Zone1 The Greater Sin

[ding]

politics ruled is my point Meri

the 'bible' was their playground toward their agenda

all of it, to this day, is the 'word of God' through their filters

~S~

So massive conspiracy?

Can you show from a political/power perspective why certain texts were excluded?

 

[Meriweather]

politics ruled is my point Meri

the 'bible' was their playground toward their agenda

all of it, to this day, is the 'word of God' through their filters

~S~

I disagree. A lot of thought, research, and prayer went into choosing Canon. The Bible is a product of the Holy Spirit. As far as the writings that were left out...they are still available, they are still read. Some back up scripture. Perhaps I asked the wrong question? If so, what is it you object to that is in the Bible?

 

[sparky]

So massive conspiracy?

Can you show from a political/power perspective why certain texts were excluded?

First off, know that the term conspiracy is Latin for 'breath the same air' Ding.

This refers to folks that have a common agenda , which the Romans most certainly had.

The Roman empire was, back when on top of their game, the original borg in the sense that they assimilated any given culture ,country or people as long as they paid taxes to Rome

Unfortunately this was the underlying reason for their fall.......(history may be repeating, for those of you savvy enough to realize it)

But i digress, at the point where they got bored feeding Christians to lions , they decided to assimilate them into their society , under THIER terms

Realize there was no separation of church/state , they ruled as a unit....

Ergo, the council of Nicaea 325AD and on formed to decide specifics

This is, Mr Ding, bona fide Christian history ,as well as the reason fundamentalists crash and burn insisting every 'word' hails directly from our creator

~S~

 

[hadit]

There is misapprehension and confusion of what was happening in regards to indulgences and printing Bibles in the fifteen hundreds. Some bishops were misusing indulgences, and others within the Church (including Martin Luther) were insisting these bishops be corrected. There were poor translations (and parts being left out) of the Bible by printers, more concerned with profit than accuracy. The Church was trying to prevent this as well.

Beginning with Judas and Peter’s denial of Jesus, we face the fact that the Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of broken people. Sin should not—and does not—prevail against it.

Judas did not deny Christ. He left him and the other Apostles. Peter did deny Christ, but he did not leave him and the others. Who had the greater sin?

When Protestants left the Church, breaking apart the Body of Christ, this, too, is the greater sin. After five hundred years--since Jesus prayed we would remain one—why can’t we fix/heal it? Where is our miracle, the one Jesus asked of us? What steps can be taken to bring this miracle about? Where is our faith such a miracle can take place?

Why did the Catholic church separate from the Coptic and Orthodox churches that were founded long before Rome got involved? Is that not also breaking apart the Body of Christ and thus a sin of which to be repented?

 

[sparky]

Why are there some 3000 different religions on this rock all insisting THEY hail directly from their creator?

~S~

 

[Meriweather]

Why did the Catholic church separate from the Coptic and Orthodox churches that were founded long before Rome got involved? Is that not also breaking apart the Body of Christ and thus a sin of which to be repented?

They were still united when Rome involved itself. The Orthodox schism didn't happen for over five hundred years; the Coptics about a hundred years later over a dispute whether Jesus had a human nature; they said Jesus only had a divine nature.

 

[Meriweather]

Why are there some 3000 different religions on this rock all insisting THEY hail directly from their creator?

~S~

Because all of mankind hailed directly from our Creator.

 

[Meriweather]

But i digress, at the point where they got bored feeding Christians to lions , they decided to assimilate them into their society , under THIER terms

Realize there was no separation of church/state , they ruled as a unit....

Not exactly, no. The State government was influenced more by the Church, than the Church by the State. What I feel was the greater loss in the Church is that as the Bishops became more involved with the rulers of the State, they became became more distant from the people of faith (those in the pews, we might say).

Religion always figured into Roman government. Church and State was the way it was in ancient times. The State saw the power of religion and of course, did not want to lose that arm of power when large numbers of people were turning to Christianity.

 

[hadit]

They were still united when Rome involved itself. The Orthodox schism didn't happen for over five hundred years; the Coptics about a hundred years later over a dispute whether Jesus had a human nature; they said Jesus only had a divine nature.

The point being that the Catholic Church left the churches that were founded directly by the apostles. Let's not be so hasty to condemn Protestants for disagreeing with the corrupt Catholic church of the Middle Ages.

 

[Meriweather]

The point being that the Catholic Church left the churches that were founded directly by the apostles.

Are you lying or merely mistaken? The truth is that the Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic churches were ALL formed by the Apostles and have remained true to Apostolic teachings. There is no argument between all three churches about that. The division is over whether Christ has a human nature (according to Coptics, no; according to Orthodox/Catholic, yes. The division between Orthodox and Catholic has to do with wording (and differing definitions) of what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son or proceeding from the Father to the Son. Understanding how the word for proceeds is used in Greek and Latin clear up this misunderstanding.

 

[hadit]

Are you lying or merely mistaken? The truth is that the Orthodox, Coptic, and Catholic churches were ALL formed by the Apostles and have remained true to Apostolic teachings. There is no argument between all three churches about that. The division is over whether Christ has a human nature (according to Coptics, no; according to Orthodox/Catholic, yes. The division between Orthodox and Catholic has to do with wording (and differing definitions) of what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son or proceeding from the Father to the Son. Understanding how the word for proceeds is used in Greek and Latin clear up this misunderstanding.

The bottom line remains, the Catholic Church separated from the Coptic and Orthodox Churches over theology, which is what the Protestants did to the Catholics. You appear to condemn Protestants for doing so while accepting the Catholic Church for doing it. Why is it acceptable in your eyes to condemn one group for separating while accepting yours for doing the same thing?

The division between Catholic and Protestant lies in whether to adhere only to Scripture or to give church tradition the same authority as Scripture. Protestants do not want to layer manmade laws, regulations, and rules on top of the basic message of Scripture while Catholics appear happy to do so. I've often said that each generation needs to evaluate they've been taught against Scripture to see if it holds true, if it's something they need to adhere to, or if it's something that was valid at one time in a society that is not valid in this one. Example, I grew up in the Conservative Mennonite Church and wondered why they rejected musical instruments in church. That prohibition went all the way back to Menno Simons, who rejected the lavish, ornate orchestral productions of his day for simplicity, and to avoid making a lot of noise so they wouldn't be detected in worship and killed. That prohibition made sense in his day, not so much today. I don't see Catholics being willing to look at their traditions with that sort of skepticism.

 

[ding]

First off, know that the term conspiracy is Latin for 'breath the same air' Ding.

This refers to folks that have a common agenda , which the Romans most certainly had.

The Roman empire was, back when on top of their game, the original borg in the sense that they assimilated any given culture ,country or people as long as they paid taxes to Rome

Unfortunately this was the underlying reason for their fall.......(history may be repeating, for those of you savvy enough to realize it)

But i digress, at the point where they got bored feeding Christians to lions , they decided to assimilate them into their society , under THIER terms

Realize there was no separation of church/state , they ruled as a unit....

Ergo, the council of Nicaea 325AD and on formed to decide specifics

This is, Mr Ding, bona fide Christian history ,as well as the reason fundamentalists crash and burn insisting every 'word' hails directly from our creator

~S~

You seem to be arguing they cooked the texts so to speak. Where’s the evidence for that?

 

[Meriweather]

The bottom line remains, the Catholic Church separated from the Coptic and Orthodox Churches over theology, which is what the Protestants did to the Catholics. You appear to condemn Protestants for doing so while accepting the Catholic Church for doing it. Why is it acceptable in your eyes to condemn one group for separating while accepting yours for doing the same thing?

The Catholic Church did not separate from the other two...the other two separated. You prefer to look at it differently, but read the history. If you have followed me at all, you know that already, unification has occurred between Coptic and Catholics, and that baby steps are taking place between Orthodox and Catholic. I have always deplored this separation, because these three churches should be leading the way to unify all Christian Churches. The Catholic faith also is very supportive of Coptic and Orthodox cultural differences.

As far as Protestants...I've always said they should begin their own unification with the Protestant church that is closest to their own denomination. For example some Baptists might unify with other Baptists. Other Baptists are closer to the Calvinists. Can Lutherans unite with Presbyterians...etc, etc.

So no, I do not condemn. I call for us to respond to Christ's prayer that we may be one.

 

[Meriweather]

The division between Catholic and Protestant lies in whether to adhere only to Scripture or to give church tradition the same authority as Scripture. Protestants do not want to layer manmade laws, regulations, and rules on top of the basic message of Scripture while Catholics appear happy to do so. I've often said that each generation needs to evaluate they've been taught against Scripture to see if it holds true, if it's something they need to adhere to, or if it's something that was valid at one time in a society that is not valid in this one. Example, I grew up in the Conservative Mennonite Church and wondered why they rejected musical instruments in church. That prohibition went all the way back to Menno Simons, who rejected the lavish, ornate orchestral productions of his day for simplicity, and to avoid making a lot of noise so they wouldn't be detected in worship and killed. That prohibition made sense in his day, not so much today. I don't see Catholics being willing to look at their traditions with that sort of skepticism.

The traditions Catholics follow date back to the Apostles, not to any other group. Calling this "man-made" is a cop-out. It is a nice buzzword, nothing more--and as such means nothing. It has been my own experience that perhaps outside of Judaism, Catholics/Orthodox/Coptics are more invested in scripture than any Protestant denomination. Talk about irony, hmm.

 

[Donald H]

The traditions Catholics follow date back to the Apostles, not to any other group. Calling this "man-made" is a cop-out. It is a nice buzzword, nothing more--and as such means nothing. It has been my own experience that perhaps outside of Judaism, Catholics/Orthodox/Coptics are more invested in scripture than any Protestant denomination. Talk about irony, hmm.

Two very different parishes point to divisions in the church

Two Charlotte parishes illustrate a tension between parishes that see themselves as living out the legacy of Vatican II and those now known as rad trads.

uscatholic.org

Radical Traditionalists aren't prepared to accept Darwin yet, but they can't keep it up much longer and be able to stay with the church. They could be forced out, rather than break with tradition. The link above speaks of trouble brewing.

Permission to believe what they like isn't going to accommodate dogma such as the 'big fish' belief.

They are mainly silent on this board, with but one or two exceptions now. We're not allowing them to speak out on their traditional beliefs.

 

[hadit]

The Catholic Church did not separate from the other two...the other two separated. You prefer to look at it differently, but read the history. If you have followed me at all, you know that already, unification has occurred between Coptic and Catholics, and that baby steps are taking place between Orthodox and Catholic. I have always deplored this separation, because these three churches should be leading the way to unify all Christian Churches. The Catholic faith also is very supportive of Coptic and Orthodox cultural differences.

When you say "unify", do you mean unification of spirit, which is what Christ was talking about, or unity of forms and practices? That's a big difference, because those united in the Spirit don't care what name is on the church door as long as we're worshipping and following Jesus Christ. Are you instead talking about the other denominations joining with the Catholic church and they must change their forms and practices to align with yours? IOW, what does unification look like to you?

As far as Protestants...I've always said they should begin their own unification with the Protestant church that is closest to their own denomination. For example some Baptists might unify with other Baptists. Other Baptists are closer to the Calvinists. Can Lutherans unite with Presbyterians...etc, etc.

They are united in spirit as long as they all put Christ first. They don't have to all follow the same forms and practices.

So no, I do not condemn. I call for us to respond to Christ's prayer that we may be one.

You don't regard Martin Luther and the other priests such as Menno Simons and those who follow them as heretics and thus to be condemned? At least one of your compatriots on here does. What do your priests say about your fellow believers who are not Catholic? Are they equally part of the Body of Christ or are they somehow "less than" to you?

 

[Donald H]

They are united in spirit as long as they all put Christ first. They don't have to all follow the same forms and practices.

That's been proven to be just plain wrong. The Catholic church itself can no longer allow differing forms of practices.

The trads are referred to as 'rads'.

 

[kjw47]

There is misapprehension and confusion of what was happening in regards to indulgences and printing Bibles in the fifteen hundreds. Some bishops were misusing indulgences, and others within the Church (including Martin Luther) were insisting these bishops be corrected. There were poor translations (and parts being left out) of the Bible by printers, more concerned with profit than accuracy. The Church was trying to prevent this as well.

Beginning with Judas and Peter’s denial of Jesus, we face the fact that the Church, the Body of Christ, is made up of broken people. Sin should not—and does not—prevail against it.

Judas did not deny Christ. He left him and the other Apostles. Peter did deny Christ, but he did not leave him and the others. Who had the greater sin?

When Protestants left the Church, breaking apart the Body of Christ, this, too, is the greater sin. After five hundred years--since Jesus prayed we would remain one—why can’t we fix/heal it? Where is our miracle, the one Jesus asked of us? What steps can be taken to bring this miracle about? Where is our faith such a miracle can take place?

You don't think selling Gods son to be killed isn't denying him?
That miracle will take place when Babylon the great falls( worldwide false religions)=99% of them on earth will be no more ever. The protestants left this=2Thess 2:3. They could not fix much because it was by this( 2 Thess 2:3) that translation was altered. When one uses altered translation not much gets fixed. God fixed it here in these last days. Rejected by all using the altered translations that mislead into darkness.

 

[Donald H]

You don't think selling Gods son to be killed isn't denying him?

Apparently all Christians believe that the god was in on the plan to have his boy strung up.

 

[hadit]

You don't think selling Gods son to be killed isn't denying him?
That miracle will take place when Babylon the great falls( worldwide false religions)=99% of them on earth will be no more ever. The protestants left this=2Thess 2:3. They could not fix much because it was by this( 2 Thess 2:3) that translation was altered. When one uses altered translation not much gets fixed. God fixed it here in these last days. Rejected by all using the altered translations that mislead into darkness.

Why do you believe only 144,000 are going to be saved and you can only hope you're one of them? Rev 7:9 says you're wrong. I'll even post it from your own translation:

KJV:

9 After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands;
10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.

Your version:

9  After this I saw, and look! a great crowd, which no man was able to number, out of all nations and tribes and peoples and tongues,*f standing before the throne and before the Lamb, dressed in white robes;g and there were palm branches in their hands.h 10  And they keep shouting with a loud voice, saying: “Salvation we owe to our God, who is seated on the throne,i and to the Lamb.”j