|
Post by jerry58 on Nov 17, 2013 0:25:31 GMT
This is my first post on this forum and I respect the right of choice of religious beliefs. I would like to present some facts in relation to widely held beliefs and dogma. Lets start with a simple question and answer. How do you choose your faith? Here in Ireland you do not, it is chosen for you. How? being born in Ireland your parents and their parents were Catholics. Ergo, you "became" a Catholic, not by choice but by geographical location. Does this mean that you are are a member of "the one true faith"? Let us use two yard sticks to test if you do indeed belong to "the one true faith" (Ephesians 4:5) The Bible and historical FACTS. If anyone with an open mind studies the Bible they will see a huge gulf between it and Catholic dogma. I will just throw a few spanners in the works, disprove them if you can. The core Catholic belief in a trinity, does the Bible support it? Absolutely not! History shows that the Babylonians believed in a triune "god head" If I ask a Catholic who held the title of first pope, the answer I will get is "Peter". False, the first pope, Pontifex Maximus was none other than Julius Caesar, fact. Nowhere in the Bible is the term "God All Mighty" associated with Jesus. When Jesus asked the apostles this question : "Who do you say I am?" the answer given, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" Fact. After the resurrection, Jesus said "I am going to your Father and MY Father, to your God and MY God" Fact. If you were to tell the apostles that Jesus was God All Mighty, they would be shocked. So what is the Holy Spirit? In Koine Greek, "Pneuma" Consistently the Bible shows that the Holy Spirit is God All Mighty`s active force. Was Mary, the mother of Jesus ever virgin? False. Jesus had 3 brothers and at least 2 sisters, and what about it? Idolatry? condemned through out the Bible, yet practised to an extreme by Catholics and other self professed "Christians" Fact. John the apostle wrote : "Little children, flee from idols" Fact. Many apologists have tried to make a case for image worship. Fact, the Bible states : "We walk by faith, NOT BY SIGHT" Was Jesus born on "Christmas Day"? When Jesus was born there were shepherds out doors tending sheep. Go to Palestine in December and try spending a night out doors! The 25th of December is the date used to celebrate the pagan festival, Saturnalia, the rebirth of the Sun. Fact. No one knows for sure when Jesus was born. Historical fact, the founder of what today is known as the Catholic church was the pagan Roman emperor, Constantine the "Great". He convened the council of Nicea which led to the false belief in a trinity. What happens when you die? Well there are those who say that your "soul" either goes to Heaven or to Hell (Sheol) The Bible tells it differently, read Ecclesiastes 9 : 5 to 10. To put it plainly, what is the opposite of life? The answer is obviously death. A complete cessation, "From dust you were made and to dust you will return" God`s words, not mine! Did Jesus institute a clergy class? No! "All you are brothers" food for thought? Prayer, Jesus cautioned his followers, "Do not repeat the same things over and over"? If you are unaware of this Biblical fact then I see no point in explaining the pagan roots of "rosary beads" The Bible consistently urges people to pray to God All Mighty, Catholics and other denominations pray to anyone and everyone bar God! Fact. If you can disprove any of the above using the Bible, History and common sense, then I will listen. Finally I pose this rhetorical question, if catholic priests can exorcise demons, why can they not get rid of rampant paedophiles? "By their fruits, you will know them" (Jesus Christ)
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 18, 2013 20:53:55 GMT
To start with, it would be interesting if Jerry 58 would say where he is coming from - is he Unitarian, atheist or some other belief? It would also be helpful if he would give sources for his statements rather than apparently assuming that whatever he has picked up on the Internet is true, and if he would think things through instead of jabbing out a lot of disconnected "facts" and supposed prooftexts. Here are a few points which will give an indication of his reliability: (1) The doctrine of the Trinity is not specifically Catholic as he implies; it is held by most forms of Christianity.
(2) The Babylonians were polytheists who believed in a wide range of gods; I suspect Jerry or whoever he got this stuff from has picked out the three chief ones and presented them as a Trinity, which they are not in the sense of being three Persons in one God.
(3) The title "pontifex maximus" did not originate with Julius Caesar, although he held the office; it was very much older. The title was taken over by the emperors as a way of sacralising their office until a Christian emperor conferred it on the Pope. The fact that the Popes adopted the title "pontifex maximus" as a sign of the triumph of the new religion over the old does not mean that the two were identical, any more than the fact that the title "Defender of the faith" was originally conferred on the English monarchs by the Pope "proves" that the English monarchs are Catholics.
(4) The title "Pope" is separate from "pontifex maximus" - it was a title of honour used for the senior patriarchs of whom the Pope is the most senior. The Coptic Patriarch of Alexandria still calls himself a "pope" and he has never had the title pontifex maximus.]
(5) If you are going to quote the Bible, you might note that when Jesus is questioned by Caiaphas he describes himself as "I AM" - Caiaphas immediately tears his garments and accuses him of blasphemy, because his use of I AM in this context implies a claim to be God (God describes himself as I AM to Moses). There are quite a few other texts in the Gospels which present Jesus as God.
(6) The phrase "brothers and sisters" was also used to refer to cousins, as is the case in many societies where extended families are important. The "brethren of Jesus" who rebuke him in the gospel do not use the deference that younger brothers would to an elder in that society, which suggests they are not Jesus' younger brothers (they might be cousins/uncles, or stepbrothers by an earlier marriage of Joseph). [ADDENDUM - If Jesus had younger brothers, why did he entrust Our Lady to St John - the son of Zebedee - rather than to her younger children?]
(7) Idolatry is the worship of images as God. We use images as reminders of God and of His Grace as worked through Our Lady and the Saints, we do not worship the images, nor do we worship Our LAdy and the saints except as channels of God's grace through whose deeds and words we understand what God wants for us.
(8) IT is not a matter of faith that Jesus was born on December 25th; it is based on deductions made centuries later. We celebrate the fact that Jesus was born, not that he was born on a particular date. A date in the depths of winter powerfully celebrates the Light who came to save us from the darkness of sin.
(9) We walk by faith, but we strengthen that faith by the proper use of our senses, of which sight is one. We also strengthen it by the use of our reasoning faculties, and I suggest that Jerry should go away and learn the proper use of those faculties instead of stumbling around in the darkness of ignorance and vainglory.
(10) Constantine was quite displeased at how Nicaea turned out, because he saw the dispute over the Trinity as interfering with his desire to use the Church as an arm of his civil service. He favoured the semi-Arians and was baptised by one. The fact that the doctrine of the Trinity was defined at Nicaea does not mean that no-one believed it previously; it was already held and that was why Arius made such a song and dance about denying it. So Jerry's quasi-Arian position is closer to Constantine than we are.
(11)Jesus appointed 12 apostles and 70 helpers from among the disciples, and these were the first bishops and priests to whom he gave the power to bind and loose and to make Present His sacrifice. There is no contradiction between all being brothers and between their having different tasks and duties assigned to them.
(12) In order to cast out demons one must have faith and purity, without these a validly ordained priest will fail miserably to cast out demons, not because his ordination is not valid but because he has not lived up to his calling. The same goes for all those vices to which we are tempted by demons, paedophilia included.
(13) Ecclesiastes is part of the Old Testament before God's revelation was completed. Jesus and St PAul who came after Ecclesiastes clearly promise the resurrection.
Now that I have answered you using the Bible, history and common sense I suggest you go away and study those desirable things instead of insulting the intelligence of the other members of this board by assuming they do not know the answers to your questions. I also suggest you learn some manners, and learn how to present your text in a more reader-friendly manner. This is your first warning.
|
|
|
Post by jerry58 on Nov 19, 2013 11:17:25 GMT
Thank you for your warning, duly noted.Being the cynic that I am, I take no offence at my suggested lack of intelligence. Now I would like to reply.I would first like to point out that had you read my post intently then you would have seen that I do not belong to any religious or anti religious organization You come across as an academic but on Biblical matters you go against the teachings of Jesus, in his time his name was Joshua, in Hebrew Yehoshua. You still indulge in idolatry,if you read your Bible the fact of making idols is as serious as using them.2 Corinthians 6 : 16,17 "And what agreement does God`s temple have with idols?"...."Therefore get out from among them" The "trinity", "There is the recognition on the part of exegetes and Biblical theologians,including a constantly growing number of Roman Catholics,that one should not speak of trinitarianism in the New Testament without serious qualification.There is also the closely parallel recognition on the part of historians of dogma and systematic theologians that when one does speak of an unqualified trinitarianism, one has moved from the period of christian origins to, say,the last quadrant of the 4th Century" New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) Vol, XIV page 295. Now as for Jesus having brothers and sisters, Read Matt 13 : 53-56, the Greek word used in this passage for brothers is adelphoi, full blood brothers, for sisters, adelphai. You conveniently side stepped the scripture "I am going to my Father and your Father, to MY God and your God" Uneducated I may be,but I can read and unlike you, I can reason. You for all your academia threw the Hebrew Scriptures in the fire. You are picking parts of the Bible that you want. Have you not read 2 Tim 3 : 16? Ecclesiastes whether you like it or not comes under this statement. Your proof of Jesus being God All Mighty is sparse, to say the least, "I AM"? You sir, do not know your Hebrew, Yahweh or Jehovah, the Tetregrammaton translates as : "He Causes to Become" not "I am" Jesus is and all ways was, a created being, "You are My Son, the beloved" If you know your Bible then you will be familiar with this passage, "Through one man, sin entered the world, and with it, death" As for "soul" Hebrew nephesh,Greek, psykhe, Romans 6 : 23 "For the wages sin pays, is death" And praying for the dead is un -scriptural, Romans 6 : 7 "For he who has died has been acquitted from his sin" In passing, Mary`s five sons names are given in the Bible, Jesus,James,Joseph.Simon and Jude.I will finish on this note, the "soul", "There is no dichothomy of body and soul in the Old Testament. The Israelites saw things concretely,in their totality,and thus he considered men as persons,not as composites. The term nephesh, though translated by our word soul, never means soul as distinct from the body or the individual person... The term psyche in the New Testament,word corresponding with nephesh.It can mean the principle of life,life itself, or the living being" New Catholic Encyclopaedia,(1967)Vol. XIII, pages 449, 450.Just on a personal observation. "Christians" who profess belief in the teachings of the Bible and of Jesus, who said "By the love they have for each other, you will know them" Yet down through the ages these "Christians" slaughtered each other on battle fields, each citing God as their right! You say that I lack knowledge of Babylonian worship, their "trinity" consisted of Tammuz, Dagon and Ishtar. And strange though it may seem, the icon used by people known as a crucifix pre dates real Christianity. You obviously know your Koine Greek, what is the PROPER translation of stauros? Would Jesus and those who saw him die an agonizing death approve of people displaying the implement of his death? The only difference between you and I is that I am 100% sure where I go at death, a hole in the ground, you are not too sure.
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 19, 2013 14:48:36 GMT
"Would Jesus and those who saw him die an agonizing death approve of people displaying the implement of his death?" Yes, he would. "Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up, that everyone who believes may have eternal life in him." John 3:14-15.
There are any amount of texts in the Gospels that demonstrate Jesus was divine. The triumphal entry into Jerusalem is an obvious parallel of the Ark of the Covenant's entry into the same city, as is the in utero response of John the Baptist to the in utero Christ. "I and the Father are one" John 10:30 is a direct claim of divinity. "Why do you call me good? Nobody is good but God alone" (Luke 18:19) is another give-away.
Your comment about strife between Christians is adequately explained by the parable of the tares and the wheat.
Jerry, I can assure you that we've all heard these objections many times before, as well as the rebuttals to them. If nobody rose to the bait before Hibernicus, it was more in the spirit of "don't feed the trolls" than confounded silence. The only puzzle is why you even care. You don't say whether you believe in God or not. I'm assuming you don't. What difference does any of this make then?
|
|
|
Post by jerry58 on Nov 19, 2013 19:43:28 GMT
Well to answer your question, I honestly do not care. But I do like to point out facts, when I see fiction. This does not apply to religious matters alone. For instance in your first few lines you claim to know the mind of Christ? You say that you believe in the Bible, yet you do not know what it says. The Bible calls the implement of Christ`s death, "A thing of shame". If your best mate was stabbed to death would you wear a little knife around your neck? If, and it is a big if, you do believe the teachings of the Bible you must know that image worship is idolatry.Your second paragraph, where in the Bible does it state this parallel? Where did you get it? The John you mention was not a Baptist. He was a baptiser,the closest translation of the Greek word is "dipper" In the same paragraph you uphold the Bible fact of a non triune God. Jesus said that even he was not good compared to the Father. That is true humility and an acknowledgement of the Father`s supremacy. You say "strife" I and all reasonable people say "mass slaughter". Now using your quote of John 10 : 30, here I see two beings, if Jesus had a chance to prove the trinity it would have read, "I and the Father and the Holy Spirit are one"? So what did Jesus mean? His purpose and that of his Father were the same. After his resurrection, Jesus,(whom you claim to be God All Mighty) said "I am going to your Father and my Father, to your God and MY GOD" Did you not read the scripture, "No man has seen God at ANY TIME" It can not be plainer than that. The sad fact is that religion has caused so much death and torture. Do you believe that all professed Christians really love each other as Jesus ordered? If you do then that is your right. At the end of the day we all die and rot in the ground. "From dust you were made, and to dust you will return" wrap your head around this sobering, but inevitable fact. Down through the ages people with mental health problems like schizophrenia were burnt at the stake in the name of God. What about the past popes? the Borgias for example. Did you know that one pope dug up the corpse of one of his predecessors, sat the corpse in a chair and held a trial? I could go on but as I said at the start, I do not care what they did and still do. I care deeply for those who were and are still abused by the "clergy" Nuns made a fortune out of working young girls to death in their laundries. Have you identified Babylon the Great in Revelations? Heed the All Mighty`s warning, "Get out of her my people, lest you suffer her plagues"
|
|
|
Post by maolsheachlann on Nov 19, 2013 19:57:21 GMT
"Did you know that one pope dug up the corpse of one of his predecessors, sat the corpse in a chair and held a trial?"
Yes, I did know that. There have been bad Popes. But if you go through the list of Popes, any given Pope is more likely to be a good or even saintly man than someone like Alexander the VI. Considering the power they wielded (and still wield) this is extraordinary.
I think you are reading the Bible like a fridge manual or a leaflet that comes with prescription medicine. It's not. If you want to go by the word of Jesus, take his defence of immortality by quoting the words of the Lord to Moses at the Burning Bush. Jesus's exigesis of this passage is far from obvious and sets the precedent, for Christians, for an understanding of Scripture as poetic and rich with symbolism. The same can be said of his claim to rebuild the Temple in three days.
And you are missing the rich irony of the cross. The greatest humiliation and abasement imaginable became the greatest triumph. This is the reason the symbol of the Cross is so potent. It's true that the early Christians rarely used the image of the Crucifixion because they were closer to the gory reality, but it doesn't change the fact.
If you are right and we are deluded fools, none of this will matter in a billion years. But I sincerely believe that we do have immortal souls, that Christ is our redemeer, and I would humbly urge you to reconsider Christianity and Catholicism. Is it not the case that most of the very concepts people use against the history of Christianity and the Church-- the dignity of the individual, the freedom of conscience, the rights of women, and so forth-- grew out of Christianity? They were not notable in the ancient world and they have not been notable outside historical Christendom.
|
|
|
Post by Beelzebub on Nov 25, 2013 15:34:52 GMT
I have been following this battle with interest. The cast of characters involved is but three yet the content is fascinating. You have the aptly named Hibernicus, Latin name for Ireland, one that I can not pronounce, please excuse an Anglophile! This third character seems to be acting as the devil`s advocate. This third guy is the underdog in this Theological epic that would do justice to Cecil B De Mill. I have but one observation, the prophet Jeremiah was chucked down a well because the Jews did not like his message. You guy`s have done likewise to this guy, Jerry58, could you not have made him see the error of his way`s? Mind you, on close inspection he does throw a few curve balls at you guy`s and you ducked them.There are two items in the World that cause bitter rivalry, religion and politics,so I am out of here!
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Nov 26, 2013 12:10:33 GMT
Beelzebub does not know his Latin, the Latin used by Romans for Ireland is Hibernia, not Hibernicus.But that is neither here nor there. He is, however, correct in saying that I posed some straight forward questions which were conveniently ignored. Being banned for my posts only strengthens my belief that the catholic church is religion a la carte. I invite Hibernicus to an on line debate, using the Bible as the only authority to prove to me that the beliefs of the apostles and early christians are those held by the catholic church. I will start the ball rolling by asking a very relevant and proven fact. Why did the catholic church go to extreme lengths to stop people reading the Bible.I know the answer as do the catholic church, it is documented. The catholic church freely admits that tradition super cedes the Scriptures. To quote Jesus, "You have made the word of God invalid because of your traditions" end quote. So Hibernicus are you man enough to come out in the open and face rationality? Somehow, I doubt it.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 26, 2013 21:24:01 GMT
The reason why Jerry58, who I suspect is identical with JEremiah, was banned was that it takes time to reply to posts; I have a limited supply of time to answer namecallers and strawmen who are arguing in bad faith and without systematic thought. Jesus's statement refers to the specific traditions of the Pharisees, not to tradition per se. DO you think that because Jesus said "call no man father" it is sinful to call your own father Father? Your claim that the Bible alone should be the rule of faith amounts to skewing the debate in advance - it is adopting a Protestant principle of interpretation which whenever tried has produced doctrinal anarchy. Luther, Calvin and Co did not apply it themselves, as they went to considerable lengths to try to make the decisions of the first four (or first seven) General Councils binding on their followers, as these Councils decreed with authority on major doctrines which are only ambiguously expressed in the Scriptures themselves. THe interpretation of the Scriptures in the light of the commentaries of the Fathers and Doctors is an inevitable result of Jesus' final commitment to be with His Church until the end of time, which means that he preserves it from error when it teaches authoritatively. Pray explain which of Jerry's straightforward questions were ignored. I gave straightforward answers to them before I banned him, and those answers are on display in this thread for anyone who cares to look and judge for themselves. Calling yourself by a prophet's name does not make you a prophet, for Our Lord said in the Olivet Discourse which we heard at Mass last Sunday that false Christs and false prophets would arise who would deceive even the elect. You are not in that league. The Catholic Church did not go to extreme lengths to stop people reading the Bible; it warned against its being read without the proper notes and comments to explain ambiguities; the Reformers whom you claim to follow accepted that commentaries were necessary for they wrote them themselves. Anyone who reads mediaeval literary works such as Langland's PIERS PLOWMAN, or surviving mediaeval sermons, will find they show extensive knowledge of the Scriptures. First warning.
|
|
|
Post by Jeremiah on Nov 28, 2013 9:33:03 GMT
For all your acumen, you are no authority on the Scriptures or on history. Julius Caesar WAS the first Roman Emperor and holder of the infamous title, Pontifex Maximus. You are a devotee of Wikipedia, check it out. You might fool those who see you as a fount of wisdom and knowledge,but not I. You are basically saying that without the catholic church a person can not understand the Bible. What you really mean is that the catholic church wants people to have their own corrupt view on the Bible. You say that your institution did not go to extremes to keep the Bible from the people. Now I call burning at the stake for having a Bible extreme, why did they systematically hunt down those who translated the Bible in to various languages? As for my questions, you unashamedly avoided them. Quoting the resurrected Messiah (Hebrew, meaning:Anointed One of Jehovah")"I am going to your Father and my Father, to your God and to my God". Mary had five sons and at least two daughters, Quote from Jesuus :"Why do you call me good? for One is good, the Heavenly One" Ezekiel 18 : 4, King James version :The soul that sinneth it shall die". Why not be honest and just say that whatever the catholic church tells you, is truth as far as you are concerned? Quote from Jesus :"By their fruits, you will know them" Any unprejudiced person can prove that the catholic church is scarlet with the blood of countless millions. Do you deny the fact that so called catholic priests "blessed" bomber crews before they slaughtered fellow catholics in Germany? Do you really believe that Jesus and his Father go along with this? I asked you for the correct translation of the Koine Greek word, "stauros" no answer. The Romans were not wasteful, why use two pieces of wood when one would suffice? In Latin, "Crux Simplex" was the use of an upright piece of timber used by the Romans for executions. Your most potent symbol is just not idolatry,but has its roots in paganism. You are an apologist for an apostate sect which has vast numbers of former members leaving in ever increasing numbers. I ask , who is head of the church? You say the pope, the Bible says Jesus. If you knew the Scriptures you would see the vast gulf between the beliefs held by the apostles and those of catholicism. "For in the latter days they will forbid men to marry" Explain away this Scripture, as I am sure you will, search in Psalms, "For the meek shall posses the earth and reside upon it forever" I am sorry for those that see you as beyond reproach, the blind leading the blind. Trinity,immortal soul,easter, christmas,Mary worship, idolatry, crusades and inquisition to mention but a few, all have been practiced by the catholic church, and all of these, like it or not, have no Scriptural foundation. Yes, I have the modern name of the prophet, in Hebrew, Yirmeyahu, but like him, I put the word of God before that of man.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Nov 29, 2013 19:23:53 GMT
Julius Caesar was the first Roman Emperor, but he was not the first holder of the title Pontifex Maximus, and he held it before becoming emperor. I notice that you operate on the assumption that your interpretations of the Scriptures are self-evident and that any other interpretation must necessarily be "corrupt"; my contention is that there are passages in Scripture which are genuinely ambiguous and which can be resolved by taking the Church's interpretation of the overall sense of the Gospel. You are putting your own word - the word of man - before the word of God. How nice it is to be told that I am not an expert on history by someone who has described Hislop's THE TWO BABYLONS as a serious work of scholarship. As you appeal to the authority of Wikipedia, you will see that according to that work's entry on crucifixion the writings of the Apostolic Fathers (from the second century) describe Jesus as being crucified on a T-shaped cross, which is rather inconvenient for the JEhovah's Witness claim that this view was invented by the Emperor Constantine. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion It is true that people were burned in the Middle Ages for possessing unauthorised translations of the Scriptures - note the key word unauthorised. I must say I do not approve of this, but it is not the same as a blanket ban on translations. Members of the Church have committed crimes, that does not mean the Church committed them. The JW leaders have the blood of many on their hands through their prohibition of blood transfusion, which was an innovation even in the history of that sect. I never claim to be beyond reproach and I hope nobody harbours that illusion about me, but I try to use my God-given reason to the best of my ability. I will acknowledge error when I am convinced I was mistaken, but I won't be convinced by arrogant assertions that a view is true because you say so. Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin could have said that Jesus represented an apostate sect whose members were leaving in increasing numbers, because we are told that when Our Lord expressed his teachings many turned back and followed him no longer.
|
|