+ Reply to Thread
Page 14 of 16 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 158
  1. #131
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked
    396
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    Completely off topic, but the bible is written by man, edited, translated, added to, taken away from... All by man. For a variety of purposes.

    I personally believe the bible is nothing without prayer to guide you to the truth of scripture.

    I also believe that if God has (and had) a representative on earth that his/her direct revelations would be more relevant and would trump an overedited bible.

    Assuming I prayed about and received confirmation they spoke His words of course.
    Hi Blissed out!

    I agree prayer is very important and asking for Gods spirit to guide and direct us, agree 100% there.

    Re : The bible. God did have a representative on earth, Jesus, he left the model for us to follow, everything we need to know is right there in his word.

    2 Timothy 3:16: - “All Scripture is inspired of God.” The phrase “inspired of God” translates the compound Greek word the·o′pneu·stos, meaning, literally, “God-breathed” or “breathed by God.” So God used faithful men to pen his thoughts, words and message. I believe the bible is a letter to us from him if you will and has been preserved as such

    Between 1947 and 1955 what are known as the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, These scrolls prove the accuracy of translation through the ages.

    The scrolls are also important because they have enabled scholars to gather an immense amount of information about how the Bible was written and how it was transmitted from generation to generation. These old scrolls include copies of books of the Hebrew Scriptures. They date from 100 to 200 years before Jesus was born. One of the scrolls is a copy of the book of Isaiah. Before this was found the oldest copy of the book of Isaiah available in Hebrew was one that had been made nearly 1,000 years after Jesus was born.

    When these two copies of Isaiah were compared there were only very small differences in them, most of which were small variations in spelling! This means that in more than 1,000 years of copying there had been no real change!

    There are more than 1,700 ancient copies of the various portions of the Hebrew Scriptures available. By carefully comparing these many very old copies, even the few mistakes copyists made can be found and corrected. Also, there are thousands of very old copies of the Greek Scriptures, some of which copies date back nearly to the time of Jesus and his apostles. Thus, as Sir Frederic Kenyon ( He was also the president of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921) said: “The last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”—The Bible and Archaeology, pages 288, 289.

    The Bible is also historically accurate and reliable. Its accounts are specific.

    They include not only the names but also the ancestry of individuals

    I wont use all the examples im aware of but one is at the British Museum. A visitor there can see the Nabonidus Chronicle, It describes the fall of ancient Babylon, even as the Bible also does. (Daniel 5:30, 31)

    But the Bible says that Belshazzar was then king of Babylon. Yet the Nabonidus Chronicle does not even name Belshazzar. In fact, at one time all known ancient writings said that Nabonidus was Babylon’s last king. So some who said the Bible is not true claimed that Belshazzar never existed and that the Bible was wrong. But in recent years ancient writings have been found that identified Belshazzar as a son of Nabonidus and coruler with his father in Babylon at the time!

    There is plenty of physical evidence to show the accuracy of modern translations as well as the the historical accuracy of the bible And thats not even mentioning the many prophecies that have come true, are currently being fulfilled on a grand scale and are yet to be.

  2. #132
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked
    396
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveInTheBed View Post
    ShanandBoc...


    I found these on a Catholic site

    (yep - am researching the history of ceibacy whilst I wait for the washing machine and fold a mountian of clothes..should be gwtting quotes for under floor insulation - but anywhooooo...)




    (Eunuch is a man who has been castrated, or who's testes don't work properly ~ I learnt this fact watching Game of Thrones ).


    Thank you very much 5 in the bed

    But none of those scriptures say that celibacy is a requirement, but rather a choice

    Ive already quoted the scriptures below which further attest to this reasoning

    1 Tim. 4:1-3 says " However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be partaken of with thanksgiving by those who have faith and accurately know the truth"

    That scripture says clearly that those who come along 'forbidding' christians to marry is a false teaching and not from God.

    Rather it should be a choice as the example of Paul and Jesus shown

    A key point in Paul’s counsel is that Christians would do “well” to make room in their lives for singleness. (1 Corinthians 7:1, 8, 26, 37) In no way, however, does he invite them to take a vow of celibacy. On the contrary, he wrote: “If anyone thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virginity, if that is past the bloom of youth, and this is the way it should take place, let him do what he wants; he does not sin. Let them marry.” -1 Corinthians 7:36.



  3. #133
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked
    396
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BlissedOut View Post
    Fundamentalist.

    I don't see why God would stop sending 'prophets' to lead and guide his people, especially in these times.

    The OT is mostly a collection of the words of pre-Christ prophets, their word is scripture (and contradicts), surely the words of prophets called of God since then are 'scripture' too?
    But Jesus put an end to that and no further 'prophets' were needed.

    See the bible has all we need to lead and guide Gods people even right up to our day and into the future.

    It explains what world conditions would be like today, why it is so, and what God will soon do about it. It continues to after armageddon and says that new scrolls will then be opened once Gods kingdom takes over affairs on the earth. We have all the guidance we need right there in written word hence why Revelation concludes with the scripture i quoted by not adding to or ignoring scripture.

    On a personal level we have Jesus example to follow. We have the moral standards we are to live by and the example of the first century christians as to what worship to God is acceptable. 1 Peter 2:21 -" In fact, to this course YOU were called, because even Christ suffered for YOU, leaving YOU a model for YOU to follow his steps closely."

  4. #134
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by ShanandBoc View Post


    Thank you very much 5 in the bed

    But none of those scriptures say that celibacy is a requirement, but rather a choice

    [/B]
    yep - it said that it is not a commandment , but instead a discipline.

    And like Brown Sugar said - those who aren't distracted by sex have a 'better' connection and a 'more blessed'..apparently.

    Also - it pays to note that about the time this 'discipline' came in... there was issues regarding realestate - if you were married - you shared your land with your wife... not married?..everything still belongs to the church

    Religion back in those days was a form of Politics - that were all these rules come from, Kings ruled the lands.

    Some say there is 'proof' of God's wife in the bible and in Archeological evidence found..That the God in the Bible (and the other Abrahamic religions) was born from previous religions...many ofcourse dismiss that claim as it goes against the idea of God being 'the one and only'. --- but maybe that is a topic for another thread. - It's totally up to how you interpret the writings.
    Another topic for a thread (when things are quiet and we need another 'Religious thread' to liven up the Hub ) might be 'What prophecies have come true - and where is the proof?' )
    Last edited by FiveInTheBed; 04-05-2012 at 12:13.

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to FiveInTheBed For This Useful Post:

    ShanandBoc  (04-05-2012)

  6. #135
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    1,719
    Thanks
    1,042
    Thanked
    396
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Warning, this is going to be loong!!

    Re : Pope. I have a few issues there for these reasons

    Have catholics examined his validity for themselves? Consider the answers to three questions:

    (1) Does the Bible support the claim that Peter was the first pope?

    (2) What does history teach about the origin of the succession of popes?

    (3) Do the conduct and teachings of the popes support their claim to be Peter’s successor?

    1. Does the Bible support the claim that Peter was the first pope?

    To prove that the church is founded on Peter, Catholics have long pointed to Jesus’ words recorded at Matthew 16:18: “You are Peter, and on this rock-mass I will build my congregation.” In fact, those words are inscribed in Latin under the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome.

    Augustine, a revered Church Father, at one time held that the congregation was built on Peter. However, toward the end of his life, he changed his view of what Jesus’ words meant. In a work known as Retractations, Augustine argued that it was Jesus on whom the church, that is the Christian congregation, was built, not Peter.

    Jesus’ discussion with Peter centered on identifying the Christ and his role, not on the role that Peter would play. (Matthew 16:13-17) Peter himself later stated that Jesus was the rock upon which the congregation was built. (1 Peter 2:4-8) The apostle Paul confirmed that Jesus, not Peter, was “the foundation cornerstone” of the Christian congregation.—Ephesians 2:20.

    True, the apostle Peter features prominently in the Gospels. Jesus singled out three of his apostles—John, James, and Peter—to be present with him on a few special occasions. (Mark 5:37, 38; 9:2; 14:33) Jesus entrusted Peter with “the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,” which Peter used to open up the way to the Kingdom—first to the Jews and proselytes, then to the Samaritans, and finally to the Gentiles. (Matthew 16:19; Acts 2:5, 41; 8:14-17; 10:45) In accord with his outgoing personality, Peter at times served as spokesman for the apostles as a whole. (Acts 1:15; 2:14) But do these facts make Peter head of the early congregation?

    Although Peter was given great responsibility, nowhere in the Bible do we find him claiming to be the head of the congregation and, as such, making decisions for the disciples as a group. In his letter, he called himself “an apostle” and “an older man”—nothing more.—1 Peter 1:1; 5:1.

    2. What does history teach about the origin of the succession of popes?


    When and how, then, did the concept of a papacy come about? The idea that it was acceptable for one man to seek prominence over his fellow believers began to take root while the apostles were still alive. How did the apostles view such thinking?

    The apostle Peter himself told the men who were taking the lead in the congregation not to be “lording it over those who are God’s inheritance”; they were to gird themselves with lowliness of mind toward one another. (1 Peter 5:1-5) The apostle Paul warned that from within the congregation, men would rise who would “speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” (Acts 20:30) Toward the end of the first century C.E., the apostle John wrote a letter in which he strongly denounced a disciple by the name of Diotrephes. Why the reprimand? One reason was that this man ‘liked to have the first place’ in the congregation. (3 John 9) Such counsel from the apostles acted as a restraint, thwarting for a time the ambitions of those who were seeking prominence.—2 Thessalonians 2:3-8.

    Shortly after the last of the apostles died, individuals began to gain more prominence. The Cambridge History of Christianity says: “Probably there was no single ‘monarchical’ bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.” By the third century, the bishop of Rome established himself as the highest authority, at least for parts of the church. To add weight to the claim that the bishop of Rome has superior authority, some have compiled a list of Peter’s successors.

    However, this list provides little support for the claim. Why? First, some names on the list cannot be verified. More important, the foundation of the list is flawed. How so? Even if Peter did preach in Rome, as some secular literature from the first and second centuries implies, there is no proof that he was head of the congregation there.

    One evidence that Peter was not head of the congregation in Rome is that when the apostle Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he included an extensive list of Christians there. Yet, he did not mention Peter at all. (Romans 16:1-23) If Peter were head of the congregation, could we imagine that Paul overlooked Peter or snubbed him?
    Note, too, that about the time that Peter wrote his first inspired letter, Paul wrote a second letter to Timothy. In that letter, Paul did not hesitate to mention Rome. Actually, Paul wrote six letters from Rome, all without any mention of Peter.

    Some 30 years after Paul wrote his letters, the apostle John wrote three letters and the book of Revelation. Nowhere in these writings did John mention that the congregation in Rome was the most prominent one, nor did he refer to a leader of the church who held the supreme office of an alleged successor of Peter. Neither the Bible nor the evidence from history supports the claim that Peter established himself as the first bishop of the congregation in Rome.

    3. Do the conduct and teachings of the popes support their claim to be Peter’s successor?

    We would rightly expect someone who claims to be “Saint Peter’s successor” and “the Vicar of Christ” to follow the conduct and teachings of both Peter and Christ. For example, did Peter accept special treatment from his fellow believers? No. He refused to allow any special expressions of reverence to be bestowed on him. (Acts 10:25, 26) What about Jesus? He said that he came to serve others, not to be served. (Matthew 20:28) By contrast, what record do the popes have? Do they shun prominence, refuse grand titles, and avoid ostentatious displays of wealth and power?

    Both Peter and Christ were morally upright men who promoted peace. Compare their record with what the Catholic encyclopedia Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche (Lexicon for Theology and Church) says about Pope Leo X: “Involved in political and often nepotistic transactions and devoted to lavish worldly pleasures, Leo X neglected the urgent tasks of a spiritual nature.” Karl Amon, Catholic priest and professor of church history, says that verified reports regarding Pope Alexander VI betray “a terrific amount of unscrupulousness, abuse of authority, simony, and immorality.”

    What about the teachings of the popes? How do they compare with the teachings of Peter and Christ? Peter did not believe that all good people go to heaven. With reference to good King David, he plainly said: “David did not ascend to the heavens.” (Acts 2:34) Nor did Peter teach that infants should be baptized. Rather, he taught that baptism is a step that a believer takes conscientiously.—1 Peter 3:21.

    Jesus taught that none of his disciples should try to be more prominent than any other. “If anyone wants to be first,” Jesus said, “he must be last of all and minister of all.” (Mark 9:35) Shortly before his death, Jesus gave this clear directive to his followers: “Do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your teacher, whereas all you are brothers. Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. Neither be called ‘leaders,’ for your Leader is one, the Christ.” (Matthew 23:1, 8-10) Do you feel that the popes have upheld the teachings of Peter and Christ?

    Some say that the succession of popes is maintained even if the officeholder does not lead a Christian life. Do you think that argument is reasonable? Jesus said: “Every good tree produces fine fruit, but every rotten tree produces worthless fruit; a good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit.” Based on the evidence, do you think that Peter or Christ would want to be associated with the fruits that the popes have produced?—Matthew 7:17, 18, 21-23.

    Both Jesus and the apostles warned that the Christian congregation would be overrun by men who taught apostate doctrine. (Matthew 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Timothy 4:3; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 2:18) Those statements came true when the church, or congregation, of the second century began adopting pagan customs and blending Biblical doctrine with Greek philosophy
    Last edited by ShanandBoc; 04-05-2012 at 12:19.

  7. #136
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Tenambit.
    Posts
    9,037
    Thanks
    1,564
    Thanked
    2,936
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Refresh View Post
    "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." - George Bernard Shaw

    I find that so frustrating because alot of the time it is true I think Christianity is about searching the word for God's complete truth....rather than following religious rules you have been taught in church.
    with all due respect Refresh.

    I think your post is a perfect example of my quote.

  8. #137
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    912
    Thanks
    19
    Thanked
    194
    Reviews
    4
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Each to their own, I am roman catholic, and my understanding was that priests and nuns chose to give their life purely to god. They know what the "rules" are when they decide to become a priest so I don't see the need for change.

  9. #138
    OJandMe's Avatar
    OJandMe is offline I am the strength my children will have.
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    10,123
    Thanks
    910
    Thanked
    1,165
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveInTheBed View Post

    And like Brown Sugar said - those who aren't distracted by sex have a 'better' connection and a 'more blessed'..apparently.
    Geez I can tell you if I wasn't having it... I'd sure be distracted by it!!!

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to OJandMe For This Useful Post:

    chameleon  (04-05-2012)

  11. #139
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In the sticks!!
    Posts
    20,635
    Thanks
    3,222
    Thanked
    2,540
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by FiveInTheBed View Post
    with all due respect Refresh.

    I think your post is a perfect example of my quote.
    I am saying that if everyone (obviously Christians) chose to follow the bible and seek God's truth in it, we would all come to the same conclusion....but churches have imposed rules and fought amongst themselves to be 'right' for the sake of being right and everyone is confused or stuck in what their church teaches

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Ffrenchknickers For This Useful Post:

    delirium  (04-05-2012),ShanandBoc  (04-05-2012)

  13. #140
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    284
    Thanks
    96
    Thanked
    126
    Reviews
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Refresh View Post
    I am saying that if everyone (obviously Christians) chose to follow the bible and seek God's truth in it, we would all come to the same conclusion....but churches have imposed rules and fought amongst themselves to be 'right' for the sake of being right and everyone is confused or stuck in what their church teaches
    I don't see why it bothers you so much whether or not Catholics interpret the bible literally.. Whether or not Catholics choose to create certain "rules" by which they live. They are not imposing these rules on you or your church so let it be. If you wish study the differences and understand them for your curiosity, go ahead and keep reading widely and speak to priests and other theologians and u may perhaps get a clearer picture as to why they do certain things. For that however you have to be open to seeing a different viewpoint.

    Though some christian churches may have things they interpret differently, we, together predominantly have the same core beliefs, so why split hairs?


 

Similar Threads

  1. Would you be happy to marry this man?
    By faroutbrusselsprout in forum Family & Friends
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 20-09-2012, 17:24
  2. Church assisting paedophile priests
    By FiveInTheBed in forum Social Issues
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 08-07-2012, 00:05
  3. Catholic school for non catholic family?
    By Jen1234 in forum Preschools and Schools
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 31-03-2012, 08:30

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Pebblebee
Parents spend hours looking for things they need NOW. The keys, the remote, darling daughter's treasured teddy. Stop wasting precious time looking & start finding with Bub Hub reviewed Pebblebee Smart Tag. Simply attach a Pebblebee and find it fast.
sales & new stuffsee all
CarmelsBeautySecrets
Growing your own natural nails is easy. Years ago, I devised a simple and very effective technique which really helps boosts the nails' growth in as little as three days! And most importantly keeps them that way.
featured supporter
TPS Health Physiotherapy and Pilates
TPS Health Physiotherapy and Pilates has three clinics located at Morningside, Redlands and Lutwyche. We offer pre and post natal services as well as physiotherapy and Pilates. All clinics offer child minding services so bubs are always welcome!
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!