You may have heard that if any one topic in the bible is a lie, then the entire thing is. I believe that. If way back long ago someone inserted their own thoughts or twists on the stories, then the whole book becomes untrustworthy. I''ve been studying it for a long time, and never has anything in it been unproved.
Islam believes in Jesus. Islam teaches however that he is only a profit. The greatest lie in the book of the Quran though is the FACT that it teaches that Jesus was not crucified, but rather escaped to India. You never hear of scholars debating the fact that Jesus was nailed to a cross. It''s a matter of historical fact. Non-religous documents that date back to that time verify what happened. Jewish historians like Josephus documented what happened to the letter. There''s not just one or two documents to the fact, but a whole boat load.
Mohammad lived and wrote the Quran 550 years after Jesus died. Given historical facts, it is safe to say that
A) The Quran is demonically inspired, because if the source of Mohammad''s inspiration were of light and truth, he would have been given the truth. Satan is the father of all lies.
B) Jesus was crucified, therefore Islam is based on a lie or lies.
This makes all of Islam false.
Spread the word.
44 comments on Evidence The Quran Is A Lie
Add a comment
To add comments without entering your email and image verification, you must be logged in. Login or Join Blogster
"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:" The Quaran has no validity and those who believe it are suffering the plagues spoken about here.
As for the Koran's account of Jesus: where do you think Mohammed got the story, if not from the Christian communities of Arabia with whom he was on very friendly terms?
Mohammad's story was dictated to him by what he called an angel, though funny enough, he often wondered if this source was heavenly or not. THat is where all of the qoran is said to have come from.
Saying that nothing in the Bible has been proven false is also kind of stupid. For a simple example let's take Mark 14:31 which says "It is like a mustard seed which, when it is sown on the ground, is smaller than all the seeds on earth;". Now from my experiment with botany I can tell you that Orchid seeds are infact smaller than mustartd seeds. Thus I have found one single false statement in the Bible, which according to your criteria makes the whole thing false.
Peace out,
JRB
Example of Historians who wrote about it and some of what they said:
Babylon Talmud 70-200 AD.
Roman Historian Tacitus, born 22 years after Christ in one of his 5 "histories" wrote "Christus, the founder of the name was put to death by Pontius Pilate....".
Pliny the Younger - AD 79.
Roman Historian Suetonius AD 69-140.
Origen AD 184-254 references an earlier Historian named Phlegon who wrote about the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus.
Even an early satirist, named, Lucian of Samosata, who is credited with having a zeal for the truth wrote "...and was crucified on that account.."
Next question.
ERM
Now to the truth thing. Let us look at the creation stories. Note that I said stories because there are two and they don't agree. Therefore one must be a lie or both are therefore there must be a lie in the bible and the whole thing must be false at least according to your criteria.
JRB
You're wrong about the eyewitness accounts. See Matthew, John, Paul and Peter in the Bible.
You athiests say Christians doctored the books. If a Christian doctored anything, it would be anti-Christian to do so. It doesn't make sense. It's the same reason people were killed early on for Jesus. They refused to tell a lie that Christ was not crucified, that he did not rise from the dead, or that they should worship someone else. Christianity is anti-lying, the opposite of the world. If you put an Athiest and a Christian in a room together and a group of people had to vote on which would be more likely to tell the truth, you Athiests (and others) would lose. A true Christian cannot tell a lie. Athiests can say anything they want because they're not bound by the same kind of morals.
Yeah, Christians lied early on, because....because....ah... it must have made them rich? Come on. I have no reason to lie. It doesn't profit me to lie. It does me no good to continue to spread misinformation. Same for the early Christians who faced death by stoning if they were caught spreading Christianity. No liar will be put to death for a lie. If I lie to you and say that I'm not white, I'm not willing to be stoned to death for it. Eventually, I'll tell the truth just before the first rock is thrown at me.
Who would die for a lie, especially when it would not profit them in any way to do so?
So lets look at your list. First off Matthew: Biblical scholars generally accept that the book of Matthew was written after 70AD because it describes the fall of jerusalem. The authorship is in question but it seems that it was probably not an eyewitness account because it combines elements found in Mark and a the mysterious gospel of Q (though to be a source for both Luke and Matthew). The Gospel of John is generally though to have been written around 85-100 AD, because of the theological sophistication in it it suggest a later date of writing. The time line in John also does not match with that of Matthew, Mark or Luke. John is thought to have not actually been written by the disciple whom Jesus loved, but rather by one of his followers. Paul wasn't at the crucifixtion he because a believer after an encounter with Christ on the road to damascus. Peter for his part wrote a letter not a gospel.
The Church that added to the histories by the way is not the Church under Roman persecution but the later church which was the religion of Europe and had a deep monstic tradition. In the monastaries ancient texts were copied to preserve them, including our ancient histories. However, monks were not Xerox machines and occasionally added or removed things from histories. Fortunatly this was not done uniformally across Europe so different copies have different alterations. By comparing them we find that yes in fact they were altered to include explicit references to Christ. There are infact legitimate references to Christ in the texts, thus I am not arguing against the historicity of the person of Christ, but you cannot claim that these texts prove that the Bible is true and the Koran is a lie because that my friend is a matter of faith.
JRB
I see you've latched onto some authors writings that have formed your opinions. I wonder if you've given other authors the same kind of latitude or if you already had your mind made up. The Gospel of Q was never an authoritative writing. There's a reason why it is not in the bible. As far as I'm concerned, you can't count on it, since God himself did not put it in his collection we call the bible.
Most of the writers wrote what they did after the fact. I mean later on. They were expecting Jesus to come back and get them. Once they decided it wasn't going to happen as they thought it would, they began to write. Some of the texts cause outsiders like yourself to wonder who wrote them. Consider this: President Bush is attributed to his own speeches, but he doesn't write them. Same goes for some of the authors of the bible. These were great men of Christianity and traveled with many people that worked with/for them. Each of the texts are blessed by the men they're attributed to.
Long story short, you can throw up all you want as your 'proof' that the bible is flawed, incorrect, whatever. I can write for days on why it isn't. I think the most important piece of information you'll ever read is this. God is not in the words of the bible so much as he is in between the lines. That's why reading it, picking apart the english when it was originally written in Hebrew or Greek is pointless. Even though I believe it to be 100% accurate in it's original state.
The facts are that Christianity survived under intense persecution early on. Jesus was crucified on a cross and this is documented in non-religous texts. (Hello Islam). His followers were stoned to death for believing what they had seen and refused to lie about. Christianity is the largest religion, I believe for a good reason. The bible has never been thouroughly discredited enough to turn people away from it. (see God between the lines comment above).
Christianity is the only religion where it's main entity dies for everyone, not just some. God is real and speaks to people audibly even today. If you seek him desperately, he will reveal himself to you.
But just for fun, show me your altered texts. If it has anything to do with the KJV bible though read my other articles. Make sure you give me enough to research.
More later if I have time.
B) Josephus was a Jew and a traitor. He became a Jewish historian while working for the Romans (to save his own skin). This site states that he did not believe in the Messiah, which is true. He wrote about Christianity and the movement at the time. To my understanding, he never wrote in favor of it himself. He only wrote about it as any historian would.
C). As I stated earlier, Christianity is not based on what this non believer wrote. What he wrote is merely a tiny piece of evidence that Christ existed.
Look at all the other evidence by all the other non-Christian historians. However even Josephus wrote that the Jews considered Jesus a sorcerer, which gives evidence that Jesus did perform some kinds of miracles described in the bible.
Josephus supposedly wrote this:
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
- Jewish Antiquities, 18.3.3 63
We have already establish that Josephus was not a Christian and thus wording like "He was the Messiah" seems to clearly indicate forgery. Thus your original argument is invalid.
Plus you have ignored the parts of my comments dealing with the Genesis 1 and 2. Why are there two different stories? Is one of them a lie?
JRB
Facts are important, getting them wrong makes you look like an idiot.
JRB
Josephus was a Jew and grew up reading and learning and living the old testament. He was expecting a 'messiah' all his life. Then all of a sudden he becomes roman. An ex jew. an outsider. Now he has to write jewish history. Now he has to write from beginning to end, which is up to the point of his own life. Judaism becomes Christianity from his viewpoint. You write the story of Judaism and if you believe Christianity, you progress from Judaism to Christianity. Obviously since the Messiah is the central figure, I should think he'd get mentioned no matter who's writing it. He doesn't have to believe in christianity, he only has to watch want Judaism becomes and write about it.
Bottom line is, you can't prove your 'fact' that you hold so closely. It's just a theory and a bad one if you look at all the facts together.
You know what bugs you most about this? religous people hurt your head becuase you know there's something you don't get, but you can't put your finger on it. All it is is a lack of information. It will always hurt your head until you fully research it.
What's your point of Genesis? I haven't read it or can't find it anywhere. This is getting long.
In the NAB translation
Matthew 28:1, in which Mary Magdalene and the other Mary come to see the tomb.
John 20:1, in which only Mary of Magdala comes to see the tomb.
Matthew 28:2-15 is material which is not present in John, while John 20:2-18 contains material not contained in Matthew, including the important element of Peter and the beloved disciple coming to the tomb which they do not do in Matthew.
Matthew 28:16-20 includes the first appearnce of Jesus to the disciples as being on a mountain in Galilee where they were commissioned to spread the Gospel.
John 20:19-29 says that the first appearance to the disciples, other than Mary of Magdala (to whom Jesus appeared outside the tomb which did not happen in Matthew), was in the upper room in the evening where he imparted the commission and the Holy Spirit, which is absent from the sommissioning in Matthew.
So, from the two eyewitness accounts you speak of, there are glaring inconsistencies in the treatment of the Resurrection narrative. Thus, since inconsistency means that one or both is a lie, histrically speaking (as an account saying that WWII started on Sept.1, 1939 and one that said it started on Dec. 7 1941 would indicate that one date is incorrect when compared to the actual history), then you claim that the Christian Gospels contain a lie. Does this change the theological Truth of those Gospels? Not one iota. Jesus the Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the father except through Him. That need not mean that non-Christians can not be given the gift of ssalvation, as Christ died for all of humanity's sins.
May the Lord shine his face upon you, May he be gracious to you and show you peace, and may Grace be to you and also the peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus be with you, to the glory of the Father who creatd the universe, the Son who emptied himself to redeem humanity and the Spirit which strengthens us every day.
CR
ps: It is quite possible for me to see JRB at any given Sunday worship service every week at St. Joseph's College, a theological school on the local university campus, from which we are both granduates.
2) If you're like the Baptists and believe that every word has to be exactly correct as you read it, you're in for a wild ride, since you're probably reading a translation of a translation. NAB, NIV, KJV, NKJV all have their differences in words, but that doesn't make the original story false, just means that english changes over the years. The greek/hebrew is unchanged as documented by our oldest archeologically discovered copies.
3) Ah, Catholics. Now I understand why you say that "Jesus the Christ is the Way, the Truth and the Life and no one comes to the father except through Him. That need not mean that non-Christians can not be given the gift of ssalvation, as Christ died for all of humanity's sins." On one hand you say Jesus is the way... on the other you say but 'Jesus died for everyone'. Both are true as they are written, but if you imply that someone can enter heaven not having accepted Jesus, then this makes the first part false. If Jesus is THE WAY, then he is the ONLY way, for he did not imply or state that there was another way, but quite the opposite.
4) You (JRB) wrote "Do you realize that you need not disprove other people's faiths to prove your own?" True, but since there can only be one way, and we apparently have other ideas on getting into heaven, it's safe to say only one will work, and those that follow another are heading in the wrong direction. the great commission demands we rescue our brothers from false religions that can only lead them to hell.
5) If you're not going to be specific about Gensis 1 and 2, then stop bringing it up.
6)JRB, now you freighten me. "Even if Islam has untruths within it, which I believe it does, what does that matter. It is a world religion of great improtance and by and large a religion of peace, the Vatican has admitted as much. Who are you to say that it is demonically inspired, or that it is a force of evil or even that some element of God is not within it? "
This is not Christian. The Vatican is as much as political force now as a religous one. No Pope would give credibility to another religion without there being some kind of politics behind it. If he did, then he's guilty of a sin. Leading others away from Jesus.
So now you're saying that any religion as long as it is thought of as peaceful, is ok? Now you Catholics say there are other ways to get into heaven? Now Islam is ok and since the Quran says that anyone that doesn't believe in Islam should be put to death, this is an accpetable way to get into heaven? an exceptable way to live? Jesus condones this?
You skip all the other questions I've asked and write for me your idea of how people get into heaven, then back it up with the Bible. Then verify it with your Catholic teachers for me if you would. I'd like to know if the Catholic church believes this dribble you've thrown out or if you picked this up on your own.
The biggest problem Catholicism has is that you poor guys are spoon fed by humans -flawed human priests that make mistakes, instead of the bible and the holy spirit.
Catholics invented the concepts of Purgatory, Mary worship, brought about idolatry within the church, buying your way out of purgatory (see counter reformation), asking for forgiveness from priests (somehow makeing them gods) and other falacies.
The whole Catholicism thing is another topic but we at last have arrived at the real issue as to why you cannot see that Islam is a religion of hate and intolerance. You think those suicide bombers are extremeists don't you? I say they're following their law because I've read it. The people who worship Islam that don't go off the deep end aren't following it. (Just like "Christians" who don't tithe). Heck for that matter, they don't even read it, for they believe that they can only get the 'truth' from their priests who spoon feed it to them. That's the key really. It's only peaceful if you don't read the Koran.
So young Catholic men. Convince me that those who die worshiping another god in another religion can enter heaven? (A violation of 'no other God before me' commandment.) Or are you going to tell me it's the same god with 2 different sets of rules? Go ahead entertain me.
2) I'll address some of your other points later since I'm now a little short on time, but I'll ask you this question. You say this "The biggest problem Catholicism has is that you poor guys are spoon fed by humans -flawed human priests that make mistakes, instead of the bible and the holy spirit." Who teaches you? Who teaches you how to interpret the Bible? It is after all far from a straight-forward text. Second who teaches you how to discern what the holy spirit is telling you to do? Perhaps protestants are now born with the amazing ability to to interpret and discern. Perhaps this is an evolved trait?
later gator,
JRB
The Baptism of Jesus:
In Mark, John baptizes Jesus with water.
In Matthew, John baptizes Jesus with water, with reluctance. This can be a matter of perspective on the relationship between the two.
In Luke, John does not and can not baptize Jesus with water, as John is put into prison by Herod the Tetrarch.
-->In th synoptic Gospels, there is a problem - Did John or did John not baptize Jesus with water? Both can not be true, so there is a lie in the Baptism accounts.
In John, Jesus is not baptized with water at all.
-->Was Jesus or was Jesus not baptized with water? Another inconsistency.
Thus, in the baptism accounts, there are at least two lies. Does this invalidate the whole of Scripture? If it does not, then the Quran is not necessarily wrong because it denies the passion and ressurection of Christ.
2) And the ancient Greek of the Gospels points to there being no appearance stories or commissioning of the disciples in Mark. Virtually all the manuscripts known of Mark contain 1:1 to 16:8, far fewer contain any particular extension beyond 16:8.
The ancient Greek only has two accoutns of the imparting of the Holy Spirit - From John when Jesus breaths on the Disciples on the evening of the first day of the week after the ressurection, and from Acts where, approximately ten days after Jesus ascended into heaven after forty days, the Holy Spirit came upon the disciples as of toungues of fire with a mighty wind on Pentecost (50 days after the Passover) Can both these accoutns be correct? These accounts are inconsistent, but since Christians are Trinitarians, we beleive that the Holy Spirit is given to Christians as the advocate after Jesus ascended to heaven. Inconsistency or even a denial of certain parts of Scripture need not make other compedia of religious teaching wrong, although it can hamper their access to the truth. If it did, then the Protestant churches which have a canon of Scripture different from the canon decided by the early Christian community to be normative would be in trouble, would they not?
3)Jesus is The Way. He died to atone for all the sins of all humanity. It is conceivable that in the Mercy of God, those of non-Christian faiths cans till be brought into heaven through the cross of Christ. If one must accept Christ in order to be brought into heaven, does that mean all humans born before the Gospel, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Moses, David, Noah are doomed to hell?
4)Did not Chrsit ask the Father to "Forgive them ,for they know not what they do"? If people of other faiths, through ignorance or other means, do not accept Jesus and in doing so do not know what they are doing by such a rejection, would not they follow under this plea for forgiveness?
6)If something not having the fullness of truth means it is demonic, what would that eman for the denominations and communities which do not have the Sacred Scripture as defined by the early Christians?
The current Pope, who is quite similar in beliefs to previous Popes, said, in Dominus Iesus, that the only way to Christ is through the Catholic Church, as it contains the fullness of Truth, and other Christian communities are of proportionately lesser value in getting to Christ, as are other religions. However, this does not mean that the other faiths or denominations are evil.
There is only one way, but the final decision as to the state of anyone's soul is not ours, but is God's.
People get into heaven by the grace of God. At the end of time, those whom Jesus will recognize and assist are not those who call "Lord, Lord" but those who do the will of the Father. Is it possible for a non-Christian to do the will of the Father?
Priests are human and fallible, but so are any persons who teach you how to interpret the bible, including yourself.
Purgatory, a state betwen death and heaven where one works out thee ffects of sin, a time of judgement before oen enter heaven like those whom Jesus speaks of from the above passage about those who will enter heaven. We do not worship Mary, we respect her as she is the Theotokos- the Mother of God, and the Mother of the Church, and is not a commandment to honour ones parents? If by idolatry you mean statues or pictures, are you idolatrous if you have a picture of your grandfather to remember him? that what they are their for, and to appreciate as art - we do not go to statues and ask the statue to help us. Selling indulgences was a mistake, close to Simony, but you seem to disparage those who do not tithe as non-Christian - is not tithing in that case a form of indulgence -if you do not tithe, you are not a christian and only christians go to heaven? The priest does not forgive sins, God does that, but the priest also represents the community since it is harmed (since if one part of the Body of Christ is stained by sin, other parts also are affected) in ways which one may not understand.
I have not read the Quran, but if it is as you say and "real Muslims" are hateful and intolerant, you seem to project a Christianity that is also hateful and intolerant, since it calls all other religions demonic.
I would say it is the same God with a complete set of rules, Christianity, and an incomplete set of rules, Islam. Thus they are deficient in their faith, but are not necessarily worshipping a different God.
CR
I can say that I honestly appreciate your comments to me about this even if sometimes they seem aggressive. I have a thirst for the truth and it does not bother me to read about or learn of others and their thoughts and religion.
People before Christ: 1 God, 1 set of rules for everyone before Christ. It's called the Old Testament - Ten Commandments. You can't tell me that Polytheistic peoples now exist in heaven because God forgave them for breaking his rules. He spent a lot of time in the old testament wiping them out while they were alive. Old testament law is still the standard today for Jews and anyone today that has never heard of Jesus or his story. Once Jesus arrived, the New Testament (New agreement) began. The bible is clear when it says that you must believe AND follow. Believing in Jesus and robbing banks is behaving no better than satan himself. Even he believes in Jesus.
If you don't have to follow Jesus to get into heaven gentleman, why bother? why not just live it up and reason to yourself that God is good and he'll forgive. If that's the case, who actually goes to hell?
You know what burns my ears? when I hear "mother of God". As if Mary is some how more devine that God. I don't know that Catholics mean it that way, but when you combine that with every building or church ever erected in the Catholic faith being named after a woman (Holy mother this and that)(schools etc..) It certainly gives the impression that Mary is a higher authority than Jesus in your churches.
Intolerance. When Jesus said I am the way the truth and the life and that no man goes to the father but through me, he tells us just how tolerant God is of other religions. No place did he ever preach tolerance for alternatives. In fact God was quite the opposite with Baal and the rest in the old testament. You cannot afford to be tolerant of lies, when they are the chief reason that God is separated from his children. Satan is the father of lies. He is the source of all other religions.
So I'm dying to know. Do I get to pick and choose my own rules and I can still get into heaven gentlemen? Isn't that the same thing as creating your own God? Someone that will suit your own ideas?
Man I was trying to keep it short.
1) Relations with other Religions "Religions, however, that are bound up with an advanced culture have struggled to answer the same questions by means of more refined concepts and a more developed language. Thus in Hinduism, men contemplate the divine mystery and express it through an inexhaustible abundance of myths and through searching philosophical inquiry. They seek freedom from the anguish of our human condition either through ascetical practices or profound meditation or a flight to God with love and trust. Again, Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it teaches a way by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination. Likewise, other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men." This section clearly states that there is Truth in these faiths and indeed that the Church holds them in reverence.
2) Muslims specifically. "The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.
Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom."
So this is the starting point of the modern Catholic attitude towards other religions, one of tolerance rather than condemnation. Later documents (which I have yet to dig up since all my books are in boxes) point to the possibility of salvation for those of other faiths. You can find this document at the vatican website (http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html). More to come if and when I find it.
Also please note that I have not included scripture passages because they are sighted in the vatican document.
3) You never answered my question. Why dores God need a starship... no wait that wasn't it. Oh right. Did someone teach you to interpret the scriptures and discern the spirit, or were you magically born with this ability?
Later skater,
JRB
Now, the interesting part of all the religion talk above is the "lets just all get along" mindset. (God didn't do that in the old testament, he wiped out women, children and animals to stop out sin. I wouldn't say he was being 'tolerant'.) I guess since all religions can achieve heaven, I could worship satan and get into heaven, right? After all, he was in heaven at one time and has a more direct connection to heaven than Budda, or Mohommad. If there's no line to draw, then all should be taken in right? Are you really sure any road can make it into heaven? If that's the case, why bother giving us the ten commandments? or did Moses make that up? And why didn't Jesus say, "just be good people and you can enter heaven. Or don't be and you can still make it into heaven." If we can all get in, what is HELL for? Athiests only? Can I really go around and say that "I believe in Jesus, give me all your money or else!" and be a Christian?
One way Gentleman. "the way the truth and the life" This is what he taught his desciples. Not this garbage the Catholic church is spewing out. Tolerance? Tolerance leads to hell and eternal separation from God. Those who preach it will be judged severely. Doesn't anyone need to hear the good news? Why bother?
Some who read and interpret Revelation say that the 'whore' that is mentioned there is the Catholic church. Given this stance of tolerance, this very well could be what he was referring to. Plus the St. Malacy predictions further shape a possible end times situation.
The entire Catholic faith has gotten away from what Jesus began. Jesus own words which pre-date any Catholicism do not lead us into tolerance.
You have confirmed one important fact though, your ability to interpret the scriptures is on no higher a plain that that of the Roman Catholic Church. If we have learned anything from the post-structuralist school of though (and there is indeed much to learn) it is that as Roland Barthes said in his famous text "The Death of the Author" that we all create a text when we read it. What this means is that the biases that we bring into the text we also take out of the text. This makes particular sense when you consider that in the United States there are now well over 1500 denominations of protestantism, all of whom claim to be interpreting the bible correctly. You see each of them comes to the text with a bias and thus find things in the text that fit that bias, thus they create the meaning of the text. Your example of the Roman Catholic Church as the Whore of Babylon is a nice example of people reading their Anti-Catholic bias into the book of revelations and creating that meaning out of it.
This is why the teaching authority of the Church is so important. Over the centuries teaching about the scriptures has been tested by some of histories greatest minds and continues to be tested to this day. This is called tradition (a concept few protestants are well equipped to understand) and it is useful in balencing out that ever present personal bias which can so easily distort a text and make it say, not what the author intended, but rather what the reader wishes to see.
Rat people of the world unite,
JRB
2) you ignored my entire rant to solely focus on how everyone can intrepret scripture and get something different from it. I'll get back to that in #3. For this though, you're right and having different views can assure us that where ever the truth lies, it cannot be hidden. If there were only one christian church and bad people ran it, the truth would get burried. At least this way, the truth is out there to be found.
3) You skipped this. "....no man goes to the father but by me." The holy scripture says you must believe, which means (in the original greek), 'place your faith in'. Islam denies that Jesus is God. I wouldn't call that faith. All other religions deny Jesus. That's lack of faith and the scriptures are clear about 'no man goes....'. Now, how do you justify this catholic stance of tolerance while acknowledging God's/Jesus's own words? What's the need for the great commission?
Here you are twisting our words quite alot so I suppose that clarification is needed. For the record I don't believe that all Muslims get into heaven, in fact I believe (as is taught by the Catholic Church), that while it is possible for these men and women to enter the kingdom of God, the further they are from the Church that Christ founded (i.e the co-ancient Catholic and Orthodox churches) the more difficult this becomes. For the record I also do not believe that all those who call themselves Christians will enter the kingdom of heaven, Christ said himself "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." (Matt 7:21).
So what is that will, again Christ tells us this when he talks about the greatest commandments "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?" 37 And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets." (Matt 22: 36-40). Thus if all the law and the prophets depends on these two commandments then it might be assumed that these are the two great questions that a man must face when he meets his maker.
Now most certainly even a man as intolerant as you can acknowledge that in every human being reside or even abides the image of God. In an elementary way then each man, whether or not he has heard the Gospel has a sense of Christ, since Christ abides within him as part of that image of God. Thus we can say, without too much stretching that all religions are in a sense an attempt to connect mankind with the one who imprinted the image of God on the hearts of all people. Of course these religions do hold everything in common, some are just plainly moving in a direction which does not fit with the gospel message, but nevertheless they seek the invisible God and in that quest all find him to some extent (since God is present in the world at all times, so trace of him must exist in all religions). This fact is exemplified by the presence in virtually every major religion of what is called "the golden rule", though many more examples exist.
Now we come to the question of the hour, ""I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me." (john 14:6). There are certainly a great number of people in the world who have never heard the Gospel or having heard the Gospel have had no ability to accept it because their culture forbids it, or even because Christianity is incompatible with the beliefs engrained in their culture, are these people damned as a result of their birth? Does God send men into this world with the explict purpose of damning them? I hope that Christians find this hard to accept. There is another option, Christ says he is the way to the father, how does one travel this "way". Christ answers this as well saying "He who has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me; and he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). What are these commandments, they are of course "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself" (Matthew 22: 37-39). How does one love God if one does not know God, Jesus answers this as well when he says "And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself". Loving your neighbor as yourself is an extension of loving God. Since this commandment is found in virtually all religions then we can conclude that those who act in this way are loving God as best as they can considering their circumstances. By keeping his commandments the assure themselves that they "will be loved by my Father" (John 14:21). Thus they walk the way.
Without explict knopwledge of the Gospels this is, of course, harder, but not impossible. If then, God can be mannifest in other faiths in some way, we cannot condemn them outright, but we can learn what God has put into them and learn from that.
Does this mean that we can ignore the words of Christ when he said "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything that I have commanded you" (Matthew 28 19-20)? Or course it does not, we must spread the gospel in hopes that everyone will one day have a full chance at salvation. At the same time we must not repeat the mistakes that we have already seen made. Much of the pain and suffering which plagues the Native people of North America and Australia lies in the fact that in order to spread the Gospel. missionaries felt it was appropriate to destroy native culture and religion. We see the ill effects of the destruction of these things to this day.
What then is the alternative? Learn, or study if you will, these cultures and when we understand their values and their beliefs we can present them with the Gospels in a way that acknowledges the presence of God in their traditional faiths, while adding the vlaues of Christ.
I am JRB and I approved this message,
JRB
and
"To answer your question, I can read. To answer it more correctly, I study it. I read the hebrew/greek text and the english translated words. You get closer to the truth when you do that."
Ok, let us go into the Greek and Hebrew, and test your claim that 'nothing has been unproved' and the corollary that 'the authors did not add their own twists to the stories'.
If I understand you correctly, all statements in the bible are to be treated as true, infallible statements of God. In this I am including statements of a theological, an historical, and a scientific nature. I do not question the theological truths contained in the Bible, but the scientific and historical areas are not so certain for me.
Bear with me if I make a few mistakes here, I do not have at hand my references for Greek or Hebrew translations.
In Genesis 1, which was written, incidently, later than the rest of Genesis and appended to the text, it states that God created a firmament (transliterated Hebrew is raqui'a IIRC) to separate the waters above and the waters below. The Hebrew word translated as firmament denotes an actual hard surface. However, the space program and other scientific pursuits have yet to find anything resembling a hard surface above the earth. This firmament is indicative of a 'three-tiered universe' which is spoken of from Genesis through the Psalms and into the kenotic passage of Phillipians 2:6-10, particularly 2:10. Guess what, the three tiered universe was part of the older Babylonian culture which was pagan and which the Isrealites picked up parts of when in exile. Is that not the author's adding their own twists, making the Bible untrustworthy? Or could it be a sign that there is some level of truth present outside of Judeo-Christianity?
Secondly, the Greek translation of the Hebrew for becoming pregnant is kataballo sperma, to throw down seed, and the term for barrenness is closely related to the term for a barren field. Add to this the belief, evidence by statements such as "Simon son of Jonah", and the various genealogies giving males the sole role of transmitting life, and one comes to an ancient belief that the entire new person was produced by the male and that the female was a 'field' to be planted in. This has been disproven by modern reporductive biology for humans which says that there is genetic material from both the mother and father, not the father alone. Does this mean that something in the bible has been disproved and thus the entire thing made untrustworthy.
Thirdly, it is common for people to expect that people more highly trained in something to be regarded as experts to those with less training in fields outside of Scripture study, such as in science, medecine, engineering or law. Would you trust your health to someone who had 'read medical books' or to someone who graduated from a MD program? I would argue that it is prudent to do the same with regards to Sacred Scripture. Both of us young gentlemen know an admittingly fallible priest, who has a doctorate in Sacred Scripture, who knows Greek and Hebrew, who studied in Isreal and who knows, since he reads the bible and knows the original languages, the bible at least as well as you do. We also know another priest who is a polyglot, as well as an evangelical Christian with more than one doctorate from non-Catholic institutions who knows both languages and would largely agree with us.
So you know, there are more ways of looking at the way to Heaven than the exclusivist "Christians only" (what exactly would a 'Christian' be I wonder?) or the syncretistic "Everybody gets in" - there can be a middle, 'inclusivist' position which states that salvation only comes through Christ, but that those who gain that salvation could possibly be non-Christian. In the scene of the Last Judgement in Matthew 25:31-46 Christ welcomes those who gave food to the hungry, clothes to the naked, etc. and rejects those who do not. In Matthew 7:21-23, Jesus says that saying 'Lord, Lord' is not enough to enjoy the company of Jesus, but doing the will of the Father. These suggest to me that doing the will of God is more important than being Christian, per se, although since Christ is the way, one does not get to Heaven except through Him. Since the will of God is best and easiest discerned by being part of a Church which has its roots in the Apostles of Christ and in His Word, this admits a greater plurality of people who can enter Heaven. Thus salvation extends beyond Catholicism and Orthodoxy to Protestant and even other faith communities - so long as they do the will of God, best exemplified and given by the teachings of Christ. This does not mean that 'everyone goes to heaven' but it does mean that the scope of divine providence is not limited to fallible human definitions of 'Christian' or 'faith' but to the perfect Mercy and Justice of God.
As to Mary being the Mother of God, this should be one of the more easy to understand names given to Mary.
Scripturally, Mary is the mother of Jesus.
Scripturally and a core Christian dogma is that Jesus is God.
Thus, but substitution, Mary is the mother of God. (replace Jesus with God)
To put it another way, to deny Mary as the mother of God, one is committing the Nestorian heresy. That heresy says that Jesus was only human and had a moral union with the second person of the Trinity. Thus, it denies the Incarnation by saying that God did not become man and dwell among us (Jn 1:14) or that the second person did not empty himself and become a slave who humbled himself and was obedient to death, even death on a cross (Phil 2:7-8). Thus, only a human died on the cross andthus the infinite satisfaction for our sins was not accomplished by Jesus since he would only be a man. However, it is a core Christian principle that Jesus was God in the second person of the Trinity, and that he was such from before He was born (Lucan infancy). Mary, although the mother of God, is not more divine, as she was a human person with human nature given a special divine grace to be pregnant with, deliver and raise the Messiah, while Jesus is a divine person who had human and divine natures and as such did become incarnate. Incarnate means 'become of the flesh', roughly, so to say God became incarnate in Jesus is to say He took on a human nature. That is a rough response as to Mary.
As to Catholicism convincing us that we can not have a one on one relationship - it does nothing of the sort, we are encouraged to have an active prayer life, read the scriptures and have relationship with God. However, Jesus ssent the disciples out two by two, and stated that wherever two or three are gathered He is present - that means there can be a community involved.
CR
So JRB and his Catholic church believes that as long as you're worshipping the hidden God, then obviously it must be the right one, since there's really only one. Therefore, any religion can work, as long as we only obey the 2 greatest commandments. Love God, and your neighbor. Worshipping Jesus was not part of your requirements and since some don't have Jesus as their religion, you've decided that he's optional. This is what protestants have feared about Catholicism for years. That it is was less Jesus oriented that it should be.
I'm starting my own religion then. I'm going to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Not taking from any one person, but steal from major corporations where no one but the company entitiy is hurt. I'm going to drink in excess (which many catholics already do), drive home drunk, pray to a shaft of wheat (my new religion symbol), write into my gospel that anyone that doesn't believe in this God should be anathama (Catholic cannon) or even killed (Koran), preach that anyone that follows my way will be granted 72 virgins in heaven (koran) become gods of their own (Mormons I believe), and not ask to be forgiven for sins, because hey, God forgives us all anyway.
Am I still qualified under Catholicism to enter heaven?
If you say yes, you're wasting your money, life and time at that school you're in.
Your religion is picking and choosing which rules to follow. That's the same as creating your own god. If God's not going to enforce his rules, then why would a perfect God give us instructions at all? If he's going to be wishy washy and change his mind, then he's merely human, not Godly. A perfect God is not vague. Nor are good parents. Children must know the rules or they'll act up. We're no different. God tells us we're dumb. We're sheep. Sheep are dumb to what's really going on around them. Sheep need rules, not vagueness.
I'm telling both of you, you need to know why there are protestant churches. And you shouldn't get the Catholic reasoning for it. Have you ever read up on ole Martin Luther?
For that matter, did you even know that Peter probably wasn't the first Pope as the Catholics claim? I don't even know why they say Catholism was the first Christian church, if Paul was preaching before Peter. He was busy killing Christians at one time. You tell me about Catholicism. Is this guy nuts?: http://www.historicist.com/articles2/peter.htm
To answer your question about those that have no opportunity to know Jesus, see the 10 commandments. Jesus is the 'new agreement', but if you never hear of it, you're bound still by the 'old agreement', because these laws describe who God is. It was written for all his creations, not only for those that believe.
So JRB and his Catholic church believes that as long as you're worshipping the hidden God, then obviously it must be the right one, since there's really only one. Therefore, any religion can work, as long as we only obey the 2 greatest commandments. Love God, and your neighbor. Worshipping Jesus was not part of your requirements and since some don't have Jesus as their religion, you've decided that he's optional. This is what protestants have feared about Catholicism for years. That it is was less Jesus oriented that it should be.
I'm starting my own religion then. I'm going to steal from the rich and give to the poor. Not taking from any one person, but steal from major corporations where no one but the company entitiy is hurt. I'm going to drink in excess (which many catholics already do), drive home drunk, pray to a shaft of wheat (my new religion symbol), write into my gospel that anyone that doesn't believe in this God should be anathama (Catholic cannon) or even killed (Koran), preach that anyone that follows my way will be granted 72 virgins in heaven (koran) become gods of their own (Mormons I believe), and not ask to be forgiven for sins, because hey, God forgives us all anyway.
Am I still qualified under Catholicism to enter heaven?
If you say yes, you're wasting your money, life and time at that school you're in.
Your religion is picking and choosing which rules to follow. That's the same as creating your own god. If God's not going to enforce his rules, then why would a perfect God give us instructions at all? If he's going to be wishy washy and change his mind, then he's merely human, not Godly. A perfect God is not vague. Nor are good parents. Children must know the rules or they'll act up. We're no different. God tells us we're dumb. We're sheep. Sheep are dumb to what's really going on around them. Sheep need rules, not vagueness.
I'm telling both of you, you need to know why there are protestant churches. And you shouldn't get the Catholic reasoning for it. Have you ever read up on ole Martin Luther?
For that matter, did you even know that Peter probably wasn't the first Pope as the Catholics claim? I don't even know why they say Catholism was the first Christian church, if Paul was preaching before Peter. He was busy killing Christians at one time. You tell me about Catholicism. Is this guy nuts?: http://www.historicist.com/articles2/peter.htm
To answer your question about those that have no opportunity to know Jesus, see the 10 commandments. Jesus is the 'new agreement', but if you never hear of it, you're bound still by the 'old agreement', because these laws describe who God is. It was written for all his creations, not only for those that believe.
Not exactly. I said it was all true. In Genisis, when Satan says "surely you will not die"... he's lying, but it's the truth, that he said it. So there are lies in the bible, but the whole thing is true. You have to read it as literature to get it.
"In Genesis 1, which was written, incidently, later than the rest of Genesis and appended to the text,". Right off, you're claiming something you can't prove. I've never heard some one claim this. The oldest copies we have of the old testament have always shown consistentcy from what I've read.
About your Firmament question: If you're trying to describe how a cloud stays in the sky, one way to do it is to imply that it is held up somehow. To hold up something, you'll need a solid item. Since they could barely comprehend fire back then, I'm sure they couldn't properly describe why a cloud floats. As far as the other culture is concerned, the babylonian culture only came about 500 or so years BC. The old testament writings were around long before that so I'm doubting your statement about who got what from whom. Even if the Jews could have borrowed a term from them, when you write, you have at your disposal every word you ever heard. If PHAT describes someone better than 'a unique individual' would, then I'd use PHAT if I thought people would understand it easier.
Now, instead of taking apart your other two or more questions, I'd like you to know that any apparent discrepancy you can find, can be suitably explained. All of them have fairly simple solutions. I may not know them all, but I have yet to find one that can't be explained by someone. Every time one comes up, there's always been a suiteable answer.
Do yourself a favor scripture wise:
Look up the christian research institute. This guys got a national radio show where he takes all callers with all questions. You should see if you can stump him. Hank Hannegraph - http://www.equip.org/
I think one of the biggest reasons why catholics are catholics is that they don't have the faith in the scriptures after all these years through language changes, translations, perspectives, lost documents etc.. It just doesn't have to be that way. You dont have to trust a flawed sinner (priest) to get to know your God.
Thanks for proving my point for me. The point being that you are a close minded bigot WASP who perspective is unable to account for anything outside the narrow view of hate he has adopted. You sir, did not refute my argument, rather you made a bogus statement where you attempted (might I say rather poorly to mock Catholicism. Your example makes no sense and what you describe clearly fails to live up to the two greatest commandments.
I do by the way know a thing or two about Martin Luther, for instance that he was quite right in criticizing the Church over indulgences and that he was a sincere seeker of reform. I also know that it was never his intention to break up the Church. You see what Luther did not understand was that in the age of the printing press his ideas would be taken by German nobility, who were tired of paying tithes to Rome and used to create their own Church. This was never his intention, but he was too foolish to notice this.
For the record the old covenant was only for the Jews, while the New Covenant was extended to the gentiles as well. But thanks for coming out with that lame explanation.
If you want to talk about religions picking and choosing rules, look at what Protestant denominations say about divorce and compare that to the words of Christ.
And finally, the Father and the son are one, they are united in the Trinity T-R-I-N-I-T-Y, doing honor to one is to do honor to both.
Do svidanya durak,
JRB
There you go again, throwing out points without references. Divorce? What's your point?
It doesn't matter what Martin Luther intended. He was right. He proved the Church was not correct, not doing the will of the father. I view church breakups as preservation of the truth. The truth carries on while the lies get left behind.
The old covenant wasn't just for the jews. Do you think God only makes his law for those that follow him? If we don't follow him, we're not bound by any rules when we die?
The truth will always come off as hate if you don't like it. Tolerance is evil. God doesn't want us to tolerate sin, he wants us to repent from it. Never does he preach tolerance.
The catholic church is loaded in man made tradition like the Jews were when Christ was born. They couldn't see out of it either. God's true "church" (which means 'group of believers' by the way) is all Christians, not the catholic church. I noticed you side stepped the Peter issue too.
Jesus is the only way to heaven.
Salt.
What Christ says about divorce "But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery" (matt 5:32)and Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; 12 and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery." Mark 10:11-13 and Luke 16:18.
The Evangelical Luthran Church of America says (a typical Protestant position) "When the question of the remarriage of a divorced man or woman arises, the church and the individuals themselves will do well to concentrate upon the potential of the new rather than the collapse of the former marriage. A clear understanding of the dynamics which led to the breakdown of the first union helps a person prepare more adequately for the second. A divorced man and woman, of course, should fulfill all legitimate obligations to the members of the broken family." http://www.elca.org/dcs/sex.lca.html
Are these consistent or picking and choosing?
You say "The old covenant wasn't just for the jews. Do you think God only makes his law for those that follow him? If we don't follow him, we're not bound by any rules when we die?" Read the text, the Jews are the chosen people who were bound to God. The sign of this is circumcision, among all of the people of the earth God chose them and in the time of Moses made a covenant with them at Sinai. This was not for all people. "Now therefore, if you will obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my own possession among all peoples; for all the earth is mine, 6 and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation. (Exodus ) and "Then he took the book of the covenant, and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, "All that the LORD has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient." 8 And Moses took the blood and threw it upon the people, and said, "Behold the blood of the covenant which the LORD has made with you in accordance with all these words." (Exodus 24: 7-9) Sorry Bob, the old covenant, she is a single nation exclusive agreement with the Jews, they keep His commandments they become his chosen people.
News flash, every Church is loaded with Man made traditions, some are older, some are newer, but all are man made. Let's at least be honest, Lutherans, Anglicans, Pentacostals, Baptists etc etc etc are all human institutions all have human traditions and all are flawed. To argue otherwise is Hipocracy and foolishness. Catholicism is the oldest and many of the traditions are clearly tracable to the early Church. Alot has of course been ad
My point was that the break up of the Church under Luther was a political action, it had nothing to do with keeping the truth, it had alot to do with German Nobility trying to get out of paying taxes to Rome. Political. Though let us reflect on two ideas of Martin Luther, the First: Sola Scriptura or The Scriptures alone, what in the Bible support the idea that the Scriptures should be the only authority? Sola Fides or Salvation by Faith Alone, in direct contradiction to the scriptures which clearly state: What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? 17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. 18 But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 19 You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe--and shudder. 20 Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren?" (James 2:14-20) and "You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone." (James 2:24). Luther called James the Epistle of Straw. Why? Because it contradicted him, is this not picking and choosing? Odd eh?
Now I'm serious, the rest is silence,
JRB
What you wrote about the Lutheran church, (which I've never studied) doesn't contradict what you quoted Christ saying. It merely addresses the world today (that gets divorced and remarries) and speaks to them about their prior obligations (children), and says that you should figure out why your first marriage when bad, so that you can keep from going through divorce again. Looks to me like they're trying to keep people from getting divorced at all. It has nothing to do with picking and choosing.
I don't know any non-Catholic churches that bless divorce.
2) If God only wrote law for Jews, are you saying he cared nothing for the rest of the world? Did he not want them to worship him as well? It will be hard for you to tell me that God only gives law to those who follow him. He created us all, not just some of us.
3) good points about traditions.
4) "what in the Bible support the idea that the Scriptures should be the only authority?" Well it's the only thing God gave us that has the fewest imperfections (some say it is perfect.) Many have a hard time relying on an imperfect man to lead churches, when we see them being corrupted and flawed as they are. How do you trust a man to give you your religion when you know how capable he is of making mistakes? The bible indicates that the Holy Spirit educates you as you go and that is where you should get your theology. If you believe that there is a Holy Spirit, why shouldn't this perfect source be the teacher?
5) I never called Luther 'the man', meaning he had all the right answers. But he did have his points. 95 of them. Faith and works go hand in hand, but you can never have works before faith. It is clear that you cannot earn your way into heaven. If you have faith (meaning you believe in God) but do not have works (are fruitless), then you really have no faith to begin with. You just claim you do. The bible speaks of vines that have no fruits and what happens to them.
Picking and choosing. there are many churches that have sprung up because of this kind of picking and choosing. They grab onto a concept from one paragraph of the bible and start their own religion. This doesn't make them right. What I'm saying about picking and choosing is that you have to take into consideration the entire bible to draw your conclusions about God, not just a paragraph.
I have some answers or comments about your dual Genesis creation stories problem. I'll be posting them soon.
2)Yes, He created us all. But if one is referring to the Old Covenant, if it was made with all the nations of the earth, then why did God command the Isrealites to conquer and kill the majority of the inhabitants of the tribes located in present day Isreal when they were led into the promised land after the Exodus from Egypt? Surely He cared for the Philistines and the Canaanites. Why does the Old Testament contain motifs such as Isreal being a harlot to God's faithfulness, or the common name given to God being "the God of Abraham, of Isaac and of Jacob(renamed Isreal)?"
3) I am glad we agree about traditions, and that the traditions of the Catholic and Orthodox churches have an historical basis in the early Church.
4) The Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is written in the words of men in history. For us, who are in the twenty first century now, and who, say, have never been farm workers of any sort, and who have a different knowledge base than those of the time of Christ, it can lead to error to read the Bible without respecting the cultural context out of which the Word developed. One can go into the Greek and Hebrew text, but to learn the words, let alone the idioms and figures of speech requires using flawed human beings to tell you what those idioms are and what they mean in themselves, let alone to the text. For example, reading that Christ told some fishermen to lower he nets again and in doing so they caught 153 fish means less than what it should if one does not understand that at that time, there were only 153 fish known to the fishermen of that area, and so the message that "I will make you fishers of people" carries a much more universal ring than if one does not understand that fact. But that is far from obvious, someone, beit a priest or the author of a book on ancient Greek.
How do you judge - you look for consistency between what is being said and what you read, you seek out alternate sources. You mention the Holy Spirit leading one to the Truth in the Bible. The Bible tells us that there are people who also receive the Holy Spirit, and it specifically mentions the Apostles, Paul and others. But, since the Holy Spirit can work through men as well as text, can not the Holy Spirit also educate and give you theology through leders in the Church such as Bishops, successors to the Apostles, and their helpers, Priests? As Paul says in 1 Cor 12:4-11, the Spirit gives different charisms, or gifts, to different people. Not all are given the gifts of wisdom or knowledge or faith or healing or prophecying or tongues or interpreting tongues. Later he asks if we are all given the charisms of apostles, prophecy, healing or administration (vv. 27-31). But it is still the case that there are some people who are given the gift of wisdom to teach the faith - for us, those are the Bishops. To sum up, the Holy Spirit can work through people as well as text. You say people can make mistakes, but a person can make mistakes in reading the bible without direction.
4)I would say we largely agree that faith without works is dead and the former does not exist without the latter.
Yes, it is important to take things in context, and for Christians, all of us, it is important to remember that the context is not complete unless seen with 'Resurrection eyes", meeaning that it is important to remember that the Old Testament is to been seen pointing towards Christ.
CR
anlashok:
1) Your right. So why do preachers continue to marry people? This little issue with forgiveness. Which is worse, to show how unforgiving our churches are, or to forgive as many times as Jesus told us to? You've forgiven your boy loving priests, why shouldn't assume that God would also forgive those that commit adultry? All sin is black and no sin is more important to God.
2) God is God. You can't change his characteristics to suit yourself. If he wants one of us to obey, then a perfect God wants us all to obey. It doesn't matter if they never heard of it or not. we're all judged by how we live. If Jed lives on the moon with 4 others and kills them all for fun and never acknowledges that there is a higer power, he's going to hell. Jed lived for himself, and was his own god. He never stepped away from his sin or his selfishness. Same for those that die worshipping Zeus, but lived what we call a good life. Why would either of those people be in heaven? Why is there a hell and lake of fire if we can all go?
4) not exactly. A) the bible indicates that many outsiders will never understand it and B) the bible says that God will lead you into its understanding.(Which is why you don't need your Priest to tell you how to live.) About your fisher story: it doesn't matter. Gods word is relevant for people today. It doesn't make beans toward salvation by knowing that there were 153 fish back then. What matters is that God reveals himself through patient reading of the scripture. He's between the lines as much as in the words. The only time the storys factual minute detail matters is when an unbeliever trys to disprove it.
Yes Priests have the ability to teach scripture. No doubt. But you have to balance that with the fact that the priests are human and come with flaws. They make mistakes. Take your teaching from them, fine, but measure it against your own study. And beware when they appoint themselves to lofty church positions. Any baptist preacher can have the same status as the Pope. The Pope can't forgive sins and neither can the Baptist Preacher. Forgiveness can only come from the one that was offended. The fact that they tell people they are forgiven and the way they deal it out, is misleading their followers.
Of course one should be forgiven for adultery, but there are two sorts of adultery being considered here (not that either one is more or less sinful, per se). The first is the John and Suzie get married. John, on a business trip, meets the attractive Joanne and has sex with Joanne. Thus, John should be forgiven once he makes restitution to all involved, most notably Suzie. The second is if, after marrying validly, John and Suzie divorce (which ends many legal but no spiritual bonds) and John then remarries to Joanne (Joanne is not his wife - see Jn 4:16-18). At this point, forgivenenss can be given, but only if John makes restitution to Suzie for every time he commits adultery with Joanne in that legal marriage. Also, since he is living as if he was completely married to Joanne, he demonstrates an obstinancy towards the moral law surrounding marriage and as such he is purposefully ignoring the moral law. If someone purposefully ignores the moral law on theft, or murder, should they be continually forgiven? From your comments that Islam is demonically inspired, and that people should be given overflowing forgiveness, should not the Islamic people be continually forgiven for obstinantly denying the divinity of Christ? As to the priests, forgive them, yes, so long as they make restitution to the victims, remove them from public service, and allow the authorities in to deal with them.
3) You make two comments in this paragraph which are interesting. You claim that "we are all judged by how we live" and that one who "lives the [morally, I presume] good life" would not go to Heaven without belief in God (implication). I ask, which is it? Is it that we live by the law written on our hearts, as St. Paul tells us, and are judged on that if we have not heard the law, or that belief in Jesus Christ is necessary in addition to following the inner law? In Romans 2:12-16, this is spoken of, and it says that "It is not those who hear the law who are just in the sight of God; rather, those who observe the law will be justified" (v13) I am not saying that those who do the will of God but who do not believe in Christ will get to heaven, but I think it is presumptuous for us to say that a given person or group will go to hell.
Yes, God wants us all to obey Him, but my comment was directed at the comment about universal Love from God in the Old Covenant. If that was the case, why does the all loving God command murder and genocide for non-Isrealites? Why kill the Egyptian army instead of blocking its path? Why command the Isrealites to show no mercy towards the occupants of the promised land if God loves all people, including those who turn away from Him? He does love those who turn away since, before the creation of the world, the salvation of humanity had been planned by God in the form of Jesus Christ who, while being equal with God, did not regard that equality as something to grasp; rather, He emptied Himself to take the form of a slave, to come in human likeness, to share in everything with us except sin, to humble Himself and to die for our sins, even death on a cross.(modelled on Phil 2:6-8) The Incarnation is the event in human history where God shows His love for us, all of us (there is not gentile or Jew, servant or free, woman or man in Christ Jesus). Do not we, as sinners, turn away from God? Can he not love someone simply because they have not heard His word but they do His will? Can He not pay all who work for Him the reward of Heaven whether they are Christian from the earliest moments of their lives, like the workers in the vineyard in the morning, or Christian from the last moments of their lives, like the workers hired with litle time left in the day? If you are given the gift of heaven, would you not be like the angry all day workers who is angry at the generosity of the landowner when you yourself have been given a just wage? (Mt 20:1-16)
4) a) Since you are presumably a Gentile and the bible was written for Jews, by and large, can you be sure that you understand it?
b) If one does not need a priest to learn the moral law, and one only needs the guidance of God to live a moral life, then why do we let parents control the lives of their children? Surely God will work directly with children on the moral law without the need for mediators between the child and Christ, without the need for parents.
Whether you like it or not, God works through people, including priests and preachers, to make His kingdom known to us. Even if 'every man is his own Pope', God works through that flawed human being to bring that flawed human being closer to Him. You can not escape that.
Patient reading is quite important, as is 'reading between the lines' and thus focusing on the theological truths involved rather than the scientific or historical elements. However, if all one has is the Bible, then one has all one needs for salvation. However, one can not be certain that one's personal interpretation of the text is correct since, while the Holy Spirit guides us, we are also sinful and may read what we want to read. A tradition which gives us the lives of holy people, the errors and mistakes people have made, the core elements which are not negotiable can be a significant aide to correct interpretation. Otherwise, we would have sects claiming to this day that Jesus was not divine, others that He was not human, others that major sins can not be forgiven, just to name three of many.
5) What makes you think that Catholics think priests make no mistakes? There are lay groups which think that the hierarchy are making mistakes when then condemn abortion, homosexuality, and premarital sex.
Also, lay Catholics are encouraged to study the Bible on their own. I will admit that Protestants have done some things better than Catholics have done in recent times. Bible study (insofar as knowing the words of Scripture), fundraising and hospitality are three of them. But that does not mean we are not fixing ourselves.
A Baptists preacher can not be the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Vatican City-State, sorry.
Again, you can not escape that a sinful person who can make mistakes is involved whether it is a priest or a given individual reading the Bible.
Also, it is not the priest or bishop who forgives - it is Christ acting through that minister who forgives.
However, since any time one sins, one damages the Body of Christ which is the community of believers, and one must atone to all who are harmed, would you say that public confession should be the norm? Ask God and ask your community, and thus every other local community of believers for forgiveness before you are forgiven?
CR
Muhammad (PBUH)was not to bring anything new but he was to complete the same old mission from God for good. therefore , you cannot be a muslim if you do not believe in other prophets. All prophets brought one message to the Children of Adem from Adam to Muhammad. please study before you make such comments. please do not go on hurting people with baseless statements.
I wish i could go in details but I do not think that it will make any difference. please don't disgrace Jesus(peace be upon him).
Everything Mohammad did was new and inconsistent. Mohammad was no different than any other dictator. He started wars just like the Catholics did and used religion as his source of inspiration.
If Jesus is a prophet of yours, and Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life, and no man goes to the Father but though me", why then would you follow the instructions of another man 600 years after the fact, that taught that war, and fighting and his own laws were superior some how? Jesus taught humility, love, grace and everything opposite to war. Mohammad brings hate, death and lies. These are the exact characteristics of Satan.
And another point about Islam. Does anyone EVER tell the truth? Your own clerics say they can lie if it's used in promotion of Islam. Is Allah a liar? Allah must be a liar, since you aspire to be like him, no?
Surely you will not argue the point that there is only good and evil. Look at the things Jesus said and were said about him and compare that to the teachings of Mohammad. These are complete opposites. No matter how you defend Mohammad, you cannot say that the teachings of Jesus were anything but good.
So which is good and which is not?
Islam reminds me of Catholicism from the early days. It's so primitive. Depending on how long it lasts, some day there will be a reformation of Islam that will usher in truth and reveal the oppression inherent in it.
FYI, Jesus loves you. He died specifically for you. Mohammad would not and did not give his life for you. I've read that no place in the Koran does it say that you are loved.
Islam and the Koran are deceptions created by Satan to draw people away from God.
I want more details of Quran & Bible
i segest the no one should say any thing about any religion before reading the three holy books bible, torah and quran then he can deside why we are living on this planet and been givin the life.
one thing for sure that we are way to smart to belive that we have been borned in this life just to eat,sleep and play.
i will read about islam,,,,