What is the connection between Jesus and the OT? Why should it even matter to a Christian that Genesis says nonsense like that unless "Christian" does not accurately describe their beliefs? I don't think Jesus said the world was 1000s of years old, I doubt he was even aware of that interpretation of Genesis, and was probably aware of the Roman worldview given his time and location.

Isn't young earth creationism just some bastardized Jewish nonsense repackaged into a televangelist new age Christian package that doesn't reflect the ideas of the profit they claim to be their savior?

7/1/2011 11:37:00 AM

Quote :

"What is the connection between Jesus and the OT? Why should it even matter to a Christian that Genesis says nonsense like that unless "Christian" does not accurately describe their beliefs? I don't think Jesus said the world was 1000s of years old, I doubt he was even aware of that interpretation of Genesis, and was probably aware of the Roman worldview given his time and location."

Jesus frequently refers to stories of the OT and the OT is needed because it contains the prophecies that he supposedly fulfilled (though I agree with the Jews on whether he actually fulfilled Messianic prophecy).

Quote :

"Isn't young earth creationism just some bastardized Jewish nonsense repackaged into a televangelist new age Christian package that doesn't reflect the ideas of the profit they claim to be their savior?"

Christianity is just some bastardized Jewish nonsense so yeah. Most Jews and Christians aren't YECers though. It's almost thoroughly an American Christian Fundamentalist movement.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 12:42 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 12:42:20 PM

What is the basis for the bible? Where does its holiness come from? If you ascribe to Jesus, well he was certainly clear enough to form a form of religion, so there you go.

The bible should, if my understanding is correct in any way, be less holy and meaningful than the best available understanding of the historical Jesus. But LeonIsPro ties his faith very very close to the bible, as many denominations do (many, not all).

As far as I understand, Leon is not Catholic, and the principle idea of the Reformation was a renewed focus on the "word" of Christ. I don't see why we continue to yabber yabber about the bible. Virtually all religious users here have denied the religious "authority" of the line of saints that, at times, became not very saint-like. You can not draw a clear line between the incorrect interpretations of the corrupt Catholic church and the disciples who transcribed the bible. The book must be fallible. If you can't formulate your religion in a way that works with that then maybe Jesus isn't the messiah for you.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 1:12:29 PM

You know that I for one don't go around saying the world is 6000 years old right? It's called a moot point of Christianity.

Referring to this:

Quote :

"I don't think Jesus said the world was 1000s of years old, I doubt he was even aware of that interpretation of Genesis, and was probably aware of the Roman worldview given his time and location."

Seeing as Jesus Christ was a Hebrew born into a Hebrew family of the house of Judah I'd say he knew the OT fairly well. Seeing as he himself is the Word of God, thus he takes part when the prophets say "And the word of Jehovah came to me" I'd say he knew the OT just about as well as God knew the OT.

"1Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. 2And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungred. 3And when the tempter came to him, he said, If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. 4But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

5Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,

6And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.

7Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

8Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; 9And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me. 10Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. 11Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him. "

Notice how he answers Satan with scripture from the OT.

To maybe put some backing behind the age of the Earth I would like to point out that, though the Bible does speak of the time that passed between the advent of Man and the birth of Christ, it is difficult to determine how long the creation of the Earth actually took place. Because though it says that it took place in seven days, it is also very cryptic in what the days were, and when creation began.

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

2 Peter 3:8

This is another complication with attempting to understand the age of the Earth, as it is also somewhat attempting to understand the advent of time.

Quote :

"In his omnipotence, God the Father had already created the universe somewhere in eternity past before the existence of time as we know it. Even though the universe did not physically exist in time, it did in eternity (remember, eternity has no concept of time). God knew He would create everything, and in eternity already had ( our future is already God's past). The theory of omnipotence and God's eternal existence could not be adequately understood if I were to write a million pages on the subject, so I will not. It will be left to the reader to research the subject of God's omnipotence and eternal existence independently of this paper (it is of course assumed that all who read this work will already possess adequate understanding of these concepts). Let us just summarily say that God the father had willed and fulfilled creation somewhere in eternity past. This is why Genesis 1:1 says, "In the Beginning (present tense) God created (past tense) the heaven and the earth." God was doing in time what He had already done in eternity."

http://www.biblebelievers.com/Devries2.html

7/1/2011 1:25:11 PM

Quote :

"You can not draw a clear line between the incorrect interpretations of the corrupt Catholic church and the disciples who transcribed the bible. The book must be fallible. If you can't formulate your religion in a way that works with that then maybe Jesus isn't the messiah for you."

I'm geared up and ready to here your views on the Bible and where the book is flawed; since apparently someone has studied the word of God extensively. Or are you just running on the common opinion?

Later today I will show a distinction between the incorrectness of the Catholic church and the true word of God. For they do not interpret, but they mince the word to their liking.

And apparently you think my faith is tied intrinsically to the Bible. But you forget what the Bible says about salvation.


Here is my faith: That Jesus Christ went willingly to the cross to bear man's sins. God raised him first born from among the dead on the third day. He released the Holy Spirit which he gave freely to those who had faith upon him. For only through the blood of Christ could I be redeemed. This redemption was willed by God the Father, manifested by Christ the Son of God, and made real to men by the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

Now I received the Spirit by earnest repentance of my sin in the eyes of the most holy God, acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ as propitiation for those sins, meaning I accepted Christ as my savior.

But I gained understanding of faith through the word of God, lest I be deceived from the faith of salvation, which is not of man, but of God.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 1:40 PM. Reason : Amen]

7/1/2011 1:29:48 PM

Quote :

"I'm geared up and ready to here your views on the Bible and where the book is flawed; since apparently someone has studied the word of God extensively. Or are you just running on the common opinion?"

Running on Wikipedia. I don't see anything wrong with it for the discussion hear.

7/1/2011 1:41:44 PM

Quote :

"The bible should, if my understanding is correct in any way, be less holy and meaningful than the best available understanding of the historical Jesus. But LeonIsPro ties his faith very very close to the bible, as many denominations do (many, not all). As far as I understand, Leon is not Catholic, and the principle idea of the Reformation was a renewed focus on the "word" of Christ. I don't see why we continue to yabber yabber about the bible. Virtually all religious users here have denied the religious "authority" of the line of saints that, at times, became not very saint-like. You can not draw a clear line between the incorrect interpretations of the corrupt Catholic church and the disciples who transcribed the bible. The book must be fallible. If you can't formulate your religion in a way that works with that then maybe Jesus isn't the messiah for you."

So you said that, based on information you read on Wikipedia?

What can I possibly say to this?

When you condemn scripture without knowing any.

7/1/2011 1:48:05 PM

Quote :

"You know that I for one don't go around saying the world is 6000 years old right? It's called a moot point of Christianity."

Since when are basic facts moot?

7/1/2011 1:53:05 PM

He's basically saying "we know we are wrong about this, but we don't care..."

He's not the first person to make this argument to me, sadly... i guess some people are okay with condemning people to Hell using an inconsistent belief system.

7/1/2011 1:55:04 PM

Again from AronRa, and I'll be happy to look up individual claims about what's in the Bible if you for some reason want to refute that any of the following is in there:

Quote :

"The Bible was very definitely written by men, and not superior men either; far from it! This is why so much of it can be shown to be historically and scientifically dead wrong about damned-near everything back-to-front. We’re talking about people who believe snakes and donkeys can talk, who believe in incantations, blood sacrifice, ritual spells, enchanted artifacts, pyrotechnic potions, astrology, and the five elements of witchcraft. They thought that if you use a magic wand to sprinkle blood all over someone, it will cure them of leprosy. We’re talking about people who think that rabbits chew cud, and that bats are birds, and whales are fish, and that Pi is a round number. These folks believed that if you display striped patterns to a pregnant cow, it would bare striped calves. How could anyone say that who knows anything about genetics? Obviously the authors of this book didn’t. If the Bible had been written by a supreme being, then it wouldn’t contain the mistakes that it does. If it was written by a truly superior being, and meant to be read as a literal history, then the Bible wouldn’t contain anything that it does. As a moral guide, it utterly fails, because much of the original Hebrew scriptures were written by ignorant and bigoted savages who condoned and promoted animal cruelty, incest, slavery, abuse of slaves, spousal abuse, child abuse, child molestation, abortion, pillage, murder, cannibalism, genocide, and prejudice against race, nationality, religion, sex, and sexual orientation. Why? To justify their own inhumanity by claiming to do the will of God. "

Quote :

"Since when are basic facts moot?"

Especially basic facts which are foundational to pretty much every field of Science.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:08 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 2:05:56 PM

Quote :

"When you condemn scripture without knowing any."

You seem to be under the common religious belief that the reading scripture and even the repetition of that scripture will ultimately convince the reader of its truthfulness.

I don't doubt that, and I don't doubt that through sufficient effort I could convince myself that the bible is true. But to those of us who ascribe to rationalism, belief in and of itself is not an accomplishment.

7/1/2011 2:11:32 PM

^I just was wondering where the inconsistencies were.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:14 PM. Reason : More importantly]

7/1/2011 2:11:47 PM

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/inconsistencies.html

Pick any. Hell I'll start.

GE 1:24-27 Animals were created before man was created.
GE 2:7, 19 Man was created before animals were created.

Another fun one:

EX 23:7 God prohibits the killing of the innocent.
NU 31:17-18, DT 7:2, JS 6:21-27, 7:19-26, 8:22-25, 10:20, 40, 11:8-15, 20, JG 11:30-39, 21:10-12, 1SA 15:3 God orders or approves the complete extermination of groups of people which include innocent women and/or children.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:21 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 2:19:34 PM

The first one can be easily explained by this:

"And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim had formed every animal of the field and all fowl of the heavens, and brought them to Man, to see what he would call them; and whatever Man called each living soul, that was its name."

Gen 2:19

Is the act of Him bringing them into the presence of man, as they had already been formed before man, but had not yet propagated across the Earth as they had just been brought into creation. This passage serves to exemplify the dominion of man over the animals not serve as a story of creation, as that is earlier within Gen 1.

7/1/2011 2:30:55 PM

Quote :

"^I just was wondering where the inconsistencies were."

Did you really just ask for someone to point out inconsistencies in the bible? On the internet? That's like asking for evidence of anthropogenic global warming. That's like asking to find water in the ocean.

I don't find that to be useful. I'm more interested in what you believe the bible IS. Why would it be holy in the first place? If you take that as an attack then you have some really screwed up priorities.

7/1/2011 2:32:55 PM

A) What version are you using? I don't see "had formed" in any translation I've looked up.
B) Why are there two versions of the creation story, and why in the 2nd version of the story, when describing the order in which God creates things, for EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE ANIMALS say it in the order that it happens but when it comes times to do the animals, refer to it in the past perfect tense?

^Yes, there are hundreds on the page I provided.

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 2:38:03 PM

"Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked."

Ex 23:7

According to Numbers when Israel battle the Midianites it was because they were not found guitless before Jehovah:

"15And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 16Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD."

Numbers 31

The reason is that God did not deem them righteousness due to the extent of their trespass.

7/1/2011 2:42:02 PM

The children? Honestly? You can worship such a being?

7/1/2011 2:47:25 PM

Quote :

"A) What version are you using? I don't see "had formed" in any translation I've looked up. B) Why are there two versions of the creation story, and why in the 2nd version of the story, when describing the order in which God creates things, for EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE ANIMALS say it in the order that it happens but when it comes times to do the animals, refer to it in the past perfect tense?"

For one it is a description of the beginning of man's stay on earth, so it is his relation to his surroundings and how they affected him. The garden was made first, giving him a place to dwell, then the animals were brought before him so that he could have dominion over them. It is more saying the act of how they were formed not the time frame. It's much like saying the animals formed from the Earth, because it is the important aspect of the scripture is that they were brought before Adam.

7/1/2011 2:53:04 PM

Quote :

"The children? Honestly? You can worship such a being?"

Yes.

7/1/2011 2:53:57 PM

Why should we care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of any given bible verse?

7/1/2011 2:56:04 PM

Quote :

"Why should we care about the accuracy or inaccuracy of any given bible verse?"

Because without accuracy we get people like the Catholics who come along and say, salvation is from Christ, but our priests can forgive sins too.

7/1/2011 2:59:08 PM

The Catholics, and the early Christians too, who wrote stuff down in the bible that was an incorrect writing of the holy word or made up altogether.

7/1/2011 3:01:23 PM

I haven't bought your animals explanation (and am still interested in knowing what version of the Bible you're quoting) and am appalled that you think that a divine being can arbitrate that the slaughter of innocent children is a moral action.

However, moving on because I find this to be entertaining. What exactly happened to Judas after the betrayal?

MT 27:3-7 The chief priests bought the field.
AC 1:16-19 Judas bought the field.

MT 27:5 Judas threw down the pieces of silver, then departed.
AC 1:18 He used the coins to buy the field.

MT 27:5 Judas hanged himself.
AC 1:18 He fell headlong, burst open, and his bowels gushed out.

Quote :

"The Catholics, and the early Christians too, who wrote stuff down in the bible that was an incorrect writing of the holy word or made up altogether."

The Bible clearly has been modified by humans for political purpose.

From AronRa, man I love that guy:

Quote :

"One of these revisions relates to the king of Ugarit around 3500 years ago. As his followers were the principle competition with the emerging religion of Moses, scribes working on the New Testament chose to demonize Ba’al ZeBul, the “Lord on High”, by distorting his name to Beelzebub, the “Lord of the Flies”. So the Bible has been deliberately and deceptively altered for both religious and political reasons. "

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 3:03:07 PM

Catholics do not believe priests can forgive sins. Where has your information on the Church come from? Everything you believe about the Church has been overwhelmingly false.

7/1/2011 3:05:21 PM

Also, what's up with this Judges 1 passage?

Quote :

" 19And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

the LORD can't take on some dudes because they have chariots of iron?

E-man, since you think the New Testament is literal history, can you address my Judas question above?

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:11 PM. Reason : .]

7/1/2011 3:11:00 PM

^^

"979 In this battle against our inclination towards evil, who could be brave and watchful enough to escape every wound of sin? "If the Church has the power to forgive sins, then Baptism cannot be her only means of using the keys of the Kingdom of heaven received from Jesus Christ. the Church must be able to forgive all penitents their offenses, even if they should sin until the last moment of their lives."

"1461 Since Christ entrusted to his apostles the ministry of reconciliation,65 bishops who are their successors, and priests, the bishops' collaborators, continue to exercise this ministry. Indeed bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.""

And they base that off of this:

"All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation:"

2 Cor 5:18

I must be missing where the ministry of reconciliation is man's authority to forgive sins and thus leads me to the final:

"19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. 21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. "

Now if these ministers had the power to forgive sins in the name of the Father why would they ask them? Why instead of saying:"we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God" would they not just say you are forgiven in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit?

[Edited on July 1, 2011 at 3:30 PM. Reason : ]

7/1/2011 3:26:50 PM

Quote :

"E-man, since you think the New Testament is literal history, can you address my Judas question above?"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wagn8Wrmzuc

7/1/2011 3:49:16 PM

Quote :

"MT 27:3-7 The chief priests bought the field. AC 1:16-19 Judas bought the field. MT 27:5 Judas threw down the pieces of silver, then departed. AC 1:18 He used the coins to buy the field. MT 27:5 Judas hanged himself. AC 1:18 He fell headlong, burst open, and his bowels gushed out."

Just read Barne's Commentary, it offers in depth explanations.

7/1/2011 4:12:50 PM

Here's the KJV passage:

Quote :

"1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out."

http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=ac&chapter=001

Here's Barnes' explanation on how this doesn't really mean Judas purchased the field.

Quote :

"A man is said often to do a thing, when he furnished means for doing it."

So Judas, didn't buy the field to kill die in, he gave money to the priest who actually bought the field and then he went and died in it.

It also says the following:

Quote :

"And falling headlong. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder, Matthew 27:5."

All it does is reference BACK TO MATTHEW to claim that "falling headlong" means he hanged himself, when I see no reason to think that it does. You don't fall headlong when you're hanged. It means he fell to the ground face first and then burst open. The whole point of contention is whether he hanged himself and in Acts it doesn't appear that he did.

Barnes' Commentary was absolutely worthless on this. Please try again. Actually don't. I looked into it further and I'm done with reading apologetics to reconcile the internal and external consistences of the Bible.

7/1/2011 4:58:18 PM

I've highlighted Barne's Notes here:

Quote :

"Now this man ... - The money which was given for betraying the Lord Jesus was thrown down in the temple, and the field was purchased with it by the Jewish priests. See Matthew 27:5, Matthew 27:10, and the notes on that place. A man is said often to do a thing when he furnishes means for doing it. Compare Matthew 27:60, "And laid it (the body of Jesus) in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock." That is, had caused to be hewn out. John 4:1, "when, therefore, the Lord knew how the Pharisees had heard that Jesus "made and baptized" more disciples than John." Through his disciples, for Jesus himself baptized not, John 4:2. The same principle is recognized in law in the well-known maxim, "Qui facit per alium, facit per se." The reward of iniquity - The price which he had for that deed of stupendous wickedness - the betraying of the Lord Jesus. And went and hanged himself - The word used in the original, here, has given rise to much discussion, whether it means that he was suffocated or strangled by his great grief, or whether he took his life by suspending himself. It is acknowledged on all hands, however, that the latter is its most usual meaning, and it is certainly the most obvious meaning. Peter says, in giving an account of the death of Jesus Acts 1:18, that Judas, "falling headlong, burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out." There has been supposed to be some difficulty in reconciling these two accounts, but there is really no necessary difference. Both accounts are true. Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result. Judas probably passed out of the temple in great haste and perturbation of mind. He sought a place where he might perpetrate this crime. He would not, probably, be very careful about the fitness or the means he used. In his anguish, his haste, his desire to die, he seized upon a rope and suspended himself; and it is not at all remarkable, or indeed unusual, that the rope might prove too weak and break. Falling headlong - that is, on his face - he burst asunder, and in awful horrors died - a double death, with double pains and double horrors - the reward of his aggravated guilt. The explanation here suggested will be rendered more probable if it be supposed that he hung himself near some precipitous valley. "Interpreters have suggested," says Professor Hackett (Illustrations of Scripture, pp. 275, 276), "that Judas may have hung himself on a tree near a precipice over the valley of Hinnom, and that, the limb or rope breaking, he fell to the bottom, and was dashed to pieces by the fall. For myself, I felt, as I stood in this valley and looked up to the rocky terraces which hang over it, that the proposed explanation was a perfectly natural one. I was more than ever satisfied with it. I measured the precipitous, almost perpendicular walls in different places, and found the height to be, variously, 40, 36, 33, 30, and 25 feet. Trees still grow quite near the edge of these rocks, and, no doubt, in former times were still more numerous in the same place. A rocky pavement exists, also, at the bottom of the ledges, and hence on that account, too, a person who should fall from above would be liable to be crushed and mangled as well as killed. The traitor may have struck, in his fall, upon some pointed rock, which entered the body and caused 'his bowels to gush out.'" [quote]And falling headlong - The word here rendered "headlong" - p????´? pre¯ne¯s (Latin "pronus," whence our English word "prone") - means properly "bent forward, head-foremost"; and the idea is, that his position in hanging himself was such that when the cord broke he fell headlong, or fell forward on his face. This can easily be supposed if he threw himself from a rock or elevated place. He first hanged himself, and then fell and was burst asunder."

7/1/2011 5:34:16 PM

well this thread has become useless

7/1/2011 6:04:52 PM

It started out that way.

7/1/2011 6:17:24 PM

I suppose if you can believe the rest of the bible, you can believe it's possible to attempt hanging yourself and fall head first. Otherwise, that is some ludicrous bullshit.

Quote :

"Both accounts are true. Matthew records the mode in which Judas attempted his death by hanging. Peter speaks of the result."

This is like writing a biography about Abraham Lincoln and, when concerning his death, just briefly mentioning that he died from a coma. You must know this is nonsense.

7/1/2011 6:24:01 PM

I'd like to now analyze the sparse scriptural references the Catholic Church uses to justify the nature of the Papal Authority. And how not only is the Pope the vicar of Christ. But he also has unquestionable power:

"880 When Christ instituted the Twelve, "he constituted [them] in the form of a college or permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed Peter, chosen from among them."398 Just as "by the Lord's institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are related with and united to one another."399"

"881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock.400 "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head."401 This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403""

Now I'd like to look at the few actual references to the Bible in these several paragraphs.

The first being 398 which says Luke 6:13 and John 21:15-17.


"And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;"

Luke 6:13.


So apparently this is the justification for a hierarchical priesthood to the Catholics, one line of scripture that says Jesus called them apostles. Even though apostle signifies one personally designated by Christ to be a messenger of the Gospel, I will play along and assume the priests now have somehow been signified as apostles.

Let's look at some of the actions of the apostles and see if it correctly characterizes the hierarchical priesthood of the Catholic church.

"The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting:

"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them."

Acts 14:13-15

So when the priest of Zeus offered to sacrifice to them as gods, they refused and said they were mere messengers of the Gospel of Christ.


"15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. "

Now apparently this somehow signifies Peter as the first Pope, so from this and the classic misinterpretation of "upon this rock I build my church" we somehow arrive at an infallible Pope who must receive absolutely no question and is considered the vicar of Christ. Now let's look at the works of Peter.

"Then called he them in, and lodged them. And on the morrow Peter went away with them, and certain brothers from Joppa accompanied him.

And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and had called together his kinsmen and near friends.

And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.

But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man."

Acts 10:23-26

It appears from this that Peter and the apostles were humble men. Now this occurs after the death of Christ meaning according to Catholic catechism that Peter should have already been Pope.

First I'll address the fact of the actual passage which the papacy uses to justify it's power.

"And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Mat 16:18

Now I do not doubt that Jesus was calling Peter blessed and saying that he would form his assembly of believers starting with Simon Peter. And obviously he does not do this as an arbitration but he conveys it upon him because Peter is the first to name his correctly as the Messiah and the Son of God. And he did permit them to establish an assembly in line with scripture. But this was not a special gift conferred upon Paul. He knew that he was not a "Vicar of Christ" how could he be, with Christ still alive? And how could Peter be the infallible "Vicar of Christ" when there was a clear reason why Christ asked him of his love for him three times.


"And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me."

Luke 22:34

"54Then took they him [Jesus], and led him, and brought him into the high priest's house. And Peter followed afar off. 55And when they had kindled a fire in the midst of the hall, and were set down together, Peter sat down among them. 56But a certain maid beheld him as he sat by the fire, and earnestly looked upon him, and said, This man was also with him. 57And he denied him, saying, Woman, I know him [Jesus] not. 58And after a little while another saw him, and said, Thou art also of them. And Peter said, Man, I am not. 59And about the space of one hour after another confidently affirmed, saying, Of a truth this fellow also was with him: for he is a Galilaean. 60And Peter said, Man, I know not what thou sayest. And immediately, while he yet spake, the cock crew. 61And the Lord turned, and looked upon Peter. And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. 62And Peter went out, and wept bitterly. "

Luke 22

So is the Vicar of Christ here denying that he himself exists or that his power exists? Now that it is extremely difficult to justify Peter as the first "Vicar of Christ" let's look at a more scriptural sound explanation of the church. Let's look at what Simon Peter actually wrote with the scripture now.


"1The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: 2Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; 3Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. 4And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. 5Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. "

1 Peter 5

How after this could we possibly say that Peter viewed himself as exalted above anyone? He was humble saying that he was a fellow man and a fellow elder. He exemplified the Gospel so that others would find the Gospel. I once again doubt I need to prove how corrupt and sinful those who actually call themselves the "Vicar of Christ" have been. But if you wish it, I will.



I'd ask The E Man to look into scripture himself for the answers to the questions I have brought up. And not merely rely upon the Catholic Church's "deep rooting in scripture."

7/2/2011 1:22:13 PM

Quote :

"The Earth is definitely older than 6000 years old. "

At which point I will AGAIN ask: WHERE IS YOUR PROOF. Stop equivocating on the fucking definition of an absolute word.

Quote :

"There is NO scenario where the earth is ~6000 years old AND the Bible is correct."

Only, there is. Your notion of "God being a liar and a cheat" is based on ONE interpretation of Genesis, one which is and has been debated ad nauseum. i.e, you "NO scenario" is bullshit.

[Edited on July 2, 2011 at 11:50 PM. Reason : ]

7/2/2011 11:49:17 PM

^ I hate to alter what I said but I do agree with Aaron on his second point. Though the time between the advent of man and the birth of Christ is 4000 years, and has to be according to scripture prophecy as I said earlier it is difficult to determine the actual amount of time God spent creating the Earth, as the amount of actual time the days are could be up different, since we see in Genesis only where God's will had been manifested into time from eternity. But as I said before the age of the Earth has little impact upon any debate as both sides must put faith in what they are being told.

7/2/2011 11:59:20 PM

Fossil evidence
Plant evidence
Genetic evidence
Ice core evidence
Geological evidence
Radiometic dating
Embryology
Just to name A FEW types of evidence that ALL use methods independent of each other to produce evidence that the Universe is tens of billions of years old and the Earth is several billion years old.

Theres no way you can take any science class and not know its impossible for the world to be 6000 years old. Every branch of science provides SEVERAL TYPES of evidence that overhwelmingly supports the world being much older than that and not just much older but SEVERAL ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OLDER.

Astronomy
Biology
Geology
Meteorology
Oceanography
Physics
Chemistry

If you believe the Earth is ~6000 years old then not only do you believe ALL SCIENCE is complete bullshit but you also don't even believe in the concept of science itself of the scientific method. Any scientific achievement would have to be chalked up as pure luck by you.

[Edited on July 3, 2011 at 12:10 AM. Reason : science does not exist]

7/3/2011 12:08:22 AM

The E Man, that's fine, I accept your argument. Now if you could kindly respond to my post about the Pope. I implore you to look at the evidence I presented and not turn a blind eye, as you insist I do with scientific evidence.

7/3/2011 12:14:00 AM

Let's pick something simpler than the age of the planet.

Would you consider the following a scientifically accurate statement: If you show some cows a striped stick while they're having sex, they will have striped calves.

7/3/2011 12:17:05 AM

The 12 appoint their subsequent replacements forever. Since they are messengers of the Gospel. There are some flaws to the church as there are to any organization. The bottom line is the Church had to make a few adjustments to ensure its survival and ability to spread the Gospel. None of these said "adjustments" are bad things, in fact, they are good procedures that just aren't part of scripture. The church won't acknowledge this but one of the simplest example would be the fact that you have to go to Chuch every sunday. Jesus said some things that obviously refute that but if it wasn't a rule then the Church would have failed and would no longer be able to do the great work or spread the gospel.

^no there are no statements in science that aren't formed without repeated pattern. What you said is a hypothesis that could be quickly debunked through experiment. Now if I showed a striped stick to several cows and produced several striped baby cows then your hypothesis becomes a theory. Several scientists around the world then critique your experiment and try it different ways. If over and over, the same results are produced, this theory holds.

[Edited on July 3, 2011 at 12:26 AM. Reason : k]

7/3/2011 12:23:22 AM

Quote :

"Just to name A FEW types of evidence that ALL use methods independent of each other to produce evidence that the Universe is tens of billions of years old and the Earth is several billion years old. "

all of which could have been created to make the earth appear much older than it is.

Quote :

"Every branch of science provides SEVERAL TYPES of evidence that overhwelmingly supports the world being much older than that and not just much older but SEVERAL ORDER OF MAGNITUDE OLDER. "

All of science provides evidence. None of it provides incontrovertible proof. Learn the difference.

7/3/2011 12:40:44 AM

Quote :

"Jesus said some things that obviously refute that"

In that case who is your Lord? Jesus Christ or the Catholic Church?

Quote :

"but if it wasn't a rule then the Church would have failed and would no longer be able to do the great work or spread the gospel."

I'd also like to hear your reasons why you'd think this?


"Take heed that no man deceive you.5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

Now I have never heard of the Catholic Church being in infliction from the outside world.

Or are you saying that Christ was a liar, and that without the Catholic Church's adaptation to worldliness (which is abomination within itself) the Gospel would not be spread?

The other point I'd like to make is exactly how the Catholic Church has spread the Gospel of Christ. Forgive my accusation but I feel fairly well justified in saying that you do not know the scripture yourself but only what the Priests tell you. Shall one spread part of the Gospel but not all? Is the Gospel something that should be picked over and selected based on what a selected few merit? If this was the case would we not be making Christ a liar by saying, "Though you said this, this is the truth" and from whence do we determine this truth? Are we as God being able to determine right and wrong. I have shown that Simon Peter had not the authority to do this, Christ had this authority and power for he was God made manifest within the flesh, able to resist all sins to which we give into.


Now this is my question: If the Catholic Church said that they were more infallible than Christ, which is what your answer implied. Who is it that you would follow, the Catholic Church or Jesus Christ.

7/3/2011 12:41:56 AM

They don't deceive anyone they just make more conservative policies for the sake of strengthening the church. Of course the lord is my God which is why I don't feel guilty about not going to Church every Sunday.

7/3/2011 1:42:05 AM

Quote :

" "There is NO scenario where the earth is ~6000 years old AND the Bible is correct." Only, there is. Your notion of "God being a liar and a cheat" is based on ONE interpretation of Genesis, one which is and has been debated ad nauseum. i.e, you "NO scenario" is bullshit. "

Actually, there isn’t.

If you take the Bible entirely literally, then you have to reject evidence. If you start to loosen your interpretation, then it makes the bible irrelevant, because you could make it mean practically anything, and it’s not the Bible being correct at that point, it’s the competency of the person framing the argument.

So… the earth is DEFINITELY older than 6000 years old, this is an absolute fact.

7/3/2011 1:47:28 AM

Will you tell me your testimony? Of how you were saved and brought to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ.


I will say mine first as to not make myself seem a hypocrite.

Now for a long time I had thought that there was a God, but I always thought there was never any proof. I guess that would classify me as an agnostic. Now I was not raised in a Christian household, one of the favorite sayings of my father was that "God is Dead" from Nietzsche. Now I believed in a worldview that was simple, if I did relatively well I'd be rewarded if there was a God, meaning, if I tried to do some good works, I would not be punished. Now my girlfriend was Christian and spoke to me concerning the Gospel, but I would not listen because I had been so blinded by pride and by the misrepresentation of Christianity within the world and I was raised to not trust the Church (my father was a former Catholic who saw the church as a money making institution.) At this point I had not realized what the church actually was.
Now one day I finally gave in and listened to a man named Jabe Nicholson speak on one of his ministry CDs. His main point was that unlike other religions Christianity is the only one which offers you a Savior and does not require you to save yourself according to works. Slowly I began to realize that I had been blind and proud. Eventually, my eyes were finally opened and I realized that no matter how much good I did, this best I could ever do was "break even" with the perfect standard of God.

Realizing I was without hope I earnestly repented of my sin and prayed to God for the forgiveness of my wickedness and pride according to the redemption that is through faith in Jesus Christ. I read the Bible and realized more and more that the manner which I perceived the Christianity was not based upon the Gospel nor based upon the Bible at all.

Now in faith I say that I am but dust, and my works were full of vanity. I am humble for I know my place, for it is wherever the Lord leads me. I had sinned according to the flesh but now I am dead in the flesh and reborn in the Spirit, that though my flesh may continue to work evil my spirit shall resist it as knowing the difference between good and evil.

Now I affirm again, that I have faith in Jesus Christ and his power to forgive sin, which he accomplished with his death upon the cross and God made manifest upon his resurrection. And that this redemption is given freely to those who earnestly repent and seek it.

7/3/2011 2:00:22 AM

^ so would you say you went your entire pre-christian life without ever blaspheming the holy spirit?

7/3/2011 2:04:48 AM

The manner which one blasphemes the Holy Spirit is by receiving it, then denying it's power. It would be what the layman would call "Falling out of Grace" an act which occurrence is debated.

I.E. If one who was saved said that they denounced God, as in this manner:

"32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. "

Matt 10

7/3/2011 2:09:55 AM

Quote :

"At this point I had not realized what the church actually was. "

Which was?

7/3/2011 10:14:26 AM

^^ So you’re saying “no” you didn’t. Why did you think there was a God for a “long time” before listening to those CDs? What made you believe this?

7/3/2011 11:23:02 AM