Religious debate (split from main board)

#1,951
#1,951
TennTradition said:
But the new Testament books were placed there at AD 350. That's not adding books, that's making the bible. If anything, others took books out.

As for the old testament books, that one is a bit different. If modern bibles use the exact books that were in the bible used during the time of Christ, but the Catholics have extra books, then I could consider that adding. Do you know that to be the case?
Click to expand...

I've researched it some, and have found them to have added 7 books to the Old Testament. At least, that's by my research.
 
#1,952
#1,952
KB5252 said:
I don't really have any true fundamental differences with the Catholic religion save that I put an emphasis on personal relationship with God. I realize this may have different meanings to different people but it seems to me Catholics seem to place a barrier between themselves and God, the clergy.
Click to expand...

I hear that a lot, but when I look at how the religions operate, I don't fully agree with it. I see the role of the priest as being a bit of an intercessor and a mentor, though I'm not Catholic. There is certainly a difference in the role of the Catholic clergy and Protestant pastors. The idea of confession to a priest may seem like placing a barrier between you and God, but I don't see it as any different than witnessing in front of a church, which often involves some form of confession. The Our Fathers and Hail Mary's aren't said to the priest, just like any other prayer (though obviously the Hail Mary is different that most other prayers). I don't see the role of the clergy really being that much of a stumbling block.
 
#1,953
#1,953
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I've researched it some, and have found them to have added 7 books to the Old Testament. At least, that's by my research.
Click to expand...

7 books that don't appear in the Protestant bibles or 7 books that weren't in the original rabbi-constructed bible?

How many books are different between the Protestant Old Testament and the Jewish bible pre-Christ?
 
#1,955
#1,955
g8terh8ter_eric said:
Protestant vs. Catholic Bible is what I am referring to.
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean they were added to the bible though. That could just mean they were subtracted when the Protestant bible was written. The only way I think an argument could be made that books were 'added' to the old testament would be if those books were added to the Jewish bible that existed at the time of Christ.
 
#1,956
#1,956
TennTradition said:
I hear that a lot, but when I look at how the religions operate, I don't fully agree with it. I see the role of the priest as being a bit of an intercessor and a mentor, though I'm not Catholic. There is certainly a difference in the role of the Catholic clergy and Protestant pastors. The idea of confession to a priest may seem like placing a barrier between you and God, but I don't see it as any different than witnessing in front of a church, which often involves some form of confession. The Our Fathers and Hail Mary's aren't said to the priest, just like any other prayer (though obviously the Hail Mary is different that most other prayers). I don't see the role of the clergy really being that much of a stumbling block.
Click to expand...

I guess you must also consider the source (me in this case), I do not like organized churches because in many ways I feel they fail us as Christians. I do not agree with many things I have heard come out of just about every ministers mouth. I don't think anyone should tell another how to interpret God's word. My beliefs and attitudes are very different from most Christians in this respect.

I will agree that the difference is minimal but there is a slight difference as I see it.
 
#1,957
#1,957
TennTradition said:
7 books that don't appear in the Protestant bibles or 7 books that weren't in the original rabbi-constructed bible?

How many books are different between the Protestant Old Testament and the Jewish bible pre-Christ?
Click to expand...

The answer is none. Those books predate the "Catholic" church. The Bible was not standardized until 350, and books have only been removed from the total that were being used at that point. No new ones were added.

In fact, Protestants removed books of the Bible over a thousand years later that had been being used from the start. Not saying they were wrong to do so, just sayin'.
 
#1,958
#1,958
KB5252 said:
I guess you must also consider the source (me in this case), I do not like organized churches because in many ways I feel they fail us as Christians. I do not agree with many things I have heard come out of just about every ministers mouth. I don't think anyone should tell another how to interpret God's word. My beliefs and attitudes are very different from most Christians in this respect.

I will agree that the difference is minimal but there is a slight difference as I see it.
Click to expand...

There's a big difference, IMO. They are substituting a direct relationship with Jesus with what they do.
 
#1,959
#1,959
The role of Mary in the church is very interesting.

The Immaculate Conception (IC) is something that is a very interesting event. I once heard a priest describe the theology in what I found to be a very beautiful way. The IC was presented as a corollary to the Ark of the Covenant. Specific instructions were laid down by God for the construction of the Ark - it had to be made in a very specific way from very specific materials because it would hold relics that were holy due to their association to Christ. The IC is in many ways the same thing. Mary was immaculately conceived, and born a holy vessel capable of carrying the most holy of cargoes, Jesus. It is an interesting way of looking at it. The Catholics believe in the Assumption of Mary as a holy figure in the church, that she was immaculately conceived, and bore Jesus to walk the earth. Heavy stuff.

The idea of Mary as an intercessor, or any Saint, is interesting. It's not unlike praying to your dead grandmother to look over everyone now that she is in heaven, except that it is actually formalized and there is a belief that Mary and the Saints are in a position to make formal intercession (unlike grandma, presumably). That certainly is a difference. But, in the end, God/Jesus/Spirit reign supreme.
 
#1,960
#1,960
KB5252 said:
I guess you must also consider the source (me in this case), I do not like organized churches because in many ways I feel they fail us as Christians. I do not agree with many things I have heard come out of just about every ministers mouth. I don't think anyone should tell another how to interpret God's word. My beliefs and attitudes are very different from most Christians in this respect.

I will agree that the difference is minimal but there is a slight difference as I see it.
Click to expand...

Gotcha.
 
#1,961
#1,961
g8terh8ter_eric said:
There's a big difference, IMO. They are substituting a direct relationship with Jesus with what they do.
Click to expand...

From their point of view, they are following scripture. Jesus said Peter was "the rock" of the church, on which he would build it. He eventually became the first pope, and the line of popes leads directly to him throughout the entire history of the Church. In their opinion, the pope and everything having to do with that office comes directly from Jesus himself.

As far as worshipping Mary, any Catholic will tell you they don't. You can choose to believe non-Catholics if you'd like, but ultimately the horse's mouth says otherwise. They revere and venerate her for being blessed by God to bear the human version of God. They don't worship her, that is forbidden.

Same thing with the praying to Mary, the Pope, saints, etc. Any good Catholic will tell you they don't pray to them, and recognize Jesus as the sole intermediary. What they do is pray through them. That may sound like splitting hairs, but it is a definite distinction to Catholics.

I have no doubt they are as truly "Christian" as most protestants, Greek Orthodox, and the like. The truth is Christianity is very different than it was 2000 years ago for everyone. What you call the Bible didn't even exist for centuries after Christ's death.
 
#1,962
#1,962
Valid point, IP. Your description of intercession is really more accurate than my pseudo-description above, based on what I have heard from my limited exposure to Catholic theology.
 
#1,963
#1,963
I don't think I fully understand Catholicism, myself. It is very complex, as it is the oldest organized religious institution. I think most people who don't have any direct exposure to it don't realize how abstract it is.
 
#1,965
#1,965
Another reason for my beliefs are the bickering between denominations and arguments over what I consider to be trivial matters. The structured rigidity of some forms of Christianity do not appeal to me. I realize others like and depend on the structure and believe it makes them stronger. I guess it's a case of to each their own.
 
#1,966
#1,966
IPorange said:
I don't think I fully understand Catholicism, myself. It is very complex, as it is the oldest organized religious institution. I think most people who don't have any direct exposure to it don't realize how abstract it is.
Click to expand...

I think I would fall into this category as well. I do find the history behind Catholicism interesting.
 
#1,968
#1,968
KB5252 said:
I think I would fall into this category as well. I do find the history behind Catholicism interesting.
Click to expand...

+1

Attila the Hun was the best thing ever to happen to the Roman Church.

If it wasn't for him, they would have never gained their universal power across the globe.
 
#1,970
#1,970
OrangeEmpire said:
Really, the Devil's bible.........

You are in for a treat..... :)
Click to expand...

Ok, yes I have. After seeing the tv special about it I was curious as to why the church would want or allow a book like this to be made and furthermore allowed to be bounced from church to church as a relic of sorts.
 
#1,971
#1,971
Actually, from what I have read it really has nothing to do with the devil except for a picture and some lore.

There are two thoughts.

1.) The monk who wrote the codex was under the influence of the devil cause he sold his soul for a few extra years of life.

2.) The monk was demon posessed and he wanted to document the experience.
 
#1,972
#1,972
OrangeEmpire said:
Actually, from what I have read it really has nothing to do with the devil except for a picture and some lore.

There are two thoughts.

1.) The monk who wrote the codex was under the influence of the devil cause he sold his soul for a few extra years of life.

2.) The monk was demon posessed and he wanted to document the experience.
Click to expand...

Yes but as your aware during the time it was supposed to have been produced things like this could and would get you excommunicated if not worse.
 
#1,973
#1,973
Well..... the author was supposedly put into a wall and sealed in for sinning and he had one night to either copy the bible or right a book of repentance. (Common practice for the time.) Kinda like writing sentences in grade school.

The one thing that sticks out to me is the inquisition crowd had no problem with it.
 
#1,975
#1,975
I dunno, the book is fairly tame and in line with the bible..... The reason I say tame............. it doesn't have revelations included in it..... hahaha......... yeah, I have bad humor.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top