Jump to content


"Not a true Christian"


Recommended Posts

Marcion was an interesting guy.

 

Later on he was branded as a heretic, he thought that the god of the Old Testament was not worth worshiping.

 

He'd get no argument from me on that one.

 

Which god of the Old Testament... El or YHWY ???

 

I don't know if Marcion would have differentiated. Doc Hypothesis was way later.

 

Must find this out now...

 

Edit..

 

Woops, foot in mouth. Should have remembered that. Damn, been a couple years since I read about all the early Christian sects. He did differentiate.

Link to comment

Constantine would be offended that all his dedication and work were for naught if he heard this

 

Unfortunately for Constantine, he died before the pope sanctioned a "bible" of canon written in Latin.

 

However Jerome was not an original thinker, and had put his collection together with the help of many others including Augustine.

 

He also put an emphasis to include all the books he had already translated into Latin.

 

Further, the Latin Vulgate Bible wasn't even totally completely official until the 1500s. It took more than a millennia for the Church to agree on ONE Bible.

 

The various denominations can't agree on which books should be included to this day.

 

And no Bible is complete without the Book of Tobit!

 

Or the Gospel According to Thomas...but then, after reading said gospel, it's understood why it was left out when the government and churches were putting together a definitive "bible"--the most accepted takeaway from the Gospel implies that one doesn't need a church or organization to worship God, as well as the propagation and protection of nature (which God created) is also a way man can worship the Lord.

 

Also, let's remember that the Roman Catholic Church, for the longest time, did not want its followers to actually read the Bible, and that the Vatican was, at one time, persecuting those laymen who dared learn to read and read the Bible for themselves and those that could not do so themselves.

 

In short: The Bible and its creation wasn't originally meant for mass consumption--it was meant as a means of rhetorical control by the church, and is a tool still used to this day.

Link to comment

Can I ask why Jesus is depicted as a white guy with long flowing hair and blue eyes.... when we would have been an Arab?

 

That is because paintings of him started to appear around the time of the renaissance. The major painters of the time were Da Vinci, Michelangelo & Caravagio among others (the Dutch Painters, Rembrandt etc). So the depictions are abviously going to look European. I think from there many in Europe place their own traits on him so as to feel closer to their God.

 

I think most believe today that Jesus had Jewish traits that include dark skin, Curly black hair and more ethnic facial features of the jewish population. It is a progression as the west realizes the differences more and accept this to be true chuckleshuffle

Link to comment

Most who knock it havent read it , and you just proved that ...however you were given FREE CHOICE ...so carry on ...

Nope, but I have read enough to know that many Christians don't understand the book they claim to live by. Either that or they willfully discard the parts that don't fit in with their perception of their religion. Like I said before, believe what you wish to believe, but understand why you believe it and where that belief originated - if it is not yours.

 

All too often the most knowledgeable people on the Bible are ex-Christians.

 

Here's an article to back that up. http://articles.lati...survey-20100928

 

Although I wonder if it has more to do with Christians who actually get into the composition and history of the Bible tend to either be liberal Christians or ex-Christians.

 

It's like the old joke. Question: How do you stop believing in the bible? Answer: Read it.

'Free Choice' really is not part of the Christian concepts. Free will can not coexist with a 'divine plan.' It can't really be a choice if the outcome is already known to someone. Unless you want to get into the theories that every choice made by each person splits off into another parallel universe and there really is a 'multiverse instead, and thats really getting out into fringe science.

 

Just because he knows you are going to do it doesn't mean you don't have the choice to do it. For example if you are thinking of robbing a bank he knows what choice you are going to make. That doesn't mean he intervenes and stops you, he allows you to make that choice. He still knows what you are going to do though. ;)

Link to comment

Can I ask why Jesus is depicted as a white guy with long flowing hair and blue eyes.... when we would have been an Arab?

 

That is because paintings of him started to appear around the time of the renaissance. The major painters of the time were Da Vinci, Michelangelo & Caravagio among others (the Dutch Painters, Rembrandt etc). So the depictions are abviously going to look European. I think from there many in Europe place their own traits on him so as to feel closer to their God.

 

I think most believe today that Jesus had Jewish traits that include dark skin, Curly black hair and more ethnic facial features of the jewish population. It is a progression as the west realizes the differences more and accept this to be true chuckleshuffle

 

jesus.jpg

 

Possible face of Jesus, based on on research.

Link to comment

Can I ask why Jesus is depicted as a white guy with long flowing hair and blue eyes.... when we would have been an Arab?

 

That is because paintings of him started to appear around the time of the renaissance. The major painters of the time were Da Vinci, Michelangelo & Caravagio among others (the Dutch Painters, Rembrandt etc). So the depictions are abviously going to look European. I think from there many in Europe place their own traits on him so as to feel closer to their God.

 

I think most believe today that Jesus had Jewish traits that include dark skin, Curly black hair and more ethnic facial features of the jewish population. It is a progression as the west realizes the differences more and accept this to be true chuckleshuffle

 

jesus.jpg

 

Possible face of Jesus, based on on research.

 

I saw that show and that is what a jew in Jesus's time may have looked like. So though it may be possible i would say it has some of Jesus's traits and no this face per say. :wasted

Link to comment

Can I ask why Jesus is depicted as a white guy with long flowing hair and blue eyes.... when we would have been an Arab?

 

That is because paintings of him started to appear around the time of the renaissance. The major painters of the time were Da Vinci, Michelangelo & Caravagio among others (the Dutch Painters, Rembrandt etc). So the depictions are abviously going to look European. I think from there many in Europe place their own traits on him so as to feel closer to their God.

 

I think most believe today that Jesus had Jewish traits that include dark skin, Curly black hair and more ethnic facial features of the jewish population. It is a progression as the west realizes the differences more and accept this to be true chuckleshuffle

 

jesus.jpg

 

Possible face of Jesus, based on on research.

 

I saw that show and that is what a jew in Jesus's time may have looked like. So though it may be possible i would say it has some of Jesus's traits and no this face. :wasted

Link to comment

Can I ask why Jesus is depicted as a white guy with long flowing hair and blue eyes.... when we would have been an Arab?

 

That is because paintings of him started to appear around the time of the renaissance. The major painters of the time were Da Vinci, Michelangelo & Caravagio among others (the Dutch Painters, Rembrandt etc). So the depictions are abviously going to look European. I think from there many in Europe place their own traits on him so as to feel closer to their God.

 

I think most believe today that Jesus had Jewish traits that include dark skin, Curly black hair and more ethnic facial features of the jewish population. It is a progression as the west realizes the differences more and accept this to be true chuckleshuffle

 

jesus.jpg

 

Possible face of Jesus, based on on research.

 

I saw that show and that is what a jew in Jesus's time may have looked like. So though it may be possible i would say it has some of Jesus's traits and not his face. :wasted

Link to comment

This is wrong. That is all.

 

This post is lacking detail. That is all.

 

Please explain what is wrong, and what the correct information would be.

 

 

The Pope is not, nor ever has been, Jesus' representative on the Earth, speaking for Him and on His behalf. This is not supported or substantiated by scripture.

 

St. Peter is said to be the first pope, even though he did not go by the official title pope. I probably don't have to tell you this, but Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and told him to build and run his church more or less. The pope is basically just the successor of St. Peter, this is why it is said they are the Jesus' representative or the Vicar of Christ. Being a Catholic myself, I do not believe that the pope is infallible like the Catholic church claims. The pope is a human and no human (other than the Lord) is infallible. Not even the apostles were infallible, which is why St. Peter denied knowing Jesus thrice times.

Link to comment

In short: The Bible and its creation wasn't originally meant for mass consumption--it was meant as a means of rhetorical control by the church, and is a tool still used to this day.

 

Or it was meant for mass consumption by God the Father, while man did everything in his power to use it for personal gain but failed to compete with God's plan.

 

 

The authority of the Pope is Roman Catholic dogma, and I am not a RC.

 

My point about the Pope was that if he declared a Bible in 400 CE... then for the western church that was the Bible.

 

Any other collection of books was just that... a collection of books.

 

 

I wasn't criticizing you or claiming anything against you, just pointing out the inaccuracy of the theology surrounding the Pope; you never made clear whether or not you believed it was accurate.

Link to comment

St. Peter is said to be the first pope, even though he did not go by the official title pope. I probably don't have to tell you this, but Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and told him to build and run his church more or less. The pope is basically just the successor of St. Peter, this is why it is said they are the Jesus' representative or the Vicar of Christ. Being a Catholic myself, I do not believe that the pope is infallible like the Catholic church claims. The pope is a human and no human (other than the Lord) is infallible. Not even the apostles were infallible, which is why St. Peter denied knowing Jesus thrice times.

 

 

I'm aware of the history of the Pope and the Catholic church; what I'm not aware of is the scripture that backs such a wild idea, because there isn't any.

Link to comment

St. Peter is said to be the first pope, even though he did not go by the official title pope. I probably don't have to tell you this, but Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and told him to build and run his church more or less. The pope is basically just the successor of St. Peter, this is why it is said they are the Jesus' representative or the Vicar of Christ. Being a Catholic myself, I do not believe that the pope is infallible like the Catholic church claims. The pope is a human and no human (other than the Lord) is infallible. Not even the apostles were infallible, which is why St. Peter denied knowing Jesus thrice times.

 

 

I'm aware of the history of the Pope and the Catholic church; what I'm not aware of is the scripture that backs such a wild idea, because there isn't any.

 

Matthew 16:13-19 is the scripture reading as to why they believe the pope is the Vicar of Christ. But no, it does not actually say the pope is Jesus' voice on Earth. Im sure some Catholics believe he is and some don't.

Link to comment

St. Peter is said to be the first pope, even though he did not go by the official title pope. I probably don't have to tell you this, but Jesus gave St. Peter the keys to heaven and told him to build and run his church more or less. The pope is basically just the successor of St. Peter, this is why it is said they are the Jesus' representative or the Vicar of Christ. Being a Catholic myself, I do not believe that the pope is infallible like the Catholic church claims. The pope is a human and no human (other than the Lord) is infallible. Not even the apostles were infallible, which is why St. Peter denied knowing Jesus thrice times.

 

 

I'm aware of the history of the Pope and the Catholic church; what I'm not aware of is the scripture that backs such a wild idea, because there isn't any.

 

Matthew 16:13-19 is the scripture reading as to why they believe the pope is the Vicar of Christ. But no, it does not actually say the pope is Jesus' voice on Earth. Im sure some Catholics believe he is and some don't.

 

 

I can't even express how irresponsible it is to form such weighty and impactful areas of doctrine based on one small area of scripture -- this is what cults do. I always find it humerous that the Catholics decided to focus so much on Matthew 16:13-19 where Jesus calls Peter the "rock on which to build his church", yet ignore Matthew 16:23 where Jesus calls Peter Satan :lol:

Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...