Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

And no, im not looking for any pat on the back. However, im glad that you accept my reasoning and getting back to the original topic, why that particular doctrine of transubstantiation is not legitimate. Biblically speaking.

I can go on about many others as well.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Sorry, my sarcasm detector was off.

You have a sarcasm detector? Holy crap, that's the coolest thing ever!

I can go on about many others as well.

Would you like to go on about my response to your pointing to Jeramiah's prophecy as proof of the bible's infallibility? I think it might be better to carry on either as a seperate thread, or via PM though, and maybe get back to the -original- original topic, namely the Pope's seeming statement that non-Catholic churches were somehow defective.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

You have a sarcasm detector? Holy crap, that's the coolest thing ever!

Would you like to go on about my response to your pointing to Jeramiah's prophecy as proof of the bible's infallibility? I think it might be better to carry on either as a seperate thread, or via PM though, and maybe get back to the -original- original topic, namely the Pope's seeming statement that non-Catholic churches were somehow defective.

Well it seems apparent from our discussion so far that the Catholic Church is somehow defective.

The fall of Babylon was prophesied from two books, Jeremiah and Isaiah.

Some 200 years before this event took place, the prophet Isaiah predicted in a detailed and accurate way the overthrow of Babylon by Medo-Persia. The prophecy disclosed that the conqueror would bear the name Cyrus, and it revealed the very strategy of drying up a moatlike river defense and entering a fortified city through open gates. All of this was accurately fulfilled. (Isaiah 44:27–45:2) It was also correctly prophesied that Babylon would eventually like Jeremiah says, be totally uninhabited.—Isaiah 13:17-22.

Does it need to say anymore?

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

And like I said to you last time you tried this argument: I can -easily- provide you a book that accurately describes any number of historical events, and prophecies many others, and at the same time, fill it with ludicrous claims that are pure nonsense. Just because it got some, or even most things correct doesn't mean it is infallibly correct.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Since we have established that the Doctrine of Transubstantiation violates a Biblical principle and is therefore erroneous , is there any need to continue?

Whoa whoa, you've done nothing of the sort.

Sorry if I don't buy the method of twisting Jesus' words (please count the times he says "this IS my body" and compare that to the times he says "this is symbolic of my body") and ignoring what the apostles taught as a valid proof of your statement. And that's aside from the fact that reading all of his words with a figurative mindset just doesn't make any sense (regarding why the apostles had a hard time understanding Jesus and what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:27 and :29).

I mean, do you really think that two little paragraphs are going to refute thousands of years of a tradition that Jesus himself started and has been upheld by scholars since then? I realize the appeal to history here, but I'm also certain that Phil just can't claim victory like that.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[T3hDDRKid]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Which implies that there -are- contradictions? Perhaps you could illuminate some of the contradictions for which you have explanations? I'm genuinely curious.

I haven't been following this thread whatsoever, so I'm sorry that this is a page late. However, one of the most well-known is the sign posted at Jesus' crucifixion. It's 5 AM right now and I don't feel like searching through the Bible, but the gist of it is that each of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] have a different version of the sign. For example, one Gospel reported that it said "Jesus, the King of the Jews." Another would say something slightly different. However, when you put them all together, you realize that it is indeed one sign, but different people are recalling different parts that they seemed to be more important. Since the sign was a minor detail, they forgot some details about it.

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I'd hardly call "The subjectivity of observation" a contradiction. Honestly, anyone who tried presenting that to you as "proof" that there are contradictions in the bible ought to just be laughed at.

Generally when I consider "contradictions" they need to be a little more significant than "4 people wrote down stories, and got a couple small details wrong"

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Whoa whoa, you've done nothing of the sort.

Sorry if I don't buy the method of twisting Jesus' words (please count the times he says "this IS my body" and compare that to the times he says "this is symbolic of my body") and ignoring what the apostles taught as a valid proof of your statement. And that's aside from the fact that reading all of his words with a figurative mindset just doesn't make any sense (regarding why the apostles had a hard time understanding Jesus and what Paul says in 1 Cor 11:27 and :29).

I mean, do you really think that two little paragraphs are going to refute thousands of years of a tradition that Jesus himself started and has been upheld by scholars since then? I realize the appeal to history here, but I'm also certain that Phil just can't claim victory like that.

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

What I'm saying is, that if any so-called religious -Christian tradition contradicts the Bible, it should be discarded as erroneous. This particular tradition clearly violates the principle of Blood. Case in Point. The figurative body interpretation, violates no law, principle, or even any gist of anything that is written.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Also, in regards to not actually saying "this means my body" at Matthew26 (although some translations do state this, I'll look them up when i get home from class) your Jerusalem Bible Reads.

Matt. 26:26-29, JB: “Now as they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and when he had said the blessing he broke it and gave it to the disciples. ‘Take it and eat;’ he said ‘this is my body.’ Then he took a cup, and when he had returned thanks he gave it to them. ‘Drink all of you from this,’ he said ‘for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, which is to be poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. From now on, I tell you, I shall not drink wine until the day I drink the new wine with you in the kingdom of my Father.’”

Consider the expressions “this is my body” and “this is my blood” in the light of other vivid language used in the Scriptures. Jesus also said, “I am the light of the world,” “I am the gate of the sheepfold,” “I am the true vine.” (John 8:12; 10:7; 15:1, JB) None of these expressions implied a miraculous transformation, did they?

At 1 Corinthians 11:25 (JB), the apostle Paul wrote concerning the Last Supper and expressed the same ideas in slightly different words. Instead of quoting Jesus as saying regarding the cup, “Drink all of you from this . . . for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant,” he worded it in this way: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood.” Surely that did not mean that the cup was somehow miraculously transformed into the new covenant. Is it not more reasonable to conclude that what was in the cup represented Jesus’ blood by means of which the new covenant was validated?

The same principle applies, you simply have to observe the context.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

I haven't been following this thread whatsoever, so I'm sorry that this is a page late. However, one of the most well-known is the sign posted at Jesus' crucifixion. It's 5 AM right now and I don't feel like searching through the Bible, but the gist of it is that each of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John] have a different version of the sign. For example, one Gospel reported that it said "Jesus, the King of the Jews." Another would say something slightly different. However, when you put them all together, you realize that it is indeed one sign, but different people are recalling different parts that they seemed to be more important. Since the sign was a minor detail, they forgot some details about it.

It's perspective, if 5 people are walking down the street and witness a car accident, once interviewed by the police they will all more than likely remember the general event and individually remember minor details that they just happened to notice from they're perspective.

That doesn't change the fact that the accident happened and they were all witnesses to it.

[Relambrien]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Case and Point.

Ahem:

Chapter 4:
Common Misconceptions

Please call this chapter "common mistakes" if you wish. Here, I address common problems occurring in everyday posting that must be made clear. Let me state my theory as to why these problems occur in the first place.

Simplicity - Shortening or slightly editing a word to create a small "shortcut" while typing, only to find out that the entire population has also conformed to that method and the original word is lost.

Speech - A very common problem. People want to write words the same way it sounds when it is said. This is a problem when spelling and when writing phrases. I will point out a few of the most prevalent.

Lack of Information - If you never knew how to use something properly, go with what everybody else says. They have to be right...right?

Well, that's just about it. Speech and simplicity are the biggies. Here are some examples.

"Should of". I see this often, along with "would of" and "could of". The only reason you type this is because you say it like this. However, this is incorrect. The correct spelling of this word is "should've". The contraction is taking the place of "have", thus making the complete phrase "should have".

"Alot". Yeah, this is wrong. The site says,

If you can't remember the rule, just remind yourself that just as you wouldn't write 'alittle' you shouldn't write 'alot.'

That just about does it.

"Could care less". Boy do I hate to see this. It makes me want to pull you aside and mention to you that you're really telling the person, "I care some, maybe even a lot, but now I might care a little less." What you MEANT to say was, "I don't care. I never cared. I will continue to not care."

Case and Point. Qualy sent this one in. It's "Case in point." Insert big explanation as to why this is later.

Anyway, I'm slightly confused as to something here. Since I'm nonreligious, I don't quite understand, and I'd like some insight if possible. Do you really think it matters -how- Jesus' words were interpreted, or would you think all that matters is that people follow what they interpret to be Jesus' teachings? Regardless of the interpretation, if a person follows those teachings, then wouldn't you believe that person is doing what was asked by Jesus? Or does the Church say that a specific interpretation is what was asked, and you must follow that interpretation?

[devonin]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

When it is the difference between "The bread and wine symbolize the body and blood of Jesus" and "A miracle occurs in which the bread and wine -ACTUALLY ARE- the body and blood of Jesus" You can see where people would have a vested interest in ensuring they have interpreted correctly.

[Philpwnsyou]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

And like I said to you last time you tried this argument: I can -easily- provide you a book that accurately describes any number of historical events, and prophecies many others, and at the same time, fill it with ludicrous claims that are pure nonsense. Just because it got some, or even most things correct doesn't mean it is infallibly correct.

The fact that the Bible has infallibly predicted past events which have been confirmed x years later, gives it credibility.

Not to mention, the bits of scientific information it mentions that are hundreds and in some cases thousands of years in advance.


For example, the earliest known non-Biblical reference to physical laws was made by Pythagoras, who believed that the universe could be explained by numbers. Two thousand years later, Galileo, Kepler, and Newton finally proved that matter is governed by rational laws.

The earliest Biblical reference to natural law is contained in the book of Job. About 1600 B.C.E., God asked Job: “Have you come to know the statutes [or, laws] of the heavens?” (Job 38:33) Recorded in the seventh century B.C.E., the book of Jeremiah refers to YHWH as the Creator of “the statutes of the moon and the stars” and “the statutes of heaven and earth.” (Jeremiah 31:35; 33:25) In view of these statements, Bible commentator G. Rawlinson observed: “The general prevalence of law in the material world is quite as strongly asserted by the sacred writers as by modern science.”

If we use Pythagoras as a point of reference, the statement in Job was about a thousand years ahead of its time. Keep in mind that the Bible’s objective is not simply to reveal physical facts but primarily to impress upon us that YHWH is the Creator of all things—the one who can create physical laws.—Job 38:4, 12; 42:1, 2.

Another example is the water cycle. The oldest surviving non-Biblical references to this cycle are from the fourth century B.C.E. However, Biblical statements predate that by hundreds of years. For example, in the 11th century B.C.E., King Solomon of Israel wrote: “All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full. To the place from which the rivers come, to there and from there they return again.”—Ecclesiastes 1:7, The Amplified Bible.

Likewise, about 800 B.C.E. the prophet Amos, a humble shepherd and farmworker, wrote that GOD is “the One calling for the waters of the sea, that he may pour them out upon the surface of the earth.” (Amos 5:8) Without using complex, technical language, both Solomon and Amos accurately described the water cycle, each from a slightly different perspective.

The Bible also speaks of God as “hanging the earth upon nothing,” or he “suspends earth in the void,” according to The New English Bible. (Job 26:7) In view of the knowledge available in 1600 B.C.E., roughly when those words were spoken, it would have taken a remarkable man to assert that a solid object can remain suspended in space without any physical support. Aristotle rejected the concept of a void, and he lived over 1,200 years later!

There are more examples I can bring out, in every instance the Bible is Always correct.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

Anyway, I'm slightly confused as to something here. Since I'm nonreligious, I don't quite understand, and I'd like some insight if possible. Do you really think it matters -how- Jesus' words were interpreted, or would you think all that matters is that people follow what they interpret to be Jesus' teachings? Regardless of the interpretation, if a person follows those teachings, then wouldn't you believe that person is doing what was asked by Jesus? Or does the Church say that a specific interpretation is what was asked, and you must follow that interpretation?

See, what we have here is a theological debate. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong since Jesus' purpose on Earth was not to have people eat his flesh and drink his blood. His message was that of unconditional love for all people regardless of creed, physical attributes, or culture. Jesus lived during a time when the various Jewish sects were divided and wouldn't have anything to do with poor, sick, and gentile. Jesus just applied the teachings from the Torah in a more universal manner.

The original Jesus Followers movement was a Jewish movement, and they followed the teacher Jesus, not the Son of God (that concept comes from the Gnostic depiction of Jesus, which was later misinterpreted by the Catholic Church as being literal...like everything else in the Bible).

Whether Jesus was divine or not doesn't matter. What matters is that his teachings, to this day, are relevant. You know, and maybe if we all were a bit more like Jesus, we wouldn't get caught up on petty issues.

Also, all of Jesus' teachings can be found in the Old Testament.

[Relambrien]

Re: Pope said other churches are "defective", is he right?

See, what we have here is a theological debate. It doesn't matter who is right or wrong since Jesus' purpose on Earth was not to have people eat his flesh and drink his blood. His message was that of unconditional love for all people regardless of creed, physical attributes, or culture. Jesus lived during a time when the various Jewish sects were divided and wouldn't have anything to do with poor, sick, and gentile. Jesus just applied the teachings from the Torah in a more universal manner.

The original Jesus Followers movement was a Jewish movement, and they followed the teacher Jesus, not the Son of God (that concept comes from the Gnostic depiction of Jesus, which was later misinterpreted by the Catholic Church as being literal...like everything else in the Bible).

Whether Jesus was divine or not doesn't matter. What matters is that his teachings, to this day, are relevant. You know, and maybe if we all were a bit more like Jesus, we wouldn't get caught up on petty issues.

Also, all of Jesus' teachings can be found in the Old Testament.

So what you're saying is that in the grand scheme of things, these debates on interpretation are irrelevant, and determining which interpretation is correct is just because of someone's interest in which is correct? That all that really matters is the overall big picture of Jesus' teachings, such as kindness to all people?

Eh, I'm probably totally wrong, but I don't wish to derail this thread further. Please continue with the other topic at hand; don't waste your time on someone like me who really doesn't care about religion. I just wanted to know the reason behind needing to know a specific interpretation, but it seems that that won't be possible without delving into deeper religious matters. So please, just continue on with what you were doing.