All Comments (38)

a guxoj me shku ne vece

Great site!04d1239e95ea662aa2827f1cb25fd2d4

James McGrath: Amen to that.

BGONE,

Still more statements with no supporting references. Ditto for your web page. Or do you have as many of the On Faith panelists, PhD's in theology and/or religion??

Peter was a nickname, the closest English equivalent being "Rocky".

Before Protestants get too critical of the idea of a pope who is not infallible but can make infallible pronouncements, it is worth recalling how many Protestants believe that the authors of the Bible were fallible human beings but nonetheless wrote infallibly when composing those works that became part of Scripture. If the idea of the papacy is ill-founded, then so is the fundamentalist understanding of Scripture. And of course, since the Bible did not arrive in a wrapped package with a list of contents, speaking of the infallibility or even authority of the Bible implies some recognition of the infallibility or at least authority of those who decided which books to include.

*God is the only Holy one.

Thank you my Christian friends for helping me understand Christ. I come from a complcated family.

-Philippines

I am a Christian too.But i'm still 12 years old and I also agree what Amanda says.I think that popes are not holy.God is the only Holy person.It is stated in Revelation 13:9 He who has an ear lat Him hear.But many of catholic people are following the traditions of their church.We should follow God's Word.

You know what's funny Bgone. Every time in history someone has come up with some ridiculous theory on how the bible is a hoax. They all say that one day no one will believe it anymore. You seem like your following that pattern. You know what happens every time? That person dies and God's Word lives on. Voltaire, for example, claimed that Christianity would be dead within a few hundred years of his time. Right after he died they converted his house into a factory where they printed the first Bibles. I love how God has a sense of humor. :)

"Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will never pass away". God made a promise, and He sure has kept it!

So you can try all you want, but you'll just end up like Voltaire, and who knows, maybe when you die they'll make your house into a factory that will produce the Bible on blu-ray disc. Wouldn't that be funny?

Sorry Fr Randall, didn't mean to leave you out. How's the news the Bible is a prove hoax make your head feel? I'll wager you know "inspired word of God" won't cut the mustard. I see you agree that the pope can't use inspiration to condemn all but RCCs to hell,, and make it stick.

AMANDA

I see you're stuck in the twilight zone. You're somewhere in space and not on earth. Anyone can write "an inspired word of God" including Larry Flint of "Hustler" magazine. We are all God's children? Isn't everything we do "inspired" by who we are?

The Bible is ADVERTISED as THE WORD OF GOD inspired being a dodge. As the word of God it IS a hoax. As the inspired word of God it carries the same authority as "Hustler" magazine. No offense to "Hustler" that's no doubt more truthful than the Bible.

The Bible is a barfed on history of a period of Egyptian history commonly known as the Amarna era. That makes it a hoax as just "inspired" and is the proof it's a hoax. However, the word "inspired" allows the inspiration to come from anywhere but copying Egyptian history and calling it Jewish history without so stating as an inspiration or otherwise won't stand up in any court north of the Macey Dixie line.

Have a look at http://www.hoax-buster.org page 2 "proof" That's the best version of Amarna era history to date and it's a hand-in-glove fit to the critical stories of the Bible. The Bible is a proved hoax. The three great faiths have a problem. The pope gets headaches. On and on...

Amanda,

Many of the books listed at http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html will help you heal as you escape the brainwashing that most of us were bred and born into. The authors of these books have thoroughly evaluated the gospels, epistles and associated documents written in the mid first century to early third century CE and have done an excellent job in separating truth (e.g. the crucifixion) from fiction (e.g. the resurrection) and embellishment ( e.g. the Last Supper).

Many of these documents are on-line. See http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/ for your own perusal.

A partial list from the reference:

The numbers on the left are for an estimated range of dating.

30-60 Passion Narrative
40-80 Lost Sayings Gospel Q
50-60 1 Thessalonians
50-60 Philippians
50-60 Galatians
50-60 1 Corinthians
50-60 2 Corinthians
50-60 Romans
50-60 Philemon
50-80 Colossians
50-90 Signs Gospel
50-95 Book of Hebrews
50-120 Didache
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Gospel of Thomas
50-140 Oxyrhynchus 1224 Gospel
50-200 Sophia of Jesus Christ
65-80 Gospel of Mark
70-100 Epistle of James
70-120 Egerton Gospel
70-160 Gospel of Peter
70-160 Secret Mark
70-200 Fayyum Fragment
70-200 Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs
73-200 Mara Bar Serapion
80-100 2 Thessalonians
80-100 Ephesians
80-100 Gospel of Matthew
80-110 1 Peter
80-120 Epistle of Barnabas
80-130 Gospel of Luke
80-130 Acts of the Apostles
80-140 1 Clement
80-150 Gospel of the Egyptians
80-150 Gospel of the Hebrews
80-250 Christian Sibyllines

Amanda wrote: "Those who make God out to be a dictator and unloving should be ashamed of themselves. He is not a dictator or unloving; He is merciful and compassionate."

Why should I be ashamed because I think that a character in what I perceive to be a fairy tale is far from merciful and compassionate?

Concerned the Christian,

It's obvious that you too look at what man says to be true since you quote so many and believe what they say about scripture are only 30% acurate.

I'm only saying that we shouldn't listen to what a fallible man has to say about who is and who isn't saved.

I believe that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and I believe that Abraham was real and that Jesus was real.

As far as the other religions you spouted off about I know very little about them and don't care to know more because I don't believe in them. So you just keep quoting statistics about them since you believe them. What you have to say to me is meaningless and I will not argue with you.

BGONE

Yet another misinterpretation of the scripture. Matthew 18:18 talks about how we should handle offenses against one another. The church represents another witness. Jesus is not authorizing church law. That in itself contradicts scripture. We are to follow only the laws of God and nothing else. Jesus said he did not come to destroy the law but to fulfill it. He also said if we love him we will keep his commandments.

I don't beleive the Bible is a hoax. I believe it is the inspired Word of God. I believe the holy spirit is our guide, not the Bible. I believe the holy spirit guides us to search and seek out the truth by praying and reading the Word.

No, I do not scare my son with hell fire and I am a Christian. He is 6 years old and I tell him that God is love. I read him scriptures and the stories from the Bible and explain them in as much detail as I can. I don't use scare tactics to persuade my son to believe in God, he has to decide that for himself and I have told him that. Jesus taught on hell be he never begged anyone to follow him. He gave them a choice and that is how I'm raising my son. I'm doing what the Bible says and that is - "Train the child in the way he SHOULD go".

God is not a weapon, but his Word is sharper than a twoedged sword. Hebrews 4:12 - For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Hell is not what God delivers it is a choice that we make. Again, a misconception of believers and non-believers alike because they want to take the word of man and not read the Bible and search answers for themselves. Hell is real; it does exist, but I have no right to judge who will go there and neither does anyother human being.

Those who make God out to be a dictator and unloving should be ashamed of themselves. He is not a dictator or unloving; He is merciful and compassionate.

Peter was human as are all the characters in the Bible, except Christ. For example, Moses started his career murdering an Egyptian and hiding in the desert. I just don't see Peter as being that special. My personal opinion is that the rock is more about Peter's declaration than it is about Peter: Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." The only thing that made Peter special was that God honored him with this revelation and Christ says as much in the passage.

The "Rock" that Jesus was refering to was not Peter at all.

It was the principle, the belief, the understanding that Jesus Christ is Lord.

If you Google "Linus bishop of Rome" you will find a number of interesting discussions about Linus and Peter.

A little history: Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome. That was added later to give the ecclesiastical church a whiff of legitimacy. And Rome was not the only city to claim him as first bishop. The oldest extant list of bishops of Rome show Linus as the first.

I can give a few more details later when it's not 5 a.m. and I feel like going out to the car to get my copy of Walter Bauer.

Amanda, nice post. Agreed here with ya 100%

John 3:5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Titus 3:5 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)
5Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
Ephesians 5:25-27 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV

Ephesians 5:25-27 (King James Version)
King James Version (KJV)

25{Husbands, love your wives, even as} Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;

26That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

27That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
The above references are primary for Baptisimal regeneration
Ludwig Ott in his Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma
Baptism is that Sacrament in which man being washed with water in the name of the Three divine persons is spiritually reborn. Baptism, provided that proper dispositions ( Faih and sorrow for sin) are present effects a) the eradication of sin, both original sin and , ion the case of adults, also personal, mortal or venial sins; b) inner santification bt the infusion if santifying grace.

In contrast to the above-the clear New Testament message is that justification is by faith alone Se Eph 2: 8-9
King James Version (KJV)

]

8For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9Not of works, lest any man should boast

AMANDA:

The Catholic church has laws that are not Bible based except for Matthew 18:18, (may be more but one is enough) where Jesus authorizes church law. I don't think we can call that tradition based and the church certainly doesn't. The Bible is the absolute foundation of Roman Catholicism just like it is for most other so-called Christians.

The Bible being a proved hoax is a serious problem for all three great faiths. You mention a faith that is perhaps peripheral to them even though you use the Bible as a guide.

The German army has a manual, a guide and so does my automobile. There is nothing wrong with using man made manuals unless you claim God made them. I suspect that you and others of your variety of persuasion don't realize that you are not actually a party to the "God said it. I believe it and that's that" syndrome.

You may actually believe in God and use the Bible as a manual while other believe in the Bible and use God as a weapon,, to beat on people like you.

The key to saying which is hell. Do you threaten your children with the fires of hell? If you don't then you're probably not a Christian. Everyone will enjoy as much life after this life as everyone else if there is no hell and there actually is more life after this life. God is the weapon and hell is what getting hit by God delivers,, ala the three great faiths.

The Bible is only a hoax when it is claimed to be God's word. God is a really big guy and covers a lot of territory. There are a lot of little hoaxes within the big mama hoax, the Bible but only if it is not just literature, fiction, philosophy, which appears to be the way your group uses it.

I don't think your gang has much to worry about but the pope and Billy G, his successor anyhow do. The mountain they're standing on ain't there and they're 10,000 feet up. They're standing on thin air and that first step down is a giant one.

Rev'd Balmer,

That was a stunning and rewarding insight into 'the Rock' conundrum. Thanks! Let us all remember that the Church is Christ's Church everywhere. I'm sure the current Bishop of Rome would agree, but sometimes I think he should act it out a bit more.

Amanda,

You are a truly rare voice of reason and beauty on these forums. It would seem you are well named - 'Amanda' is pure Latin for 'She must be loved'.

Thank you.

Amanda,

One of the major issues is what in scripture is historic Jesus, Moses, Abraham et al. Many OT and NT scholars have reviewed all the available documents and found much of scripture to be embellishments added by the scribes to influence the uneducated locals. These "locals" are now educated and we are finding that the foundations of our contemporary religions are seriously flawed.

A synopsis if you are a "newbie" to these blog discussions:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was probably a mythical character. If he was real, he was at best a combination of at least three men. 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT.

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian sects.

3. Mohammed, an illiterate, hallucinating Arab, also had embellishing/hallucinating scribal biographers who not only added "angels" and flying chariots to the Koran but also a militaristic agenda to support the plundering and looting of the lands of non-believers.

4. Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

5. Hinduism (from an online Hindu site) - "Hinduism cannot be described as an organized religion. It is not founded by any individual. Hinduism is God centred and therefore one can call Hinduism as founded by God, because the answer to the question ‘Who is behind the eternal principles and who makes them work?’ will have to be ‘Cosmic power, Divine power, God’"

The caste/laborer system and cow worship are problems when saying a fair and rational God founded Hinduism."

6. Buddhism- "Buddhism began in India about 500 years before the birth of Christ. The people living at that time had become disillusioned with certain beliefs of Hinduism including the caste system, which had grown extremely complex. The number of outcasts (those who did not belong to any particular caste) was continuing to grow."

"However, in Buddhism, like so many other religions, fanciful stories arose concerning events in the life of the founder, Siddhartha Gautama (fifth century B.C.):"

Archaeological discoveries have proved, beyond a doubt, his historical character, but apart from the legends we know very little about the circumstances of his life.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/BUDDHISM/SIDD.HTM

Bottom line: There are many good ways of living but be aware of the hallucinations/embellishments and myths surrounding the founders of said rules of life.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus for an analysis of Jesus' life to include his illiteracy.

Amanda: Agree 100%.

BGone,

One could also concur that religions are man-made. Jesus said nothing about going out making an organized religion based on tradition. In fact, Jesus preaced against it.

Religions within the Christain faith are not Biblical. Catholicism is a religion and much of it is based purely on traditions. I myself am a non-denominational Christian that purely follows the inspired scriptures and believe them to be the authority for which we should look to.

Jesus rebuked the Pharisees and Saudacees for chosing tradition over the law. Wouldn't you agree that the many traditions the Roman Catholic Church practice are not Biblical and therefore going against scripture?

I don't think anyone condems Catholics belief in God. I happen to think Catholics believe in God and that Jesus is the savior/Son of God. I think it is the many non-Biblical traditions that are practiced are viewed as being more important than what God's word says.

Also, for the pope to say that no one can be saved unless they are a member of the RCC is distressing and bordering on heresy if not heresy. This due to the fact that the Bible clearly tells that if we believe Jesus to be God's Son, ask forgiveness of our sins, and repent we will receive the reward of heaven.

The Pope is not Holy and has no authority to deem a person saved or unsaved.

Professor:

You wrote, "I certainly mean no offense to the Roman Catholic Church or to our Catholic sisters and brothers. But I respectfully disagree with this interpretation."

I certainly mean no offense to you or your brothers and sisters of the three great faiths. But I agree with this interpretation of sacred scriptures.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul

I'm waiting to hear evidence the being in the fire was really God. In the mean time I see no reason why Devil shouldn't have a lot of faiths, many interpretations of His sacred scriptures. After all, the biggest lie ever told must be maintained. If it was the truth it would stand like a rock, Peter even.

How many faiths does Lucifer actually need to finally achieve His goal of unseating God and taking over heaven.

When Lucifer finally makes it He will declare himself to be God. Don't you agree professor?

Phil,

You said, "His Holiness is certainly aware that he makes mistakes".

The problem with this statement is that there are none that are holy but God. To say that a falliable man is holy is absurd and contradicting.

The problem with the catholic religion is they think the Pope is so "holy" that they hinge on his every word instead of looking to the Word of God.

Scripture says not to seek the wisdom of man. The Bible also says that scripture makes us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). It says nothing about a person doing that.

I get seriously offended when I hear that the pope said this and that's the stance of "the church". What about what the Word of God said? It says nothing about appointing someone to take Peter's place. If you look, Peter wasn't charged with authority over the church he was charged, just like the other disciples in Matt 28 were told to do.

If we read scripture we will clearly see that Jesus is the head of the church. He is the ultimate authority of the church.

Phil,

You said, "His Holiness is certainly aware that he makes mistakes".

The problem with that statement is that the pope is not holy, there is none holy but God.

That's the problem with the catholic religion, you follow what the pope says instead of following the Word of God. Scripture says we are not to look to man for wisdom. It goes further to say the scriptures make us wise unto salvation. It says nothing about listening to the pope.

I get seriously offended when I hear people call a falliable man holy. He is not holy, and his opinion should be regarded as the opinion of a MAN.

I wouldn't let my kids anywhere near the pope.
I just wouldn't trust him not to interfere with them.I mean how do you tell the difference between the pedophiles and the straight priests?
my sense is that straight people would avoid becoming priests,and that it makes sense to suspect that any priest is likely to be a child molester.
Better to be safe than sorry.

Its not that the emperor has no clothes,
The clothes have no emperor.
It's all Vegas glitz and glamor.
Put the pope in blue jeans
and he's just another deluded old man.

I prefer to live in an enchanted universe where the RCC is the only true Christian church.

What of it?

You have to read the text through the times that they were in. Peter was simply Jesus' desciple and he said that Peter would be the rock to build the church meaning at that time the Christian Church hadn't started. Peter would be the one who would lead and/or start the church. Not saying that Peter would be the Rock of The Church. jesus is the rock of my salvation not peter. Rock simply meaning the strength. Peter was faithful in a little so God made him faithful in the much by making him overseer of the church. Don't get confused people. Jesus is the reason for the church but he needed an earthly person to take charge. If not then there would have been much confusion and everybody would have been doing what they wanted to do and not what Jesus wanted. SO Peter was close to Jesus knew exactly what God wanted and he as the leader demonstrated that.

Now that was 2000 years ago. You have people who live all over the world and you can not expect one person to be the leader of the everyone. That being said, that sounds a lot like the Anti-Christ and his followers. Hmmm There will be one dictator to rule all nations. Sounds like it to me people. There can not be one man to lead all people. Then you would be calling yourself the Creator God.

Phil wrote,

"P.S. Those who are about to make erroneous arguments about Papal Infallability should probably make sure they understand what it means first. It is among the most misunderstood of Catholic dogmas."

*********************************************

My understanding of Papal Infallibility is that this was a placebo and psychic balm that Pope Pius IX extracted from the first Vatican Council to ease his pain at the loss of the Papal States.

Hans Kung, the distinguished Catholic theologian wrote the last two paragraphs following about the process by which the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was enacted by the Council:

********************************************

Vatican I, Pope Pius IX, and Papal Infallibility

The idea that the pope could be infallible might have remained a heresy had it not been for Pope Pius IX and his Vatican I Council, called by Pius and which met in Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome 93 times between December 8, 1869, and September 1, 1870. How did he manage to get papal infallibility declared an official dogma?

Catholic theologian Hans Küng, critical of this dogma, argues for four principle reasons:

"Pius IX had a sense of divine mission which he carried to extremes; he engaged in double dealing; he was mentally disturbed; and he misused his office." Küng goes on to say:

"So repressive were the agenda and official procedures; so one-sided and partisan were the selection of main theological experts and the composition of both the conciliar commissions and the conciliar presidium; so numerous were the means of pressure (moral, psychological, church-political, newspaper campaigns, threatened withdrawal of financial support, harassment by the police) to which the bishops of the anti-Infallibilist minority and the Infallibilist majority were exposed; so varied were the forms of manipulation applied, at the pope's behest, to advance the definition before, during, and after the Council that...as painful and embarrassing as it may be to admit, this Council resembled a well-organized and manipulated totalitarian party congress rather than a free gathering of Christian people."

**************************************

No one who knows this doctrine was enacted can take it seriously,

Reba
feelingly and profoundly put.
thank you.

hj

...and flawed human beings like Pope Benedict. It must be hard to wear the trappings of power every day and still stay in touch with one's sense of humor and humility. I'd love to see the pope in jeans and a t-shirt standing in any poor neighborhood of the world listening to Catholics and non-Catholics alike who are being peacemakers and hope-bearers. If he read his letters there, looking into the eyes of real people he might just get a hearing and learn a few things from others who share his desire for a better world.

Phil,

Concerning apostolic succession. Who was the next "pope" after Peter?

Also there are several, and I mean several, instances in the Bible where Jesus is referred to as the "rock". NT and OT. So the claim to Jesus being that "rock" seems pretty likely, no?

The only problem here is that Simon was Peter's given name. He took the name of Peter as a follower of Jesus. That's why, to this day, Popes take on a different name when they become Popes.

Nonetheless, I agree, it is very compelling that Peter was given responsiblity for the Church. As a Roman Catholic, I am certainly aware that our leaders are human. His Holiness is certainly aware that he makes mistakes. I think that for Catholics, a better understanding of Peter's nature is an important reminder: only Christ Himself was perfect. The Pope is Peter's successor--not Jesus's.

P.S. Those who are about to make erroneous arguments about Papal Infallability should probably make sure they understand what it means first. It is among the most misunderstood of Catholic dogmas.

The basic problem is the Catholic pope "cult" culture that has grown over the centuries i.e. only the pope "talks" to God and the pope cannot error in matters of dogma.

Hmmm, well history and realism are catching up with cults of any kind.

One definition of a cult:

A religion or religious sect generally considered to be extremist or false, with its followers often living in an unconventional manner under the guidance of an authoritarian, charismatic leader

e.g. 1 )Muslims and their Mohammed, and the clerics, ayatollahs, imams and "angel freaks" who follow the illiterate, warmongering, hallucinating Arab's koranic ways 2) "Jesus Freaks" like Bob Jones' followers 3) "Latin Mass /Catholic only/"angel loving" Filiciders brainwashed by the likes of B16 and the previous all white male, "celibate, "aarpie", European "charismatics" called popes.

Then there are the foundations of this pope "cult" culture.

What reality and history now conclude:

Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth. Analyses of his life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists)via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and pagan sects. These embellishments also include all the scriptural references to papal authority and Rock foundations.

e.g. See Professor Crossan's book, The Historical Jesus:

John 14: 26 not historic ( 62-. Spirit under Trial: (1) 1Q: Luke 12:11-12 = Matt
10:19-20; (2) Mark 13:11 = Matt 10: 19-20 = Luke 21:14-15; (3) John 14:26.)

Matt 16: 18-19 not historic (73- Who Is Jesus?: (1) Gos. Thom. 13; (2a) Mark
8:27-30 = Matt 16:13-20 = Luke 9:18-21; (2b) Gos. Naz. 14; (2c) John 6:67-69.)

1 Timothy- not written by St. Paul (See Crossan’s “In Search of Paul”, Harper, San
Francisco, 2004, p.105)

2 Peter 1:20
Since Schillebeeckx basically ruled out prophecies by concluding God does not know
the future, one can rule out the infallible nature of this verse.

Also from Raymond Brown’s, An Introduction to the New Testament, 2 Peter was
the last canonical work written i.e. ~ 130 AD, author unknown. Tis a bit dated for use in claiming infallibility plus the verse is not from Jesus or Peter but some possible remembrance of a scribe.

From another source:
Also think about the logic (or lack thereof).
“I believe the Bible is inspired.” “Why?” “Because it says so.” Would you or anyone let that logic pass if it came from the followers of any other book
or person? “I believe x is inspired because x says so.” Fill in the blanks:

x=Pat Robertson
x=the ayatolloah Sistani (sp?)
x=David Koresh
x=the Koran
x=B16