Bible Topic Thread (merged)

#601
#601
JZVOL said:
trut, since you are back I thought I would present this again since I posted it when your were on a leave of absence. Thoughts?

Peter was obviously married at one point in his life.
Click to expand...

All priests could marry until about 1200 A.D. (memory could be a problem here) when the Pope at the time decided that was wrong. Don't know about Nuns.
 
#602
#602
KentheOrange said:
All priests could marry until about 1200 A.D. (memory could be a problem here) when the Pope at the time decided that was wrong. Don't know about Nuns.
Click to expand...
Not all priests. It depended upon the order. Most priests were celibate from the beginning. This celibacy was reaffirmed during the Councils of Elvira (295 A.D.) and Aries (314 A.D.) (both Councils prior to the compilation of the Bible.)

Also, Jesus himself speaks of celibacy. However, every time I quote scripture on here (especially Jesus' own words) I am hammered with people who state that since Jesus only spoke of it once, then he must not have meant anything by it. So, here is a last ditch effort:

Not all can accept this word, but only those to whom it is granted. Some are incapable of marriage because they were born so; some, because they were made so by others; some, because they have renounced marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God. Whoever can accept this ought to accept it

Mt 19:11-12
Click to expand...
 
#603
#603
therealUT, try to clean out your Inbox. I tried sending you a response but your box is full. I am still waiting on a reply to where I said Catholics were false teachers. I've been asking repeatedly but have not seen a response.
 
#606
#606
If we are taking that verse to be as you say, then EVERYONE and not just priests should be celibate should they not? If that were the case, the world would not even have seen the 300's to witness the compilation of the Bible.
 
#607
#607
"ought to" is not exactly an option phrase. It is more of a recommendation by Jesus. He definitely recommends that they renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God.
 
#608
#608
CSpindizzy said:
If we are taking that verse to be as you say, then EVERYONE and not just priests should be celibate should they not? If that were the case, the world would not even have seen the 300's to witness the compilation of the Bible.
Click to expand...
I clearly stated earlier that the lack of celibacy shows a lack of self control. But, it is better to lack that self control in the confines of marriage than outside the confines of marriage. I don't feel like arguing that point again.
 
#609
#609
therealUT said:
Not all priests. It depended upon the order. Most priests were celibate from the beginning. This celibacy was reaffirmed during the Councils of Elvira (295 A.D.) and Aries (314 A.D.) (both Councils prior to the compilation of the Bible.)

Also, Jesus himself speaks of celibacy. However, every time I quote scripture on here (especially Jesus' own words) I am hammered with people who state that since Jesus only spoke of it once, then he must not have meant anything by it. So, here is a last ditch effort:
Click to expand...

This goes back to another problem that a pope can declare something truth then all of a sudden it is. So some priests were celibate some weren't?

what about when the catholic church was selling sin for money. I can't remember the dates on this but at one time the Catholic church would let but forgiveness for certain sins like adultry would cost more than a lie or some lesser sin.
 
#610
#610
The biggest problem I have is that you said a preacher like my grandfather who is married is living the same unholy life as a gay man who is a preacher since according to you that is no different. That is an asinine statement to make!
 
#612
#612
JZVOL said:
The biggest problem I have is that you said a preacher like my grandfather who is married is living the same unholy life as a gay man who is a preacher since according to you that is no different. That is an asinine statement to make!
Click to expand...
Don't forget that part where I specifically stated a "gay man who is celibate." That kind of makes a huge difference.
 
#613
#613
therealUT said:
I clearly stated earlier that the lack of celibacy shows a lack of self control. But, it is better to lack that self control in the confines of marriage than outside the confines of marriage. I don't feel like arguing that point again.
Click to expand...

Lack of self-control? Last time I checked it takes the opposite of celibacy to follow the first command of being fruitful and multiplying. What does that have to do with priests being celibate? And would your logic imply that priests would be able to follow the same line of lacking self-control in the confines of marriage?
 
#614
#614
JZVOL said:
This goes back to another problem that a pope can declare something truth then all of a sudden it is. So some priests were celibate some weren't?

what about when the catholic church was selling sin for money. I can't remember the dates on this but at one time the Catholic church would let but forgiveness for certain sins like adultry would cost more than a lie or some lesser sin.
Click to expand...
First, the Catholic Church was selling indulgences. I will not, and have not, ever defended the fraud that was associated with this. Jews, although they were God's chosen people for 5,000 years, also made errors along the way. However, protestants did not break away from the Catholic Church due to corruption.

Second, yes, the Pope can proclaim new doctrine at any time. And, a majority of the Priests for the first 1,135 years of Catholicism were celibate. There were a small minority that were not. Pope Gregory simply got rid of that small minority.
 
#615
#615
therealUT said:
First, the Catholic Church was selling indulgences. I will not, and have not, ever defended the fraud that was associated with this. Jews, although they were God's chosen people for 5,000 years, also made errors along the way. However, protestants did not break away from the Catholic Church due to corruption.

Second, yes, the Pope can proclaim new doctrine at any time. And, a majority of the Priests for the first 1,135 years of Catholicism were celibate. There were a small minority that were not. Pope Gregory simply got rid of that small minority.
Click to expand...

:thumbsup:
 
#616
#616
therealUT said:
First, the Catholic Church was selling indulgences. I will not, and have not, ever defended the fraud that was associated with this. Jews, although they were God's chosen people for 5,000 years, also made errors along the way. However, protestants did not break away from the Catholic Church due to corruption.

Second, yes, the Pope can proclaim new doctrine at any time. And, a majority of the Priests for the first 1,135 years of Catholicism were celibate. There were a small minority that were not. Pope Gregory simply got rid of that small minority.
Click to expand...

I espouse a many of your theological and historic views, but perceived corruption was a major factor in the protestant reformation. Luther was very concerned for the poor, and those who did not have the understanding of the Catholic dogma or the funds to participate within the Catholic church.
 
#617
#617
We do not reject marriage but simply refrain from it voluntarily. Nor do we prescribe celibacy as the rule but only recommend it.

Tertullian
 
#618
#618
1CO 9:5 Do we not have a right to take along a believing wife, even as the rest of the apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?

If all the apostles had wives why wouldn't they all be living in sin?
 
#620
#620
Lexvol said:
I espouse a many of your theological and historic views, but perceived corruption was a major factor in the protestant reformation. Luther was very concerned for the poor, and those who did not have the understanding of the Catholic dogma or the funds to participate within the Catholic church.
Click to expand...
Negative. The quest for power, away from the Church, by the Princes of Germany was the reason that Luther's movement gained any momentum. The people of Germany, as well as religious views, were simply pawns in this the Princes' struggle for power.

The second break, the Anglican break, was again a struggle for power by Henry the VIII. Neither of these breaks had anything to do with Catholic theology, doctrine, nor dogma. Hence, Luther and Henry never ceased to attend weekly Mass in the Catholic Church.
 
#621
#621
therealUT said:
Negative. The quest for power, away from the Church, by the Princes of Germany was the reason that Luther's movement gained any momentum. The people of Germany, as well as religious views, were simply pawns in this the Princes' struggle for power.

The second break, the Anglican break, was again a struggle for power by Henry the VIII. Neither of these breaks had anything to do with Catholic theology, doctrine, nor dogma. Hence, Luther and Henry never ceased to attend weekly Mass in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

I always wondered how they covered Luther in Catholic schools. It only makes sense that they would turn it into a political movement. You have been duped UT.
 
#622
#622
Lexvol said:
I always wondered how they covered Luther in Catholic schools. It only makes sense that they would turn it into a political movement. You have been duped UT.
Click to expand...
If Luther felt so strongly about the theses that he obviously came up with himself, then why did he never leave the Church?
 
#623
#623
therealUT said:
Negative. The quest for power, away from the Church, by the Princes of Germany was the reason that Luther's movement gained any momentum. The people of Germany, as well as religious views, were simply pawns in this the Princes' struggle for power.

The second break, the Anglican break, was again a struggle for power by Henry the VIII. Neither of these breaks had anything to do with Catholic theology, doctrine, nor dogma. Hence, Luther and Henry never ceased to attend weekly Mass in the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...

Negative. Actually breaking away and gaining momentum are separate items here. Why Luther actually made his claims and had widespread support from the local priests and bishops.
 
#624
#624
therealUT said:
If Luther felt so strongly about the theses that he obviously came up with himself, then why did he never leave the Church?
Click to expand...

Like most theologians, Calvin comes to mind as another example, Luther never intended to break from the Church Universal at the time. His followers simply "out-Luthered" Luther. Corruption was in fact so great at the time that the groundswell of support for the movement created the Protestant church.

I would call it a win for the same "Natural Law" (borrowed from Locke) that our founding fathers described. The population was a slave to Catholicism, and could not escape their fiefdom because the government was so intwined with religion.

With the Catholic church being so tied to the political world, a natural correction had to take place. Surely with your own views on religion and government you understand that need. Such a relationship is tenuous at best. Luther connected with these people and set the wheels in motion.
 
#625
#625
Putting an effort to publish the Bible in a common tongue of the peasants was an achievement in itself since the Papacy would not make such an effort. And that silly Luther dared to get married as well. But when you are excommunicated, I guess you have been given a free pass to do whatever.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top