Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Omnaka
The concept of heresy was invented by Roman Catholics . . . . how could they be heretics themselves when they were the ones defining what it was?

Probably the same way america can be considdered a terriorist for invading other countries For reasons that are not true.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Does it mean it is an invalid interpretation?

Does it contradict other scripture, evidently yes, so there is your answer.

And who decides what is "context?" Is that not merely selecting what supports an opposing view? By what authority is this "context" correct?

The context is given by the rest of the text preceding and the text following the one you are looking at, in a more general way, the context is also the rest of the book and what is said on those other pages as a whole.

That is your context.

If you say "A" is the context, then "A" cannot contradict anything said in the whole book and must in fact be supported by other such examples elswhere. It is how any person goes about analysing any text within a work of literature.

In this case, you must account for Elijah being taken to heaven within the context, which implies a real account of an event (I don't care if you believe it or not), it is what the bible says. It also thus demonstrates that Elijah is still alive right now, as such it refutes any logic regarding Elijahs reincarnation. It is no good to say he died, that is not what the bible says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Early Catholic Church was not centered in Rome. It was not centered anywhere, as it was consisting of many local churches and therefore was called "Catholic", "universal". The only difference was that the Bishop of Rome was automatically seen as successor of St Peter, this position was not of a today's Pope. It was pretty much like today it still is in Orthodox church - Patriarch is not a "Pope", it is just a senior bishop without any special qualities attributed to this position. You may notice that the Council, establishing the church guidelines was not in Rome but in Nice, and another one in Constantinople. Rome those days was a small provincial town, it is only name of it was used for the Empire due to traditions. Modern Orthodox church has several Patriarchs - of Moscow, of Jerusalem, of Constantinople, of Georgia, Catholicos of Armenia etc. None of them ever claimed infallibility, this is against the dogma. As a heretic, Roman Pope can not even enter many countries, like Georgia and Armenia for example; and Russia accepts him only as a Head of State but not as a Church leader. RCC would easily let Russian Patriarch to serve liturgy in, say, Notres dame le Paris - but Pope is not allowed to serve in Orthodox churches, the fact that he accepts this difference proves that he accepts his own status as a heretic and schismatic, but still works to persuade the opponents to join Ecumenism. Same time Patriarch of Moscow would gladly liaise with Atchbishop of Canterbury, as Anglicans are not heretics in Orthodox view, same as Lutherans; in fact they are seen almost as the same Orthodox. I know families in Australia, who migrated in 1900s when there was no Orthodox church there- so these all families are now Anglicans, they just went to the nearest similar church.

Bishop of Rome was one of many bishops - until the political needs of the Western Empire turned him into the Church Leader and infallability was assigned to him. This made possible for the Pope to absolve the sins - and this contradicted with the concept of God and sin accepted by the rest of the Catholic Church, so the Schism happened. Political side of it was that Eastern Empire did not want any guidance from the Western Empire, so it chose to have it own church and proclaimed Roman Church a heresy (because of the sin concept differences and Pope's infallibility). The rest of Catholic church takes RCC as "papist heresy".

I suggest you read more on the early Church history and on the early Popes, who they were. What you are saying contradicts to what Roman Catholics themselves say, as they recognise the other divisions as Catholics too. This is precisely why Roman Church has a policy of Ecumenism, trying to restore the unity of the church. One should remember that it was not only St Peter and St Paul teaching Christianity and establishing churches, but the other Apostles as well - say St Andrew who was teaching in the East and was crucified on the X-shaped cross (still used for Russian naval flag); and the full name originally used for the Church was Catholic Apostolic Church, where is a mentioning of Rome in this name?

Where in Catholic history does it deny that the Church began to call itself the Roman Catholic church after there were other churches to compare it to?

And prior to 1050 the church was not centered in Rome? Someone should have told the early church fathers because they constructed the Constantinian basilica 700 years before the schism.

I am not interested in the history of proclaimed heresies. They go both ways for centuries and have no bearing on the issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Does it contradict other scripture, evidently yes, so there is your answer.

Only with the assumption that the Bible is self verifying and the ultimate authority. In most cases, however, context is not used by those defending the Bible. They find "context" in reaching back through countless books and extracting verses the fell support their point.

In this case, you must account for Elijah being taken to heaven within the context, which implies a real account of an event (I don't care if you believe it or not), it is what the bible says. It also thus demonstrates that Elijah is still alive right now, as such it refutes any logic regarding Elijahs reincarnation. It is no good to say he died, that is not what the bible says.

As absurd as the story is in the first place . . . . and then to insert into the tale that it can be interpreted that he never died . . . . in itself defies all logic. Again, it is not important what you believe. What is important is what the people believed when they responded about who Jesus was.

The worn out "what the Bible says" cannot be taken as a true authority. The Bible says many things and many were taken from ancient legends and myths. I don't believe a tornado will take you to Kansas, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
Dr D - Roman Catholics are a Christian heresy, started by the Bishop of Rome, who assumed INFALLIBILITY, proclaiming himself to be successor of Christ on the basis of the geographical location of his church. This caused the Schism inside Catholic church, and a large part of it separated from Roman church and announced Bishop of Rome a Heretic and Devil's incarnate - but they are still Catholics! They only disagree on the dogma about Pope, but they accept Nicene Creed the same way and consider each other Christians - so, relatively to each other they would be heretics.

I guess it takes one to know one.

Enter Brother Luthor Martin, Have you read any of his books? He really gives it to the pope in eloquent style With the sanctity of Gods wisdome.

Gotta love him.

You Know he got out of religion Got Married and settled down?

I think more Priests should use him as an example IMO.

Just a tid bit.

Love Omnaka

Edited by Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
Where in Catholic history does it deny that the Church began to call itself the Roman Catholic church after there were other churches to compare it to?

And prior to 1050 the church was not centered in Rome? Someone should have told the early church fathers because they constructed the Constantinian basilica 700 years before the schism.

I am not interested in the history of proclaimed heresies. They go both ways for centuries and have no bearing on the issue.

Western tradition was set up by the Roman Catholic Church, so they call Christian Church "RCC" from its very start - but this is not what the historical documents say, just open Nicene Creed and Creed of Constantinople, and you would find there another name, without any mentioning of Rome at all, Catholic Apostolic Church. The addition "Roman" appeared when the Church already started to split into two, to distinguish from the Eastern Church, which is called "Orthodox" precisely because it denied the novelty of Pope's status.

Before the Council of Nicæa (325) two bishops in the East had the same patriarchal authority {as Bishop of Rome - added by marabod} over large territories, those of Alexandria and Antioch. It is difficult to say exactly how they obtained this position. The organization of provinces under metropolitans followed, as a matter of obvious convenience, the organization of the empire arranged by Diocletian (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 21-23). In this arrangement the most important cities in the East were Alexandria of Egypt and Antioch of Syria. So the Bishop of Alexandria became the chief of all Egyptian bishops and metropolitans; the Bishop of Antioch held the same place over Syria and at the same time extended his sway over Asia Minor, Greece and the rest of the East. Diocletian had divided the empire into four great prefectures. Three of these (Italy, Gaul, and Illyricum) made up the Roman patriarchate, the other, the "East" (Præfectura Orientis) had five (civil) "dioceses" -- Thrace, Asia, Pontus, the Diocese of the East, and Egypt. Egypt was the Alexandrine patriarchate. The Antiochene patriarchate embraced the civil "Diocese" of the East. The other three civil divisions of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus would have probably developed into separate patriarchates, but for the rise of Constantinople (ibid., 22-25). Later it became a popular idea to connect all three patriarchates with the Prince of the Apostles. St. Peter had also reigned at Antioch; he had founded the Church of Alexandria by his disciple St. Mark. At any rate the Council of Nicæa in 325 recognizes the supreme place of the bishops of these three cities as an "ancient custom" (can. vi). Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the three old patriarchates whose unique position and order were disturbed by later developments.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm

The above tells you there were 3 Christian centres, equal in significance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Only with the assumption that the Bible is self verifying and the ultimate authority. In most cases, however, context is not used by those defending the Bible. They find "context" in reaching back through countless books and extracting verses the fell support their point.

how nice to be able to disregard whatever you want... when you want...

As absurd as the story is in the first place . . . . and then to insert into the tale that it can be interpreted that he never died . . . . in itself defies all logic. Again, it is not important what you believe. What is important is what the people believed when they responded about who Jesus was.

The worn out "what the Bible says" cannot be taken as a true authority. The Bible says many things and many were taken from ancient legends and myths. I don't believe a tornado will take you to Kansas, either.

I don't give two hoots what you believe or not, it is irrelevant, the fact that it is plain as day that Elijah according to scripture, was taken to heaven is beyond even your capabality of refutation. Although I'm sure you try anyway.

It is interesting that if what you said were true then it would be easy to make Elohim out to be ET's from another world as I've seen on this forum so often. It astounds me, the tripe people will often believe, rather than accept the bible at face value... believe waht you want, I'll be on holiday for the next two weeks, starting tomorrow so whatever answer you post will wait until I get back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
Where in Catholic history does it deny that the Church began to call itself the Roman Catholic church after there were other churches to compare it to?

And prior to 1050 the church was not centered in Rome? Someone should have told the early church fathers because they constructed the Constantinian basilica 700 years before the schism.

I am not interested in the history of proclaimed heresies. They go both ways for centuries and have no bearing on the issue.

Catholic history by the catholic church, yeah I can see why they would say they are the original church... There was quite a clear seperation of power between all churches at the beginning, All churches were local in outlook and the Roman Christian Church was one of many other such churches.

They did not have spiritual authority over the other churches in the least and only started this trend in the 3rd century.

Mainly because political power was also based in Rome at the time.

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr.Peabody
how nice to be able to disregard whatever you want... when you want...

I don't give two hoots what you believe or not, it is irrelevant, the fact that it is plain as day that Elijah according to scripture, was taken to heaven is beyond even your capabality of refutation. Although I'm sure you try anyway.

It is interesting that if what you said were true then it would be easy to make Elohim out to be ET's from another world as I've seen on this forum so often. It astounds me, the tripe people will often believe, rather than accept the bible at face value... believe waht you want, I'll be on holiday for the next two weeks, starting tomorrow so whatever answer you post will wait until I get back.

the pot calling the kettle ??

Elijah has a better chance of being taken by aliens or a dust devil ( small tornado) than by anything else. the bible is what's tripe. man's fantasy .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
the pot calling the kettle ??

Elijah has a better chance of being taken by aliens or a dust devil ( small tornado) than by anything else. the bible is what's tripe. man's fantasy .

6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through ME.

In the final days we shall see Elijah again, he is one of the two witnesses who shall come, and all of you will rejoice at his death. But he will live again after 3 days, if your still around at that time, remember this post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Western tradition was set up by the Roman Catholic Church, so they call Christian Church "RCC" from its very start - but this is not what the historical documents say, just open Nicene Creed and Creed of Constantinople, and you would find there another name, without any mentioning of Rome at all, Catholic Apostolic Church. The addition "Roman" appeared when the Church already started to split into two, to distinguish from the Eastern Church, which is called "Orthodox" precisely because it denied the novelty of Pope's status.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm

The above tells you there were 3 Christian centres, equal in significance.

Again, after all this, so what? My point was that they created the concept of heresies . . . . nothing more. A rose by any other name . . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
Again, after all this, so what? My point was that they created the concept of heresies . . . . nothing more. A rose by any other name . . . .

Is a pickle? :D

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

how nice to be able to disregard whatever you want... when you want...

It's either that or to be indoctrinated into believing that there is, indeed, an underlying thread of constant truth through it all. And yes, it is nice to be able to evaluate words without the restraint of believing all were divinely inspired and represent a complete and infallible truth. I can think of no other thing that could so disable a search for truth.

I don't give two hoots what you believe or not, it is irrelevant, the fact that it is plain as day that Elijah according to scripture, was taken to heaven is beyond even your capabality of refutation. Although I'm sure you try anyway.

My, don't we get out of shape if anyone dares disagree? What next? Put on the black capes and start cutting firewood? Yes, Scripture says that and I don't give a hoot who believes is such things . . . . it remains legend and mythology.

It is interesting that if what you said were true then it would be easy to make Elohim out to be ET's from another world as I've seen on this forum so often. It astounds me, the tripe people will often believe, rather than accept the bible at face value... believe waht you want, I'll be on holiday for the next two weeks, starting tomorrow so whatever answer you post will wait until I get back.

Why should it astound you that people live in the same world of natural laws that God created. People have always lived on this planet under those conditions.

It is more astounding that anyone can believe that once there was a magical time of burning bushes, when God spoke to people (the same God, now silent, who never changes), of staffs changing into serpents, parting seas, walking on water, raising the dead . . . . It was a theological fairyland that somehow disappeared to a place no one knows where and so there needed to be a lot of pretending . . . . God now speaks into hearts and anyone who does not believe all this is not only damned, but subject to moral indigation from those on the inside track to heaven.

A couple thousand years from now, someone is going to unearth an old pamphlet from Binny Hinn and be astounded at the list of miracles he performed . . . . that's the stuff legends are made of.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Probably the same way america can be considdered a terriorist for invading other countries For reasons that are not true.

Love Omnaka

But remember, it was done in the name of Christianity and God told Bush to do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

"It astounds me, the tripe people will often believe, rather than accept the bible at face value..."

It astounds me that anyone who has ever studied literature would accept the Bible at face value. It's essentially no different than a Norton or Longman Anthology: various, diverse authors and editors; stories written in various, diverse genres; et cetera.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Catholic history by the catholic church, yeah I can see why they would say they are the original church... There was quite a clear seperation of power between all churches at the beginning, All churches were local in outlook and the Roman Christian Church was one of many other such churches.

They did not have spiritual authority over the other churches in the least and only started this trend in the 3rd century.

Mainly because political power was also based in Rome at the time.

Jor-el, there is a God after all . . . . we agree on something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through ME.

In the final days we shall see Elijah again, he is one of the two witnesses who shall come, and all of you will rejoice at his death. But he will live again after 3 days, if your still around at that time, remember this post.

But Jor-el, if none of this happens, will you remember your post?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
Again, after all this, so what? My point was that they created the concept of heresies . . . . nothing more. A rose by any other name . . . .

The article about heresy in the same catholic encyclopaedia I left the link to says differently! Rome has nothing to do with this term, heresy was NOT a derogative term at all, but simply meant "teaching", "sect". Christian heresies were condemned by the Councils, not by Roman Bishop - and the Councils were representing all Catholic Church, not only the Roman part of it. You are hypnotized by the play of words "Roman Catholic" in modern sense and "Roman Catholic" in original sense, which was just the part of Catholic church of Roman Patriarchate, which Patriarchat later, after 1050 AD became split from the other two existing Patriarchates. It is like "America" in the sense of a continent and "America" in the sense of USA, different things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Omnaka
But remember, it was done in the name of Christianity and God told Bush to do it.

Heritics!

God Told Me he had no authority and should not use his name in vain so much.LOL.

Love Omnaka

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D

Dr. D - modern RCC is a Schism, they first made the changes to the tradition, not the two Eastern Patriarchates, who stay even now EXACTLY as they were set up 2000 years ago. Other two remained "orthodox" because they did not accept the changes - and the changes were to the status of Patriarch, who in Rome announced himself an Ambassador of Christ. Before this happened all 3 were one Catholic Apostolic Church. This is so simple that I am surprized with you refuse to accept it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
The article about heresy in the same catholic encyclopaedia I left the link to says differently! Rome has nothing to do with this term, heresy was NOT a derogative term at all, but simply meant "teaching", "sect". Christian heresies were condemned by the Councils, not by Roman Bishop - and the Councils were representing all Catholic Church, not only the Roman part of it. You are hypnotized by the play of words "Roman Catholic" in modern sense and "Roman Catholic" in original sense, which was just the part of Catholic church of Roman Patriarchate, which Patriarchat later, after 1050 AD became split from the other two existing Patriarchates. It is like "America" in the sense of a continent and "America" in the sense of USA, different things.

Divide them any way you want and they were still the ones to create the concept of heresies. Forget Rome, please. It is not the least important. I am not hypnotized by anything, much less schisms or whether or not a church was using the name Rome. The original point dealt with heresies, not church history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
Dr. D - modern RCC is a Schism, they first made the changes to the tradition, not the two Eastern Patriarchates, who stay even now EXACTLY as they were set up 2000 years ago. Other two remained "orthodox" because they did not accept the changes - and the changes were to the status of Patriarch, who in Rome announced himself an Ambassador of Christ. Before this happened all 3 were one Catholic Apostolic Church. This is so simple that I am surprized with you refuse to accept it.

It is not a question of accepting or not. I simply void responding to comments such as any church is a heresy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
It's either that or to be indoctrinated into believing that there is, indeed, an underlying thread of constant truth through it all. And yes, it is nice to be able to evaluate words without the restraint of believing all were divinely inspired and represent a complete and infallible truth. I can think of no other thing that could so disable a search for truth.

No-one indoctrinated me, I came to know God outside of the church, I picked up the bible on his say so, not mans. You may feel it to be indoctrination, I know it to be Gods word. His path to know him and the promise he has for each one of us. This has got nothing to do with the church as an institution or the buildings and societies that exist under human heirarchy or their agendas. It is simply Gods Living Word.

My, don't we get out of shape if anyone dares disagree? What next? Put on the black capes and start cutting firewood? Yes, Scripture says that and I don't give a hoot who believes is such things . . . . it remains legend and mythology.

No I'm not bent out of shape, only once on this board did someone get to me and that was because I was a rookie at this. I'm just telling it like it is, I really don't care what you think you know, because Gods Word outwheighs yours anyday 24/7/365.

Why should it astound you that people live in the same world of natural laws that God created. People have always lived on this planet under those conditions.

Yes, Gods word also tells us that that is how people thought in the time of Noah, Those very words actually. Guess what, Noahs day are back again... just as promised.

It is more astounding that anyone can believe that once there was a magical time of burning bushes, when God spoke to people (the same God, now silent, who never changes), of staffs changing into serpents, parting seas, walking on water, raising the dead . . . . It was a theological fairyland that somehow disappeared to a place no one knows where and so there needed to be a lot of pretending . . . . God now speaks into hearts and anyone who does not believe all this is not only damned, but subject to moral indigation from those on the inside track to heaven.

A couple thousand years from now, someone is going to unearth an old pamphlet from Binny Hinn and be astounded at the list of miracles he performed . . . . that's the stuff legends are made of.

What I see is people following after their own hearts and doing what is right in their own eyes, saying "This is how it has always been..."

Call it Mythology or imagination, you are certainly free to do so, what I see is Gods intervention in this world in favour of his own... God did much more than all those things you mentioned, he created the universe in 6 days, he created you and me, the things you mentioned are a walk in the park compared to that, yet the one thing that really cost him the most was to send his son for our redemption, remember that, one day it may just save your life...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el
But Jor-el, if none of this happens, will you remember your post?

I won't be around when it happens my friend, this will happen after the true church, his body, has left to join him in heaven for a time before coming back with him to end this age once and for all.

I have no doubt that it will happen, things are proceeding just as they were foretold in the bible. This is the time of the signs and believe me they have started...

But the question you really need to ask yourself is: "Will I be prepared when that day does finally come?"

I know I am, and no ammont of intellectual knowledge will prepare you for it...

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MARAB0D
It is not a question of accepting or not. I simply void responding to comments such as any church is a heresy.

What a heresy is has been well-defined and studied; none of what it means for others means anything to you, this makes you alone against the rest.

The term heresy connotes, etymologically, both a choice and the thing chosen, the meaning being, however, narrowed to the selection of religious or political doctrines, adhesion to parties in Church or State.

Josephus applies the name (airesis) to the three religious sects prevalent in Judea since the Machabean period: the Sadducees, the Pharisees, the Essenes (Bel. Jud., II, viii, 1; Ant., XIII, v, 9). St. Paul is described to the Roman governor Felix as the leader of the heresy (aireseos) of the Nazarenes (Acts 24:5); the Jews in Rome say to the same Apostle: "Concerning this sect [airesoeos], we know that it is everywhere contradicted" (Acts 28:22). St. Justin (Dial., xviii, 108) uses airesis in the same sense. St. Peter (II, ii, 1) applies the term to Christian sects: "There shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition [aireseis apoleias]". In later Greek, philosophers' schools, as well as religious sects, are "heresies".

St. Thomas (II-II:11:1) defines heresy: "a species of infidelity in men who, having professed the faith of Christ, corrupt its dogmas".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

This is Catholic Encyclopaedia - and it talks of heresy in pre-Christian times, as these two things, heresy and Christianity, are not connected at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.