each- feel free to look it up. Beyond the 10 commandments, nothing is directly from YWHW and is thus subject to the biases and limitations of men.

Sure, there were quite a few prophets. However, when have you seen more than one prophet simultaneously? Prophets are leaders as much as visionaries and no two chiefs ever agree on exactly which direction to take the Indians. Not to mention, in order for there to be one to begin with, several things MUST be true- including the majority of Israelites being in one nation. At the time of the bible's creation, this wasn't so. Feel free to look that up as well.

Now... If you'd like to put that much faith in a group of men- this isn't even mentioning the obvious translation barriers- be my guest. Though, I suggest you look into the history of things before simply regarding a book handed to you as the only absolute truth.

Do you really believe one single bit of this disproves the reality of God? Your narrow view of “a bunch of men sitting around a table” is nothing more than an earthly view of a picture too large for any of us to comprehend. If you only read the words that do exist and forget about how they were compiled you might understand that the words still stand as God’s word. The argument that this “bunch of men around a table” has been an argument used for hundreds of years to attempt to discredit God’s existence; but in the end has had zero effect on the growing number of believers. Billions of men and women around billions of tables believing. THAT is the testimony of God; not some over-simplified description of the origins of the Bible.

I don’t put my faith in a bunch of men; I put my faith in God. How those words end up on pages - which ones get added, which ones get omitted - is of no consequence to me and my faith. This speaks to the deeper will of God, not some "men around a table". This book you so discredit has stood the test of time unlike any other book. So I suggest you consider that historical fact before simply disregard thousands of years of history.

 

[Ha_Satan]

Do you really believe one single bit of this disproves the reality of God?

I love people that assume too much. They make my job easy Case in point, I never said YHWHdidn't exist.

Your narrow view of “a bunch of men sitting around a table” is nothing more than an earthly view of a picture too large for any of us to comprehend. If you only read the words that do exist and forget about how they were compiled you might understand that the words still stand as God’s word.

No. You understand that you're a sheep that'll believe anything that sounds plausible. Their are numerous accounts of what happened and hundreds of documents that you've never heard of, some of which support your point, some of which detract. How do you know the one's in the bible are the right ones?

The argument that this “bunch of men around a table” has been an argument used for hundreds of years to attempt to discredit God’s existence; but in the end has had zero effect on the growing number of believers. Billions of men and women around billions of tables believing. THAT is the testimony of God; not some over-simplified description of the origins of the Bible.

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read what I wrote. Or maybe that's beyond your earthly comprehension as well...

I don’t put my faith in a bunch of men; I put my faith in God. How those words end up on pages - which ones get added, which ones get omitted - is of no consequence to me and my faith.

Sure it does PsySheep. That's where you read your "truth" from. If it's of no consequence how those words got there, then how can you know that you got the right words?

This speaks to the deeper will of God, not some "men around a table". This book you so discredit has stood the test of time unlike any other book. So I suggest you consider that historical fact before simply disregard thousands of years of history.

The Illiad has stood the test of time too, but that doesn't make it any more true. As a matter of fact, it's one of the first books ever written- well before your Gospels.

 

[2ndAmendment]

I love people that assume too much. They make my job easy Case in point, I never said YHWHdidn't exist.

....

The Illiad has stood the test of time too, but that doesn't make it any more true. As a matter of fact, it's one of the first books ever written- well before your Gospels.

Yep. Satan certainly knows Y'howah is the true God and is terrified.

Oops. Seems you are probably wrong about the Iliad, too.

The science of archaeology has given insight into the historicity of the Homeric poems. Where details in the poems are obscure, or external written records are absent, archaeological data have been of great import to the historian. The task of dealing with the historical value of the Homeric poems is made less daunting with the aid of archaeological interpretations. Both Mycenaean and Anatolian sites have yielded artifacts and features that strengthen some historical arguments for the poems, and weaken others.

Heinrich Schliemann was the archaeologist who excavated the site of Troy, on the mound of Hissarlik, in Turkey (Bryce, 1998:393). His work, in addition to that of archaeologist Frank Calvert, was the foundation for historical verification of the possibility of a Trojan War. Carl Blegen continued Schliemann’s work and revealed further evidence for a historical Troy. Blegen also discovered and excavated King Nestor’s Palace in 1939 (Frost, 1997:3). In many ways, Schliemann and Blegen demonstrated the historicity of the Homeric poems archaeologically (Finley, 1954:37).

 

[Ha_Satan]

Yep. Satan certainly knows Y'howah is the true God and is terrified.

Oops. Seems you are probably wrong about the Iliad, too.

The abbreviation is pronounced Yahway, not Y'howah. Angels don't have fear, we just do what we were created to do.

Wonderful, it takes such minimal prompting with you. Prove what any high school text book will tell you (Troy existed and the greeks faught a lot) and claim the rest must be true. Guess that means that you worship Zeus too.

 

[PsyOps]

I love people that assume too much. They make my job easy Case in point, I never said YHWHdidn't exist.

Okay then, forgive me. I will come right out and ask… Does God (Yahweh) exist?

No. You understand that you're a sheep that'll believe anything that sounds plausible. Their are numerous accounts of what happened and hundreds of documents that you've never heard of, some of which support your point, some of which detract. How do you know the one's in the bible are the right ones?

If that was the case this “PsySheep” would have heeded to what you are propagating; blindly following whatever I hear. I understand that the Bible has been compiled by men that made decisions about what will be included and not. And I am trying to say that this doesn’t detract from the validity of that existing Word one bit. Adding the “missing” parts doesn’t change the historical FACT of billions of believers… All “those poor sheep that'll believe anything that sounds plausible.” Have you considered that these “men around the table” could quite possibly be men influenced by God’s will? Or do you just chose to sheepishly follow the typical anti-Christian drumbeat that they are just fallible men, pompously determining for the billions of sheep what they will and will not know? In reality we are all sheep in one fashion or another aren’t we? Aren’t you sheepishly following what you believe?

There you go putting words in my mouth again. I'm beginning to wonder if you actually read what I wrote. Or maybe that's beyond your earthly comprehension as well...

You’d do better to appose my point rather than just state that something is beyond my comprehension. It’s a copout.

Sure it does PsySheep. That's where you read your "truth" from. If it's of no consequence how those words got there, then how can you know that you got the right words?

Sure what does? Are you saying I do put my faith in that “bunch of men around a table”? Now who’s putting words in who’s mouth? Have you no clue what faith is? Can you even define it? Can you explain how my faith exists within my soul? Do you even know what a soul is? Are all these things only known through a book?

The Illiad has stood the test of time too, but that doesn't make it any more true. As a matter of fact, it's one of the first books ever written- well before your Gospels.

It would have made more sense to compare this to the Koran or the Torah than an ancient poem. There's a reason people aren't worshipping Homer. Have you figure that out yet?

 

[2ndAmendment]

The abbreviation is pronounced Yahway, not Y'howah. Angels don't have fear, we just do what we were created to do.

And fallen angels will be in the lake of fire for eternity. Are demons fallen angels? Seems they tremble in fear according to the Bible. Would guess that even fallen angels tremble in fear, too. And I believe YHWH is pronounced Y'howah, kind of like Jehovah be in line with the fact that Hebrew does not have a "J."

Wonderful, it takes such minimal prompting with you. Prove what any high school text book will tell you (Troy existed and the greeks faught a lot) and claim the rest must be true. Guess that means that you worship Zeus too.

No, I do not worship Zeus. I do know that Troy is real. There are many that believe that the Iliad and The Odyssey were based largely on fact. I don't know. I don't care.

I know that the earliest portions of The New Testament date to within just 25 years of the originals. Some nearly complete books of the new testament date to within one century or less from the originals. And we're not even talking about a handful of copies that can be compared with one another to determine accuracy or consistence. There are nearly 25,000 complete manuscripts of the New Testament, with more than 15,000 that date to before the 7th Century A.D.. These include 5,300 copies in the original Greek, over 10,000 in Latin Vulgate, 4,100 Slavic translations, 2,000 Ethiopian translations and about 1,000 other early translations. Compare that the the secular material that is readily accepted, for instance, there are no more then ten manuscripts of Julius Caesar's Gallic Wars, and the oldest copy of that was written over 900 years later than the original.

So anyway, I don't think that someone that loves Y'shua should talk with satan or any person who aligns themselves with satan so, bye.

 

[libby]

It's not there if you don't want to see it my friend. What about (Ephesians 1v13), (Hebrews 7 v 25) & (1 Peter 1 vs 4 and 23)? Please read the ENTIRE Bible and leave the man made stuff out. If we must work to STAY saved, then grace isn't working and Jesus can't keep us saved. God doesn't save us to be lost then re-saved again. If we're truly saved, we'll stay that way. If not, then we're like Judas, who looked & acted the part but wasn't really saved.

This part always baffles me about "once saved always saved". If someone thinks they are saved, acts saved, etc how can they ever know that, in reality, they were not truly saved?
And if God did not save a person by His Grace, because in His Divine Foreknowledge He knew they wouldn't last, how did that soul ever have a chance in the first place? Apart from God's grace there is no chance, so if God has withheld based on what He knows is coming down the road, what hope does a person have?
This is a huge problem for me with OSAS. The Catholic position makes much more sense, as well as displaying God's perfect mercy and justice. That is, that God's grace is available to all who desire it, but that we may certainly reject Him at any point (NOT to be confused with God taking it away). But then we may repent and He will be merciful.