The Pope is not the Anti-Christ...

#101
#101
therealUT said:
A lot of religions? Christianity and Islam; Judaism cedes the possibility that a man named Jesus cul have existed and could have been crucified; Hinduism speaks nothing of the man; Shintoism, silence...
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I really thought there was more. My bad.
 
#105
#105
OJ said:
Trut Do you believe in Jesus?
Click to expand...

I think it is possible that he was a historic figure; I think it is possible he could have been God; I do not think either of these propositons are probable, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#106
#106
KiffinKiller said:
don't believe in the jesus story. flame away.
Click to expand...

The evidence for a man named Jesus who was recognized as a teacher and martyr in Palestine around that time is pretty strong. That does not of itself make the biblical story "true"... but few serious scholars deny that an individual man, teacher, and martyr named Jesus was the starting point.

therealUT subscribes to higher biblical criticism which in at least one form says about 70%+ of the Gospels are fraudulent and much or most of the NT did not have the traditionally believed origins. They believe this in spite of the text of the Bible being the best attested ancient book by an extraordinary margin. There are over 5300 mss and partials. There are over 18,000 ancient versions or partials of them. There are over 18,000 Bible citations in commentaries and letters. Those citations are so plentiful that nearly the entire text of the NT could be reconstructed with just those quotes.

Basically the suggestion is that an original document was made, copied, then dispersed from N Africa to N Europe to E Persia to Ethiopia within a couple of centuries while those copying it were being persecuted by pretty much everyone with power... and that somehow all or the vast majority of those documents and their copies were modified to include a bunch of myth. The other choice is that someone wrote/modified those documents within a couple of generations of those who would have been witnesses to the events and both survived the Jews/Romans and avoided being exposed for fraud.
 
Last edited:
#107
#107
therealUT said:
I think it is possible that he was a historic figure; I think it is possible he could have been God; I do not think either of these propositons are probable, though.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I know your searching and I pray you find the real truth.
 
#108
#108
I think the fact that people advocate that he cured leprosy, turned water to wine, came back from death, moved giant rocks - has me doubting everything. If anything this serves as a disservice to his actual life (based on your evidence), imo.
 
#109
#109
KiffinKiller said:
I think the fact that people advocate that he cured leprosy, turned water to wine, came back from death, moved giant rocks - has me doubting everything. If anything this serves as a disservice to his actual life (based on your evidence), imo.
Click to expand...

I think those things show he was God incarnate.
 
#111
#111
I don't think the Pope is the Anti-Christ. I think he will be a pure political leader. I do however think The Pope or in fact any religious leader could be the false prophet that does miracles and wonders.
 
#113
#113
sjt18 said:
therealUT subscribes to higher biblical criticism which in at least one form says about 70%+ of the Gospels are fraudulent and much or most of the NT did not have the traditionally believed origins. They believe this in spite of the text of the Bible being the best attested ancient book by an extraordinary margin. There are over 5300 mss and partials. There are over 18,000 ancient versions or partials of them. There are over 18,000 Bible citations in commentaries and letters. Those citations are so plentiful that nearly the entire text of the NT could be reconstructed with just those quotes.
Click to expand...

Since there are tens of thousandsof ancient manuscripts of th Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad-Gita should I think that Krishna and Arjuna were real, historical figures? Do you think they are?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
therealUT said:
Since there are tens of thousandsof ancient manuscripts of th Vedas, the Upanishads, and the Bhagavad-Gita should I think that Krishna and Arjuna were real, historical figures? Do you think they are?
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

if the number of pages written about, and quotations regarding, is the standard, then we must conclude that Gandalf, Darth Vader and Harry Potter are real as well.
 
#116
#116
MG1968 said:
if the number of pages written about, and quotations regarding, is the standard, then we must conclude that Gandalf, Darth Vader and Harry Potter are real as well.
Click to expand...

Don't forget Diomedes, Hector, and Achilles.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
Last edited:
#117
#117
So many people misunderstand what the Pope does. Ignorant, one-sided explanations have been passed down so passionately that views can't be changed.
I recently went through RCIA (joined the Catholic Church), and I can promise you that it is not the belief of the church that ONLY Catholics may reach heaven. It's actually quite the opposite now. Vatican II kind of changed some things with the church, and they now simply admit to not know who will make the cut. It's kind of a "take care of your own soul" kind of a thing. Then we just pray for the souls of others and don't even claim to know what the big man will do with them. I specifically liked this concept. It makes me uncomfortable when others believe they know what someone's eternity will be like. Only one knows that.
As for Bachman, if she says she isn't a Catholic-hater, then believe her. I seriously don't think it will matter what she thinks, anyway.
 
#119
#119
KiffinKiller said:
I think the fact that people advocate that he cured leprosy, turned water to wine, came back from death, moved giant rocks - has me doubting everything. If anything this serves as a disservice to his actual life (based on your evidence), imo.
Click to expand...

If He was God as Christians claim then He would have had both the power and authority to suspend the laws of nature.

As therealUT rightly surmises, it makes sense for God to reveal Himself to His creation in various ways. The Bible claims and Christians profess that God revealed Himself in the Person of Jesus Christ. He wasn't the only way God revealed Himself but by far the most significant. If you are really willing to challenge your beliefs then I would recommend one of Lee Stroebel's or Josh McDowell's books. Both men started as hardened, analytical atheists. Both set out to disprove Christianity and embarrass Christian friends into submission. Both were converted through their own studies.
 
#121
#121
therealUT said:
Feel free to provide the entire chapters for our edification.

I find it a little incredulous to think that the individuals who sat down at the Synods called by the Papacy would include scripture they thought in any way could be construed to label the Papacy as the Anti-Christ.

Also, just because the book and/or letters are called "John" does not man they were written by any man named "John" much less an Apostle of Jesus. The Johanine Gospel and Letters are some of the youngest documents in the new Testament (only the Petrine Epistles are younger); therefore, the authors certanly never knew Jesus in human form (counter to the implication of your picture).
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


So, Paul, identifying himself as a apostle of Christ at the beginning of his letters to the churches, who knowingly in scripture was an apostle of Christ and knew him personally, does not mean he is said author? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who were chosen and named by Christ as his apostles, who later wrote the books commonly known by their name does not mean they wrote them as inspired associates of Christ? If they identified themselves as associates/apostles of Christ to validate their writings to the churches, how do we come to demerit that association?
 
#122
#122
GVF said:
So, Paul, identifying himself as a apostle of Christ at the beginning of his letters to the churches, who knowingly in scripture was an apostle of Christ and knew him personally, does not mean he is said author? Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John who were chosen and named by Christ as his apostles, who later wrote the books commonly known by their name does not mean they wrote them as inspired associates of Christ? If they identified themselves as associates/apostles of Christ to validate their writings to the churches, how do we come to demerit that association?
Click to expand...

The majority of the skepticism comes in one of two forms:

- evaluation of written language and style (one can easily compare numerous manuscripts and pick up on certain verbage and styles that would be used in one region or one class of society as opposed to another)

- evaluation of context in a historical sense (why would certain peoples be angry at this point in history, when certain events would have led to their anger twenty years later, etc., etc.)

Most of the criticism is well documented and logically sound; some of the criticism has been around since the first, second, and third centuries (i.e., the Epistles of Peter). The onus of responsibility is always going to be on the party which is trying to prove a positive, therefore, the scant criticism of HBC is hardly effective.
 
#123
#123
How the Pope be the anti-christ when we clearly know that is Volatile's new job.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top