Voltaire X
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 551
- Reaction score
- 206
- Location
- New York, New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
Actually I think celibacy for priests is Biblically supported.
I accept your factual statements regarding the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy. Jesus never said anything about such a system.
However, the only "bible" existing at the time of Jesus was the Hebrew Torah. There was no such thing as a "New Testament." That was a collection of writings of various followers, including a few of his apostles, but mostly writers who came well after his passing. Then these testimonies were severely edited by the Catholic Church, through councils (like the Council of Nicea) of Bishops and other church leaders. What was collated as "correct" was called the "New Testament," while all the rest was set aside and labeled "Apocrypha" (statements or claims considered of dubious authenticity).
Sooo, you denounce the Catholic Church, but you accept the "New Testament" that they created as a valid guide for what Jesus said?
umm.. how can the church founded by the top dog of the 12 apostles to Jesus Christ himself be a corruption of Christianity?
the idea that the pope is top dog comes from Peter.... he founded the church in Rome, he was the first Pope, right hand man to Jesus... the Bishop of Rome was ,from then on, the head of all of Christianity... it's called Petrine Authority.
this authority stems from scripture... Matt 16:17-19.. the continuance of this authority through subsequent generations is found in Is. 22:20-24
some of the Dogma formed through the centuries is a bit off to me, but I surely don't see the Catholic church as being a corruption of Christianity.. that's absurd.
well, to be fair, the "system" is found in scripture... Isiah and Mathew to be specific.... both of which are ancient Jewish composite authorship scriptures
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
No - it's not absurd. Peter was never a Pope within his lifetime. He was only later declared to be a Pope (much later). To put it simply: the established leaders of the Catholic Church decided it sounded like a good idea to declare things came directly from Peter considering his relationship with Jesus.
Peter's connection with the Catholic Church is only found if you take "Peter's actions in life - and then followed them - and followed them - and eventually you arrive at how they had some sort of a long-distance hand in developing the Catholic Church"
Apparently it worked wonders when people, now, consider it absurd to think otherwise. But it's just an appointed belief that was given to him long after his death.
The Catholic Church outright declares the Jesus Christ founded it himself - nevermind Peter.
I accept your factual statements regarding the Catholic Church and it's hierarchy. Jesus never said anything about such a system.
However, the only "bible" existing at the time of Jesus was the Hebrew Torah. There was no such thing as a "New Testament." That was a collection of writings of various followers, including a few of his apostles, but mostly writers who came well after his passing. Then these testimonies were severely edited by the Catholic Church, through councils (like the Council of Nicea) of Bishops and other church leaders. What was collated as "correct" was called the "New Testament," while all the rest was set aside and labeled "Apocrypha" (statements or claims considered of dubious authenticity).
Sooo, you denounce the Catholic Church, but you accept the "New Testament" that they created as a valid guide for what Jesus said?
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
The Bible is supposedly the word of God. While it was physically written by men, the Christian belief is that God was speaking through these men, Old and New Testaments both. Also, I'm an atheist so I don't "accept" any of this, but I am just thinking about things from a Christian perspective (I am a former Catholic)
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
the Episcopal Jurisdiction of the Catholic church is called " the Holy See" or "See of Rome" which was founded by Peter.... Peter was the very first Bishop of Rome.( yes, while he was alive)
know who else is the Bishop of Rome?... every single pope, or person that holds petrine authority, since Peter....coincidence?
now, primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all of Christendom is another matter...at the very least , he was concerned equal to the other bishops of other churches founded by Peter ( through epistles).. but that was settled later ,when the Bishop of Rome was consider the "universal" Bishop, mostly in honor of Peter, the founder and top apostle to the big guy
Catholic, the word.. is derived from a greek word... which means "universal"...the universal Bishop of the universal church... coincidence?
anyways. it is absurd to say the catholic church is a corruption of Christianity.. it was ultimately formed by the top apostle to Jesus Christ..who was, indeed, the acting Bishop of Rome at it's inception.
the title "Pope" didn't come around until the 10th century ( it means "father").. so of course Peter wasn't called the Pope.. he was simply the Bishop of Rome.. a title that has remained unchanged since Peter held it...every person in succession after Peter has held the title of Bishop of Rome
of course, atheists and agnostics find all of this absurd...so, meh.
There is nothing about the Pope in the Bible. The idea that the Pope has some sort of divine interpretation of the Bible that every follower of Christ must follow is beyond ridiculous if you actually read the Bible, and is itself a sinful concept (the concept that one man's interpretation trumps all others). There is absolutely nothing about the entire hierarchy of the Catholic church in the Bible and nothing about any of the customs and rituals that are associated with it (such as celibacy for priests). The will of one man is not always the will of God. The Pope is subject to the same temptations that Judas was subject to.
I am denouncing the Catholic Church on the most basic theological grounds. The teachings of Christ encourage the idea that each man should read the Bible himself. If God is what the Bible purports him to be, then he would ensure that his followers are able to understand his teachings.
just curious ... have you seen some stats on literacy rates from 2000 years ago?
my understanding is that it may have been pretty difficult for most people to read the bible themselves.
The Biblical support for the papacy can be found in Matthew 16:18. But it is wrongheaded to think that the Bible is the sum total of Christian faith. After all, the Church predates the Bible by about 300 years. So it is totally wrong to call the Catholic Church a corruption of Christianity, since the Catholic Church is Christiniaty.
It is much more accurate to say that all other branches of Christiantiy are corruptions of the Catholic Church, although that wouldn't be very polite. But it would be true.
ummmm .. I am an atheist and I don't find it absurd. What you are saying fits with my understanding - although I did think the term "pope" originated earlier than that, but know that I may well be wrong on that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?