Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

[JudgeRightly]

Beautiful post! :up:

Thank you.

and then above all, we can trust the bishop of Rome the Pope, Peter's successor as supreme pastor of the whole Church here on earth.
All we'd really need, if we demanded such evidence, is the unbroken chain of popes,

On the contrary, The Bible never mentions any position called "the pope." Bishops, pastors, deacons, etc, sure. But "pope" is not a biblical position.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Thank you.



On the contrary, The Bible never mentions any position called "the pope." Bishops, pastors, deacons, etc, sure. But "pope" is not a biblical position.

Indeed. Matthew 23:9 goes even further saying

"Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One"

This passage is obviously meant spiritually. And yet the Pope or Papa calls himself the "Father", the assumed embodiment of Gods Kingdom on Earth which is an extremely blasphemous misinterpretation of scripture bearing in mind the "Pontiff" or Pope was the Pagan high priest in ancient Rome.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Have you read any of the others?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I have a cursory familiarity with them from an academic point of view but have never read any of them end to end and feel no need to. I dont consider any of them to be divinely inspired so their use outside of an academic perspective is minimal to me.

 

[Idolater]

...The Bible never mentions any position called "the pope." Bishops, pastors, deacons, etc, sure. But "pope" is not a biblical position.

The Bible never mentions masturbation, pornography, or abortion either. And meanwhile, the Bible does emphasize Peter's special place as the supreme pastor of the whole Church on earth. The Apostle John, in writing his Gospel account, after Peter had been murdered for his witness to Christ's Resurrection, even provided more evidence of Peter's place of prominence among Christians than had already been set forth in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, depicting him as an especially strong man, and one to whom the Lord said, "Feed my sheep" three times.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Kinda hard to accurately judge a book without reading it.

I have a cursory familiarity with them from an academic point of view but have never read any of them end to end and feel no need to. I dont consider any of them to be divinely inspired so their use outside of an academic perspective is minimal to me.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

The Bible never mentions masturbation, pornography,

It does mention sexual immorality and lust of the flesh, and calls both a sin.

or abortion either.

It does mention murder and life in the womb, calling the former a sin and crime, and the latter it calls sacred.

And meanwhile, the Bible does emphasize Peter's special place as the supreme pastor of the whole Church on earth.

And yet, it still calls him an "Apostle."

The Apostle John, in writing his Gospel account, after Peter had been murdered for his witness to Christ's Resurrection, even provided more evidence of Peter's place of prominence among Christians than had already been set forth in Matthew, Mark, and Luke, depicting him as an especially strong man, and one to whom the Lord said, "Feed my sheep" three times.

None of which makes him "pope."

Jesus tells the twelve that they will rule on twelve thrones for the twelve tribes of Israel. He did not say Peter would be above the others, but equal.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Kinda hard to accurately judge a book without reading it.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Using that same logic, one would have to experience drunkenness or being high off drugs to be able to condemn both, or read a Satanists bible to be able to condemn it for being wicked.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So you've never heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover".

You would rather assume a thing and comdemn a people out of ignorance and heresay?

Using that same logic, one would have to experience drunkenness or being high off drugs to be able to condemn both, or read a Satanists bible to be able to condemn it for being wicked.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfCaleb]

Kinda hard to accurately judge a book without reading it.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Not in the slightest. I dont need to read Mein Kampf to appreciate its a book that doesnt interest me. Same way i dont need to read gnostic material or any other religious material i deem spiritually unsuitable. I think im suitably educated and sensible enough to make that choice.

 

[popsthebuilder]

So you are suited to deem things not of GOD without even reading them.

Not in the slightest. I dont need to read Mein Kampf to appreciate its a book that doesnt interest me. Same way i dont need to read gnostic material or any other religious material i deem spiritually unsuitable. I think im suitably educated enough to make that choice.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[SonOfCaleb]

So you are suited to deem things not of GOD without even reading them.

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

Yes. As i said already i believe the Bible to be directly inspired by God himself. EG the God of the Bible Jehovah. Therefore i read it.

All other material that are deemed secularly as sacred text i deem not to be inspired by God. As the Bible says plainly these are inspired teachings from the demons as per 1 Timothy 4:1

However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons

Therefore -as ive said already- outside of academic purposes i feel no need to read them.

 

[Idolater]

It does mention sexual immorality and lust of the flesh, and calls both a sin.

But it doesn't mention masturbation or pornography.

It does mention murder and life in the womb, calling the former a sin and crime, and the latter it calls sacred.

But it doesn't mention abortion.

And yet, it still calls him an "Apostle."



None of which makes him "pope."

Where 'pope' = supreme pastor of the whole Church on earth, yes it does.

Jesus tells the twelve that they will rule on twelve thrones for the twelve tribes of Israel. He did not say Peter would be above the others, but equal.

Peter is equal. The Church has always called him and his office 'first among equals,' which merely means that in all things, all bishops are equal, except wherever there is some advantage gained by one of them being first in the line, and the Church has always honored Peter thusly.

 

[JudgeRightly]

But it doesn't mention masturbation or pornography.

It doesn't have to, because both of those fall under lust of the flesh, and pornography falls under sexual immorality as well.

But it doesn't mention abortion.

It doesn't have to.

Abortion is murder of innocent babies in their mother's wombs.

The Bible says murder is a sin and a crime.

Therefore, abortion is wrong, and can be condemned using the Bible just as murder can.

Where 'pope' = supreme pastor of the whole Church on earth, yes it does.

Peter is equal. The Church has always called him and his office 'first among equals,' which merely means that in all things, all bishops are equal, except wherever there is some advantage gained by one of them being first in the line, and the Church has always honored Peter thusly.

All of this is moot, because it ignores the fact that Peter was the head of the church of Israel prior to God cutting her off, and grafting in the Gentiles, after which the term "church" came to refer to the Body of Christ, not the believers in Israel.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

All of this is moot, because it ignores the fact that Peter was the head of the church of Israel prior to God cutting her off, and grafting in the Gentiles, after which the term "church" came to refer to the Body of Christ, not the believers in Israel.

Peter was never the head of the governing body that was established by the Apostles in Jerusalem after Christs ascension and thus not the head of this "the church of Israel" you speak of. All 12 of the Apostles were considered 'peers' of each other. There was no one leader. In fact Jesus chatised them at Mark 9:33-35 when the Apostles were shamely arguing among themselves as to who was the greatest Apostle:-

33 And they came into Ca·perʹna·um. Now when he was inside the house, he put the question to them: “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34 They kept silent, for on the road they had been arguing among themselves about who is greater. 35 So he sat down and called the Twelve and said to them: “If anyone wants to be first, he must be last of all and minister of all.”

If Peter was in fact the head of the 12 and thus the Christian congregation as some Christian denominations claim the argument that was recorded in Mark between the 12 nor Jesus admonition wouldnt have been neccessary.

Jesus alone is the head of the Christian religion and thus the Christian congregation.

 

[SonOfCaleb]

It doesn't have to, because both of those fall under lust of the flesh, and pornography falls under sexual immorality as well.



It doesn't have to.

Abortion is murder of innocent babies in their mother's wombs.

The Bible says murder is a sin and a crime.

Therefore, abortion is wrong, and can be condemned using the Bible just as murder can.



All of this is moot, because it ignores the fact that Peter was the head of the church of Israel prior to God cutting her off, and grafting in the Gentiles, after which the term "church" came to refer to the Body of Christ, not the believers in Israel.

1) Who do you believe the so called Pope to be appointed by?

2) Do you know 'how' the Apostles were appointed and why?

Not trick questions. Just trying to understand the 'depth' of your position/reasoning.

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes. As i said already i believe the Bible to be directly inspired by God himself. EG the God of the Bible Jehovah. Therefore i read it.

All other material that are deemed secularly as sacred text i deem not to be inspired by God. As the Bible says plainly these are inspired teachings from the demons as per 1 Timothy 4:1

Therefore -as ive said already- outside of academic purposes i feel no need to read them.

So what is the criterea you use to accurately determine if a book is inspirired by GOD or not without even reading it?



Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

So you've never heard the expression "don't judge a book by it's cover".

You would rather assume a thing and comdemn a people out of ignorance and heresay?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

I'd rather not give something which is condemned by the Bible even the opportunity of obtaining a foothold in my thinking.

I can rightly condemn the satanic bible because it has the word "satanic" in its title, because Satan is another name for Lucifer.

 

[JudgeRightly]

So what is the criterea you use to accurately determine if a book is inspirired by GOD or not without even reading it?

Sent from my Moto G (5) Plus using Tapatalk

The Bible says that the oracles of God were committed to the Jews. That means everything in the Bible (not the RCC Bible). Nothing else.

 

[JudgeRightly]

1) Who do you believe the so called Pope to be appointed by?

Are you talking about the pope himself? Or the office of pope?

2) Do you know 'how' the Apostles were appointed and why?

Not trick questions. Just trying to understand the 'depth' of your position/reasoning.

The twelve Apostles were chosen by Jesus, handpicked. Then Judas Iscariot betrayed Jesus and then killed himself, so in Acts 1:15-26 the remaining 11 cast lots to choose another. The lot fell to Matthias, and so there were 12 again, for the twelve tribes of Judah.

 

[freelight]

some points to consider..........

some points to consider..........

Titus and Timothy are identified in Sacred Scripture as bishops, and Paul wrote epistles to them both.

Hi Idolator,

The Pastorals are pseudographical, so not sure what their veracity really is, beyond later pastoral commentary ascribed to Paul within some ecclesiatical context.

Beyond that, we know of a variety of named bishops in the earliest Church, and then above all, we can trust the bishop of Rome the Pope, Peter's successor as supreme pastor of the whole Church here on earth.

Some of those bishops have forged letters (Ignatius, etc.) and some of the records are pretty sparse or patchwork quilt within the first few centuries, before records were kept better with the growing church state, its theology and politics being more developed and histories kept.

All we'd really need, if we demanded such evidence, is the unbroken chain of popes, who are all bishops, and we don't have any reason to think that bishops were consecrated through any other means that the sacrament of Holy Orders, the imposition of hands, performed by bishops.

Thats a traditional presumptive catholic view

Today, we have all the infallible and authoritative teachings on matters of faith and morals, as taught together by all bishops who are in communion with the Holy See, and we don't have any reason to think that any of it originated from anybody else but the Apostles themselves.
There is no reason to suspect that Holy Orders as practiced today, and as depicted in the Bible, has been anything other than that, in between then and now.

see above.

There's really no reason, outside of skepticism bordering on cynicism, to suspect that today's bishops aren't the bona fide successors of the Apostles.

Its not just cynacism or criticism so much, as to the bolstering of claims that are more presumptive, biased and self-serving to keep the churche's status legitimate. I have no problem with an 'apostolic succession' tradition per se, even Gnostic and some protestant churches claim some kind of 'apostolic succession',...I just dont see this concept proving that the RCC has any exclusive or abosolute right or proof to claim this clause for itself.

While I agree with the characterization of the Eucharist as 'communion' and 'nourishment,' I disagree that it originated with Paul, since Christ Himself clearly instituted this sacrament, recorded for us in three different Gospel accounts.

I see no proof that it originated with Jesus, since Paul claims he received the rite thru 'personal revelation' from the Lord himself,...so its possible it was retro-posited back into the gospels written later and put in the mouth of Jesus. For Paul it seems he got it in a mystery-religious motif of ingesting a god's flesh & blood to bestow some divine power or life to believers. Jesus himself if a real Jewish rabbi, would NEVER condone drinking a man's blood, and this concept is NOT Jewish, but a pagan, mystery-religion concept, even if we assign the 'blood' and 'water' allegorical or esoteric meaning or significance. Jesus the JEW would never institute a eucharist, unless he was a gnostic-mystic of some kind, using it as mere metaphor. The writer of John, a hellenist continues the theme of flesh, water and blood, but such is a deviation from the Jewish Jesus of the earlier gospels, as Christianity took opportunities to innovate itself among its various sects.

See my former posts in the UB thread on 'blood atonement' here (linked posts too) - also Edgar Jones has an interesting article on the Eucharist originating with Paul here.

f Christ's Resurrection is fictional and not historical, then the Bible itself testifies that the whole faith is bunk, so I've got to disagree with you here.

Well, if its fictional or actually took place within an actual time on earth, who can know or say? The 'story' is still interpreted by a believer subjectively, and interpreted thereby. It comes down to faith and HOW a person or community interprets and applies the information, as far as any religious meaning or value is concerned. Again, I'm all for the positive contributions of religion, even organized religion, but recognize the negatives as well, and uphold an optimistic progressive eclectic view in religious, philosophic and scientific studies. I think these 3 catagories can work together in their synthesis as complementary towards a holistic theology and worldview.

While there's nothing wrong with, and it may in fact be laudable, seeing Christ's Resurrection in this way BEYOND its importance as a fact of history, it is not Christian to see it only in this way.

I gather that most rational traditional christians accept both a literal and figurative interpretation of scripture and special events in the story of Jesus as being historically true, as actually having happened to a flesh & blood man named Jesus. Debate over whether a gospel-version of the man Jesus existed, and parts of the story were embellished continue, as well as if a purely mythical Christ view is more logical or feasible. ( mix of the two is more probable it seems).

I'm exploring these, and do not know, beyond what I can see the story symbolically represent, its patterns, meaning and archetypes, as I allow the 'Christ' to be formed within me, moving on in my own religious journey and spiritual experience, as the divine wills it. I recognize life is a co-operation of sorts, we are all co-creators in that sense, not only molding our own experience and destiny, but affecting the collective as well. Not to get too 'meta' there