The most liberal pope since Jesus?

[Cubo de Sangre]

He must be an advanced degree of liberal since I don't see any comment on the apparent firearm hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

 

[jax7]

No denomination has is all right, that's why it's on us to discern as much as possible, regardless what church we to to.

We don't need to get into the whole catholicism debate, if that is the church you identify with, all the power to you, but I would question things that are taught from the pulpit, or the catechism, if they do not align with scripture. Once we open the door to stray from scripture, it's difficult to refute other doctrines.

Just a few questions.

Why would God give us a religion and scripture where we we can never fully know the truth, only discern as much as possible?

If we ourselves aren't infallible in our discernment of scripture how can we be sure we have it right?

Where did the bible come from? Who made the decision to include some books and not others? If they weren't infallible in their selection how are you even sure what you read is?

Did the apostles speak of their own writings as scripture? Does scripture say that you could write a thousand more books upon the teachings Christ. What happened to all those teachings?

Is pride one of the seven deadly sins? Would it be pride to cause a person to think they are the ultimate authority on scripture, and false doctrines?

 

[dontsnitch]

Just a few questions.

Why would God give us a religion and scripture where we we can never fully know the truth, only discern as much as possible?

If we ourselves aren't infallible in our discernment of scripture how can we be sure we have it right?

Where did the bible come from? Who made the decision to include some books and not others? If they weren't infallible in their selection how are you even sure what you read is?

Did the apostles speak of their own writings as scripture? Does scripture say that you could write a thousand more books upon the teachings Christ. What happened to all those teachings?

Is pride one of the seven deadly sins? Would it be pride to cause a person to think they are the ultimate authority on scripture, and false doctrines?

God didn't give us religion, religion is man-made.

We are not perfect, obviously, but that doesn't mean we can't discern the truth by studying, prayer, meditating on the word, etc. It is once you become associated with a certain denomination that only sees it one way, and refuse to even acknowledge other truths that you get into trouble.

There are a few different Biblical Canons, some books were accepted by the Orthodox and the Catholics that are not in your standard Protestant Bible. Even those books are not obviously false or misrepresentative. There are books that are outright rejected, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and there are other books that are less questionable, but the New Testament is virtually identical across the board, the only apocryphal books are in the Old Testament. To know more about the actual councils, you'll have to dig them up, I don't know the details off the top of my head.

The majority of the New Testament was written by two people, Paul and Luke. They speak with authority and there is no reason to doubt their authorship. The NT as a whole is a reliable document, and again, virtually identical across all churches.

"Deadly sins" is a man-made concept, the bible does not categorize sins like this, nor does it mention so-called deadly sins. There may be one exception, sexual sins, but the rest is purely man-made.

Anyway, the scriptures themselves say that God reveals the secret things within the scriptures. It says to meditate on the word. It says not to add to the word. So while we may never fully know all there is to know, that's not to say we can't understand more and more. I personally take a more skeptical approach than most do, when there are differences of opinions between denominations, I keep an open mind, and I'm not stubborn enough to not question my own thoughts on anything.

 

[jax7]

God didn't give us religion, religion is man-made.

We are not perfect, obviously, but that doesn't mean we can't discern the truth by studying, prayer, meditating on the word, etc. It is once you become associated with a certain denomination that only sees it one way, and refuse to even acknowledge other truths that you get into trouble.

There are a few different Biblical Canons, some books were accepted by the Orthodox and the Catholics that are not in your standard Protestant Bible. Even those books are not obviously false or misrepresentative. There are books that are outright rejected, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Judas, and there are other books that are less questionable, but the New Testament is virtually identical across the board, the only apocryphal books are in the Old Testament. To know more about the actual councils, you'll have to dig them up, I don't know the details off the top of my head.

The majority of the New Testament was written by two people, Paul and Luke. They speak with authority and there is no reason to doubt their authorship. The NT as a whole is a reliable document, and again, virtually identical across all churches.

"Deadly sins" is a man-made concept, the bible does not categorize sins like this, nor does it mention so-called deadly sins. There may be one exception, sexual sins, but the rest is purely man-made.

Anyway, the scriptures themselves say that God reveals the secret things within the scriptures. It says to meditate on the word. It says not to add to the word. So while we may never fully know all there is to know, that's not to say we can't understand more and more. I personally take a more skeptical approach than most do, when there are differences of opinions between denominations, I keep an open mind, and I'm not stubborn enough to not question my own thoughts on anything.

You really didn't address the questions. I want solid answers. So I will limit the questions to a few. These are not trick questions.

who decided what books constituted the new testement?

Was their decision infallible?

Are you infallible when interpreting?

If Man created religion, why does God constantly give us commands on how we should worship him in the bible?

Are you infallible when call certain old testament books apocryphal? Are they of value?

 

[dontsnitch]

You really didn't address the questions. I want solid answers. So I will limit the questions to a few. These are not trick questions.

who decided what books constituted the new testement?

Was their decision infallible?

Are you infallible when interpreting?

If Man created religion, why does God constantly give us commands on how we should worship him in the bible?

Alright, these are better questions.

The New Testament Canon was decided by a Council. There is 99.9% accord throughout the various Churches on the NT Canon. Their decision is believed to be in accordance to the will of God, as he wanted to NT to look. Beyond that, they had a standard of which books were to be accepted, all the books are currently viewed as reliable, even if the authorship of a couple of books are questioned.

I am not infallible. I am just a man. However, if I devote myself to discovering the truth with an open heart, reading the scriptures, and trusting in God, there is no reason why I could not discover what God intended. I'm still not infallible, I can commit errors due to cognitive dissonance, indoctrination of my church, my own stubbornness, etc.

You'll have to be more specific, as worship takes on many forms. Song, prayer, fasting, devotion, obedience, are all forms of worship. The one thing that underlies all these is truth and spirit. We must worship in truth and in spirit.

 

[jax7]

Alright, these are better questions.

The New Testament Canon was decided by a Council. There is 99.9% accord throughout the various Churches on the NT Canon. Their decision is believed to be in accordance to the will of God, as he wanted to NT to look. Beyond that, they had a standard of which books were to be accepted, all the books are currently viewed as reliable, even if the authorship of a couple of books are questioned.

I am not infallible. I am just a man. However, if I devote myself to discovering the truth with an open heart, reading the scriptures, and trusting in God, there is no reason why I could not discover what God intended. I'm still not infallible, I can commit errors due to cognitive dissonance, indoctrination of my church, my own stubbornness, etc.

You'll have to be more specific, as worship takes on many forms. Song, prayer, fasting, devotion, obedience, are all forms of worship. The one thing that underlies all these is truth and spirit. We must worship in truth and in spirit.

So the new testament was decided by a council. Im assuming you mean a Catholic council since protestants weren't really around at this time.

You acknowledge the infallibility of a Catholic council to decide scripture, but not their right to infallibly interpret it. Yet God will guide YOU to the truth while others you disagree with are following false teachings.

Sounds like you're your own pope, and magesterium(teaching body of the Catholic Church), Rolled all up in one.

You're the one who said man created religion not me. Please provide me with examples of "man made"religion.

 

[SakuMemories]

So the new testament was decided by a council. Im assuming you mean a Catholic council since protestants weren't really around at this time.

Definitely not a catholic council since they were created a thousand years afterwards.

But still, dontsnitch is pretty much a typical protestant. What is sad is that he doesn't realize it, thinking that he doesn't belong to a denomination. From what he has said here his take on christianity is 100% protestant.

 

[jax7]

Definitely not a catholic council since they were created a thousand years afterwards.

But still, dontsnitch is pretty much a typical protestant. What is sad is that he doesn't realize it, thinking that he doesn't belong to a denomination. From what he has said here his take on christianity is 100% protestant.

First council was Nicaea in 325. At councils of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 the cannon of scripture was ratified based upon the decision of Pope damasus 1 from a earlier synod in Rome.

Yes, you're right. While he doesn't spew the vitriol that many protestants do, its clear he is probably a member of a non denominational evangelical church. One that is a little less hard line than a southern baptist church, but more so than some Ecumenical mainline churches that have embraced modernism.

It also probably doesn't have a set doctrinal belief system, outside of the main points of nicene or apostolic creed. Hence the willy nilly all you need is spirit of truth and such. Never mind he doesn't seem to be able to provide assurance of the infallibility of his truth.

 

[SakuMemories]

First council was Nicaea in 325. At councils of Hippo 393 and Carthage 397 the cannon of scripture was ratified based upon the decision of Pope damasus 1 from a earlier synod in Rome.

Yes, you're right. While he doesn't spew the vitriol that many protestants do, its clear he is probably a member of a non denominational evangelical church. One that is a little less hard line than a southern baptist church, but more so than some Ecumenical mainline churches that have embraced modernism.

It also probably doesn't have a set doctrinal belief system, outside of the main points of nicene or apostolic creed. Hence the willy nilly all you need is spirit of truth and such. Never mind he doesn't seem to be able to provide assurance of the infallibility of his truth.

And the schism happened in 1054, so its pretty weird to call everything before that "catholic", unless you are a catholic yourself, in which case you have a shaky claim on representing christianity as well.

 

[Harmonica]

And the schism happened in 1054, so its pretty weird to call everything before that "catholic", unless you are a catholic yourself, in which case you have a shaky claim on representing christianity as well.

He is kinda right in his ignorance.

Term "Catholic" is older than The Great Schism. It has Greek origins and it's original meaning is "believer" if I am not mistaken. So in that sense, every Christian was a Catholic. That is why it got a prefix "Roman" after the schism.

But yeah, not too many people know anything outside Catholic - Protestant division.

 

[jax7]

And the schism happened in 1054, so its pretty weird to call everything before that "catholic", unless you are a catholic yourself, in which case you have a shaky claim on representing christianity as well.

It would make even more sense to call it Catholic by using the schism criteria. As the historical churches (east and western) although at odds were still together up until that point. Hence the term Catholic or (universal). After all it had been used by Ignatius at least as early as 107 a.d.

You must belong to a "orthodox" church to find fault with my statement.

 

[Ruprecht]

Definitely not a catholic council since they were created a thousand years afterwards.

But still, dontsnitch is pretty much a typical protestant. What is sad is that he doesn't realize it, thinking that he doesn't belong to a denomination. From what he has said here his take on christianity is 100% protestant.

"Protestant" isn't a denomination. He's a non-denominational Protestant.

 

[Harmonica]

It would make even more sense to call it Catholic by using the schism criteria. As the historical churches (east and western) although at odds were still together up until that point. Hence the term Catholic or (universal). After all it had been used by Ignatius at least as early as 107 a.d.

You must belong to a "orthodox" church to find fault with my statement.

There's a difference between terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic". The former one is a historical term and is different than the latter. In practice, "Roman Catholic" became synonymous with "Catholic".

 

[jax7]

There's a difference between terms "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic". The former one is a historical term and is different than the latter. In practice, "Roman Catholic" became synonymous with "Catholic".

No, I belive I used it correctly. There is only one Catholic church. Within the Catholic Church there are 23 eastern churches in union with the Roman Church(and the pope). These churches use 7 distinct rites to practice the Divine Liturgy or "Mass". I think maybe you got confused with the term Roman Catholic and were unaware it was one of 24 individual churches that make a whole.

 

[dontsnitch]

So the new testament was decided by a council. Im assuming you mean a Catholic council since protestants weren't really around at this time.

The way the NT was formed happened over time, it's not as easy as one council sitting down one time and forming the NT, but this is also somewhat irrelevant to your point. I am not debating hermeneutics, what I'm objecting to is inferring things that are not found in the scripture. How the Bible came to be what it is today has no relevance in man's adding to that text, which is what you're doing when you teach things not found in the scripture.

You acknowledge the infallibility of a Catholic council to decide scripture, but not their right to infallibly interpret it. Yet God will guide YOU to the truth while others you disagree with are following false teachings.

Sounds like you're your own pope, and magesterium(teaching body of the Catholic Church), Rolled all up in one.

You're being very defensive and you're adding your own narrative. I never claimed I was infallible or that I hold a special ability to discern the truth, I explicitly said the opposite. I approach the non negotiable truths of the bible with skepticism when there are many ways to see it.

We all have leaders, we all have people we are accountable to, and who are our elders, we don't need a Pope for that. I am also under various people, but I also answer directly to God, there is no intermediary between man and God except for the Spirit of God.

You're the one who said man created religion not me. Please provide me with examples of "man made"religion.

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for putting traditions ahead of God. Religion which puts tradition ahead of Christ is useless. Doing things out of habit is not beneficial to us, and this is how I see religion. There is nothing in the NT that says we must do things this way and no other way, and I think such traditions can be harmful.

I'm not even sure what your objection is, if you want to follow the Catholic doctrine, no one is saying you can't, I simply see no need for additional doctrines on top of the Bible, it sets a dangerous precedent.

 

[spamking]

There is nothing in the NT that says we must do things this way and no other way, and I think such traditions can be harmful.

Not sure what you mean . . . unless you're referring to how we worship (instrumental vs acapella, etc.).

 

[dontsnitch]

Not sure what you mean . . . unless you're referring to how we worship (instrumental vs acapella, etc.).

Some churches follow a strict traditional ritual, and will not stray from it, to the point that it becomes legalistic.

The bible does outline certain things that we should be doing, but I have yet to see a church that does them all, but nonetheless, when you begin to put tradition first, you begin to miss the point.

 

[spamking]

Some churches follow a strict traditional ritual, and will not stray from it, to the point that it becomes legalistic.

The bible does outline certain things that we should be doing, but I have yet to see a church that does them all, but nonetheless, when you begin to put tradition first, you begin to miss the point.

Exactly . . .

The church I attend has three different types of services (praise and worship is different) with all receiving the same message.

 

[Harmonica]

No, I belive I used it correctly. There is only one Catholic church. Within the Catholic Church there are 23 eastern churches in union with the Roman Church(and the pope). These churches use 7 distinct rites to practice the Divine Liturgy or "Mass". I think maybe you got confused with the term Roman Catholic and were unaware it was one of 24 individual churches that make a whole.

You misunderstood me. I said that term "Catholic" was different before the schism because it incorporated all the Christians whereas now it's domain is limited to one branch of Christianity only. The Great Schism was more of a political division than a religious one but religious differences between Constantinople and Rome were the formal reasons and a catalyst in this division. If you study the history of Christianity, I am positive you will find that it's theology and practice were a lot different before and after the Schism and therefore it's incorrect to say that Catholics of today are the same as the ones before the Schism.

 

[Serana]

Funny how God can change his mind so much in a couple years.

Lol