magic and false gods

[Eon]

Don't get me wrong, the catholic church was made up of people just like any other organisation. There were good guys and there were bad guys - but there were good and bad guys in Stalin's NKVD too.

The Catholic church was an excellent organisation in terms of control. They used distributed networking, so that every leader was always close to troops loyal to the guy that commanded him. Dissension was usually punished swiftly - don't make the mistake of thinking that the church back then was like it is now, divided, stupid, leaderless and corrupt. Back then it was the closest thing to a professional army that there was, and the popes wielded secular power in excess of that wielded by most kings.


Eon

 

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]don't make the mistake of thinking that the church back then was like it is now, divided, stupid, leaderless and corrupt.

k, so you think that selling pieces of paper to get people out of hell just to make money is not corrupt? Many things the old chuch practiced was indeed corrupt.

 

[Drelin]

Quote[/b] ]God said in the new testament you can eat what was before the 'unclean' animals.

Verse please.

Quote[/b] ]The other curhces I am talking about are the catholic churches that are not in Rome. I don't think all of the Catholic Churches were corrupt. And like I said there was an account of Jews accepting Christ and starting a church. So you want to say all of the catholic churches in the whole world were corrupted?

By my understanding, the Roman Catholic Church was a unified body. You didn't have the Papacy making official decisions in Rome and other churches just not following along. Perhaps there's some confusion about what's meant by corruption. I'm not saying that everyone involved with the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, but that the corrupt policies and doctrines endorsed by Rome were accepted universally or those who disagreed were labeled heretics and delt with.

Quote[/b] ]Because Jesus is God, and the Bible contains his exact quotes...

The Bible is the word of God because Because Jesus is God, and the Bible contains his exact quotes, and we know that's true because it says so in the Bible; the word of God?

And how does quoting someone claiming to be the Son of God automatically make everything else you write the word of God?

 

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]
Verse please

Is that a challenge?

Quote[/b] ]

9About noon the following day as they were on their journey and approaching the city, Peter went up on the roof to pray. 10He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat."
14"Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean."
15The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." -Acts 10:9-15

 

[Drelin]

Quote[/b] ]Is that a challenge?

Nyet, comrade Jango

. A request, rather. The verse is interesting. I have two questions; why did God tell the Jews not to eat 'unclean' animals in the first place if he was going to let them later? And if a voice told you to do something that had explicitly been forbiden in the Bible, would you do it? Also consider "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." That sounds similar to Satan's temptation of Eve. And yes, I'm deliberately being contrary.

Quote[/b] ]Many things the old chuch practiced was indeed corrupt

Actually, that's the point I've been pushing in this thread.

 

[Jango]

Quote[/b] ]That sounds similar to Satan's temptation of Eve. And yes, I'm deliberately being contrary.

Hmm, very interesting point there. I never thought of it that way.

 

[LionOfJudah]

actually if you look at the context of the verse and go back to the Greek (which it was written in) What Luke (the writer) is trying to convey is that

Peter had a dream.
The meats represented the Gentiles
God had made the Gentiles clean, (which peter was having trouble going and ministering to)

Does Latter on Paul expounds on the eating of meats, and our freedoms in Christ in 1Cor... that may be where you were trying to come from

 

[Drelin]

edit: nevermind. I read the verse in context and it makes sense in regards to what you say. Still, it was a cryptic and rather strange way of saying that Peter should not see gentiles as unclean; I would have just thought God was telling me to eat food.

So, anyway, that was a fun diversion. That verse doesn't condone the eating of unclean foods - back to that topic then?

 

[LionOfJudah]

God telling them not to eat certian things if you look at the times was mostly for health reasons.

Like i said 1 Cor is where you will want to go for Unclean/clean food discussion and Why we can as Christians eat it(freedom in Christ)

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]By my understanding, the Roman Catholic Church was a unified body. You didn't have the Papacy making official decisions in Rome and other churches just not following along. Perhaps there's some confusion about what's meant by corruption. I'm not saying that everyone involved with the Roman Catholic Church was corrupt, but that the corrupt policies and doctrines endorsed by Rome were accepted universally or those who disagreed were labeled heretics and delt with.

Quote[/b] ]Don't get me wrong, the catholic church was made up of people just like any other organisation. There were good guys and there were bad guys - but there were good and bad guys in Stalin's NKVD too.

yeah, thats what I was thinking. Honestly I'm not some expert on the history of the catholic church. What I heard in school was the corruption(massive killing etc..) was all from Rome. That would definately be something for me to read up on. I think it would be rather extreeme to say the whole catholic church was a corrupted bunch of killers, but like I said, I am going to read up on it... Reguardless I AM sure that the Bible was not changed at all.

Quote[/b] ]don't make the mistake of thinking that the church back then was like it is now, divided, stupid, leaderless and corrupt.

lets make huge false generalizations now...

Quote[/b] ]The Bible is the word of God because Because Jesus is God, and the Bible contains his exact quotes, and we know that's true because it says so in the Bible; the word of God?

no, Jesus is God because he walked on water, told a storm to stop, healed some leporers, rose people from the dead, and rose himself from the dead etc...

Quote[/b] ]actually if you look at the context of the verse and go back to the Greek (which it was written in) What Luke (the writer) is trying to convey is that

Peter had a dream.
The meats represented the Gentiles
God had made the Gentiles clean, (which peter was having trouble going and ministering to)

Hit the nail on the head. Thats exactly how I understood the story. However I take it that God never told the gentiles not to eat certain foods like he instructed the Jews. God didn't give peter a vision of teaching the gentiles to eat certain foods. The gentiles were never told to eat certain foods. I think this vision to represent God accepting the gentiles as they are, offering salvation. Thats my take anyway...

 

[Drelin]

Quote[/b] ]no, Jesus is God because he walked on water, told a storm to stop, healed some leporers, rose people from the dead, and rose himself from the dead etc...

Which we know because it says so in the Bible.

Quote[/b] ]What I heard in school was the corruption(massive killing etc..) was all from Rome. That would definately be something for me to read up on. I think it would be rather extreeme to say the whole catholic church was a corrupted bunch of killers, but like I said, I am going to read up on it...

Yep, my (rather basic) understanding was that the orders came from Rome, but that Rome's power extended into pretty much all of Christendom until Luther, King Henry VIII et al.

Quote[/b] ]Reguardless I AM sure that the Bible was not changed at all

Well, I can't challenge you there since I know nearly nothing about modern Bible history, as in how or if it's changed and so on. I will have to read up on the topic.

I'm begining to see where you guys are coming from in regards to clean / unclean food. However, I seem to have forgotten why we were discussing it in the first place. Mind you, I haven't slept in... 21 hours, so that's probably moot.

 

[Eon]

The Catholic church is rudderless, gripped by scandal and in a state of jeopardy in two continents of the world right now. I don't think it would be too much of a generalisation to describe it the way I did. As an Englisman, of course, it gives me some degree of satisfaction to see the old enemy so confounded.

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]Which we know because it says so in the Bible.

Which is a combination of accurate history accounts recorded by different historians.

Quote[/b] ]The Catholic church is rudderless, gripped by scandal and in a state of jeopardy in two continents of the world right now.

sounds like news journalists are making lots of money over there.

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ April 17 2004,11:41)]

Quote[/b] ]Which we know because it says so in the Bible.

Which is a combination of accurate history accounts recorded by different historians.

You're assuming it's accurate. It *may* be geographically and even historically accurate (though many of the events, such as Herod's slaughter of the children, are recorded only by the Gospel writers), but that does not make them infallible. The fact is, miracles must be taken on faith due to their nature.

And the gospel writers were anonymous, which greatly hurts their credibility. The names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were assigned some time in the second century. Anonymous works do not lend themselves well as evidence.

 

[Eon]

News? It's no news that the Catholic church is in decline in Europe, and it's also no news that it's never been dominant in America and that recent scandals have hit it badly.

It's also no secret that its titular head is a drooling octagenarian with serious health problems and that most of the hierarchy is scrambling to place themselves in the running - and have been for the last decade!

Eon

 

[Master~Plan]

Quote[/b] ]News? It's no news that the Catholic church is in decline in Europe, and it's also no news that it's never been dominant in America and that recent scandals have hit it badly.

It's also no secret that its titular head is a drooling octagenarian with serious health problems and that most of the hierarchy is scrambling to place themselves in the running - and have been for the last decade!

ok ok, calm down. I'm sorry. I was only trying to imply that only bad news makes the papers, and is talked about. I believe you.

Quote[/b] ]You're assuming it's accurate. It *may* be geographically and even historically accurate (though many of the events, such as Herod's slaughter of the children, are recorded only by the Gospel writers), but that does not make them infallible. The fact is, miracles must be taken on faith due to their nature.

well it certainly seems that way, but I mentioned a couple times earlier that the Jews at the time were out to discredit Christ, or any followers. So I'm pretty sure if no miracles ever happened, they would simply point it out. But they didn't because if they did they would have 5,000 people testify against them that they ate out of the same small basket of 5 loaves and 2 fish, and were full. If Christ didn't rise from the dead the arguments between the Jews and the Christians would go something like this:
Christian:"Jesus rose from the dead!"
Jew:"No he didn't, we have his body in a tomb"
Instead the arguments went...
Christian:"Jesus rose from the dead!"
Jew:"No he didn't, his body was stolen"
Christian:"No, there were guards guarding it"
Jew:"They fell asleep"
(and so on...)

Quote[/b] ]And the gospel writers were anonymous, which greatly hurts their credibility. The names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were assigned some time in the second century. Anonymous works do not lend themselves well as evidence.

Thats interesting, I have never heard that. However I don't understand what thier first name happens to be helps or hurts thier credibility. I guess its another thing to add to my study in the future list. Are you sure this is the position taken by Christians and non Christians?

 

[timor]

Quote[/b] (Master~Plan @ April 17 2004,8:26)]

Quote[/b] ]You're assuming it's accurate. It *may* be geographically and even historically accurate (though many of the events, such as Herod's slaughter of the children, are recorded only by the Gospel writers), but that does not make them infallible. The fact is, miracles must be taken on faith due to their nature.

well it certainly seems that way, but I mentioned a couple times earlier that the Jews at the time were out to discredit Christ, or any followers. So I'm pretty sure if no miracles ever happened, they would simply point it out. But they didn't because if they did they would have 5,000 people testify against them that they ate out of the same small basket of 5 loaves and 2 fish, and were full. If Christ didn't rise from the dead the arguments between the Jews and the Christians would go something like this:
Christian:"Jesus rose from the dead!"
Jew:"No he didn't, we have his body in a tomb"
Instead the arguments went...
Christian:"Jesus rose from the dead!"
Jew:"No he didn't, his body was stolen"
Christian:"No, there were guards guarding it"
Jew:"They fell asleep"
(and so on...)

Which, as Drelin said, we know from...the Bible. This is circular reasoning, attempting to prove the Gospels with the Gospels.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And the gospel writers were anonymous, which greatly hurts their credibility. The names (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) were assigned some time in the second century. Anonymous works do not lend themselves well as evidence.

Thats interesting, I have never heard that. However I don't understand what thier first name happens to be helps or hurts thier credibility. I guess its another thing to add to my study in the future list. Are you sure this is the position taken by Christians and non Christians?

Since that didn't seem to be sarcasm, I'll tell you. Your arguments, basically your entire belief system, has as its foudnation the gospels. The fact that these gospels are anonymous is a huge handicap, because the gospels must be credible to be taken seriously. They gain their credibility not only by what they say, but also by the credibility of the men/women who put the words to ink -- the authors. For instance, if we find a text from that time period written by Tacitus, the Roman historian, we can immediately look at it with a good degree of trust (of course, this trust would stand the risk of being shattered if he mentioned something far out, such as space aliens landing on his dinner plate...or, you know, dead men rising from their graves..more on that later). On the other hand, if we find a text from some Roman mental patient (pretending they had psychiatric wards), we would not take what he said very seriously. See how the author is a very important detail?

As for the whole space aliens thing, if Tacitus were to write of such an event, while this would not discredit the entire writing, this singular event would be very seriously doubted. To believe it happened would have to be taken soley on faith due to its unnatural nature. The same goes for the miracles in the Gospels. So what if "Luke" got some geographic places correct? Once you start talking about dead men coming back to life, one must begin to doubt the veracity of his claims. Please open-mindedly consider what I'm saying. I'm really not being antagonistic, I'm being honest. If you were to read in your history textbook that three days after Lincoln was shot he came back, would you believe it? And would not the complete and utter silence regarding such an event in other textbooks make you doubt it even more? This is the problem we run into with the gospels.

As for the veracity of my claims, I don't know any Christian, informed on these matters, who can deny what I have said to be true. Here is a link that may be helpful. It is from an encyclopedia, so it is a safe assumption that it is objective and reasonably free from bias. After all, there are likely many people working on this encylopedia, and each may have differing faiths. See how important the author is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

 

[Drelin]

If the Bible is true and inerrant because it is often historically and geographically accurate, then I'm going to write The Book of Drelin, split it into two parts; Part The First, which will accurately detail current history and geography through the omniscient eyes of Drelin, and Part the Second, wherein Son of Drelin does some cool stuff.

Then, provided human intelligence doesn't pick up in the next 2000 years, it'll be all the rage.


Timor, you make a good point, but forget that the identity of the New Testament's authors is moot, since it's the word of God, which we know because it says so in the Bible, which is true because of the miracles written of in the Bible.

 

[timor]

Crap, you're right Drelin. Sorry!

BTW, can I have an autographed copy of your book?

 

[Drelin]

Sure, it's due for publication shortly after it gets compiled and officially declared as canon and inerrant by a bunch of old men who want to use it to control people in roughly 500 years from now. Can you wait till then?