DescentBB

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 4:33 pm**

How does reason interact with religion? I've seen two opinions on this - one that says it doesn't, and one that says it does.

Some people say that reason and religion occupy separate spheres: reason deals with the natural and objective, while religion deals with the supernatural and subjective. Science deals with facts, faith deals with values. And really, these people say, since there's no evidence to be had either way, one religion is as good (or as bad) as any other.

I don't believe that.

First, religions are constantly making claims that are accessible to reason - whether it be the claim that their founder is worth following, or the claim that they help their disciples, or the claim that God formed the Earth in six days. Moreover, I believe that reason is the proper instrument to use in evaluating religion - it is foolish and wrong to believe things against reason and without evidence.

My dad is the pastor of a little church in Brigham City, Utah. Some time ago, they made a video called \"The Bible vs. The Book of Mormon\", which applies the second philosophy to the two books. They go through the claims that the Bible and the Book of Mormon make, and compare them to the available evidence.

Now, I don't really mean to do a thread about the truth of Mormonism (though it's kind of unavoidable given the nature of the video). What I'd really like to do is use this video as a jumping-off point for discussion about faith and reason. Is it a reasonable goal to argue against a religion by examinining the objective world? Is Living Hope doing something reasonable with this video, or it it unreasonable to suppose you could argue about faith?

The video's an hour long, and even if you don't care about the Book of Mormon at all, I highly recommend it as a thought-provoking look at the interaction between science and faith. Plus, it says some interesting stuff about the Bible.

Broadband
Dialup

- Drak

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 5:20 pm**

(downloading)

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 6:34 pm**

It seems that, at best, all you can do to try to evaluate a religious text's supernatural claims by analyzing its natural claims is to try to evaluate the text's overall credibility, which would include its credibility over the supernatural claims as well. But that's just evaluating the text's credibility over supernatural claims. There's still no way to evaluate the (purely) supernatural claims in themselves.

On a more practical note, if the Mormon religion wants to survive, it should probably begin deciding which parts of the Book of Mormon should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively based upon which are obviously false or not given modern knowledge. They can then textually justify their decision retrospectively. Once they do that, they'll be in a fairly strong position to take on any criticism of either the supernatural or the natural sort.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 7:36 pm**

Drakona wrote:How does reason interact with religion? I've seen two opinions on this - one that says it doesn't, and one that says it does.

Well, the Thessalonians quote would provide a powerful argument to supporters of the former opinion.

Interestingly enough, with the resurgence of the charismatic movement in Catholicism and the ideas of prophecy through humans, none of the modern Christian prophets teaching people how to prophesy say to simply accept what you think God is saying. They say that you need to confirm it through other people, through scripture or through real world events. Quite the opposite of what is presented about Mormonism in this film.

Also, why can science and religion even conflict. Logically, if God created the world, then he created all of the laws that govern this world. Science is merely a matter of finding out what those laws are.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:02 pm**

Jeff250 wrote:On a more practical note, if the Mormon religion wants to survive, it should probably begin deciding which parts of the Book of Mormon should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively based upon which are obviously false or not given modern knowledge.

Replace the words "the Mormon religion" with "Christianity" and "Book of Mormon" with "The Bible" and you got yourself a winning argument!

Drakona, I find the topic of the thread distasteful, because you are promoting the idea that your religion is right, based on reason. This is another oxymoronic thread topic: you can't define the "reasonableness" of a religion by referring to itself, or any other religion. That is purely circular thinking and collapses under it's own weight.

If you need reassurance that your beliefs are correct, you won't find them in "reason".

Religion = faith, and that's all there is to it.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:16 pm**

wow mobi .. talk about closed mindedness

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:20 pm**

one of the benefits of being right is not having to be openminded...

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:27 pm**

Well, everybody wants to be right, don't they? The story of the six blind men describing what an elephant is comes to mind.

Posted: **Sun Sep 17, 2006 8:37 pm**

ccb056 wrote:one of the benefits of being right is not having to be openminded...

I concure.

I had the same discussion on another site the other say as Drakona has brought up. Sure, you typically don't bring the hypotheical clinical scentific methodology to religious circumstances every time, but one person can exist with both hemispheres quite harmoniously; in as much as that one individual allows himself to.

Obviously, there are those who choose not to ..for whatever reasons... "scientific" or not.

It was a pretty good video. Personally, I would have prefered that proofs against be presented by fewer ex-Mormons. It made it look like they had an axe to grind.. and maybe they did. But as is was made plain in the beginning of the vid and the end, the presentation was intended for thier friends and family in the outlying area. Still, the method they used was effective. Lay out some obvious criteria that both manuscripts could be compared with and present said evidence.

It was a rational and reasoning manner to bring forth evidance for thier authenticity or lack there of.

This wasn't about whether God is real or not. It was about whether either simply had any historical foundation.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 6:59 am**

\"How does reason interact with religion?\"

A prime example is the Pope refering to a 8th century Pope's comment and muslums burn down churchs and kill nuns. There is no reason when you are wrapped too tight in religion

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 7:53 am**

Unless i misunderstood the question, i also find the topic redundant.

\"How does reason interact with religion?\"

Your reasoning gives you your faith. My reasoning says i don't need it. So lets have a BBQ.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 8:23 am**

Flabby Chick wrote:My reasoning says i don't need it. So lets have a BBQ.

But will you BBQ a pig and if you do will your nieghbors join you?

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 9:59 am**

LOL.. all the time Will.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 2:00 pm**

I think of reason as philosophy and religion as theology, because that is what they are. Philosophy leads to theology. Basically, theology fills the holes of philosophy and adds more content. Ex. Big bang theory- One knows that something happens due to an external force. Reason dictates that the universe was once a single dot of matter. Theology dictates that God created the spark that started the Big Bang and even the initial matter itself. At least this is how us Catholics understand it.

Basically, the \"right religion\" is well founded by reason; for why would God want to make an illogical religion if He Himself is the embodiment of logos?

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 4:04 pm**

Yea but it is redundant to use the item you are trying to define IN the definition.

Example - A bat is a wooden object shaped like a bat. WTF?

Example - Believe in God because the Bible says so. WTF?

Mobius is quite right, religion takes faith. Not reason, if you were a person of reason, you would not believe religion and it's fallacies.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:16 pm**

If you were a person of reason, but not of faith, you would at least know something is missing because reason cannot prove itself and shows that things are missing. Reason without faith cannot explain the Big Bang. In fact, there is only one reason that can prove itself: the fact that you know your own existance. Then you can clarify everything else, senses, history, math, etc., as faith. That is of course if you want to be politically correct to the nth degree.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:18 pm**

I was watching Firefly the other day. In one episode, River is marking and cutting up Book's bible, saying it doesn't make sense. He responds \"it's not supposed to make sense\" and talks about how it's all about faith.

Is that the right view of religion? Is faith/religion just some belief you have that has no bearing on reality and doesn't make any sense, and therefore all religious beliefs are equal (as long as you leave other people alone)? That's the view some people have -- sometimes people get offended if you ask about the history of their religious book, or whether certain stories match up with external evidence, because they believe religion shouldn't have to make sense. (It is, apparently, similar to the view Mobi has -- that it's \"distasteful\" to apply reason to religion. Though I think he misunderstood the point of this thread; there may be some religion-promoting later, but not just yet.) Drakona asked the question in her post: \"Is it a reasonable goal to argue against a religion by examinining the objective world?\"

I believe it is. Religion, like any other belief system that makes any sort of claims, should be subject to reason and analysis of evidence. If you have a philosophy that makes claims about human nature, that philosophy should be compared against the way humans actually behave. If you have a religion that makes claims about the history of the native American people, that religion should be compared against the historical and archaeological evidence. If you have a textbook that makes claims about chemicals and their properties, that textbook should be compared to the results of experiments using those chemicals. And so on. You should evaluate whatever claims you can, even if you can't evaluate all of them (as Jeff250 mentioned, some claims can't really be evaluated.) And if you find a book, philosophy, or religion consistantly making claims that don't hold up, IMO you should drop it as worthless.

I haven't yet said anything specific about Christianity or the Bible (the Firefly reference could've been any other religious book and it would've worked just as well as an illustration.) I want to challenge Mobi and Zuruck in particular to interact with what I've said so far, without themselves going off about Christianity or the Bible -- is what I said reasonable? Is it fair and sensible to apply reason to religious beliefs, either to affirm or deny them?

-----

if the Mormon religion wants to survive, it should probably begin deciding which parts of the Book of Mormon should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively

The Book of Mormon claims to be a history of the natives to America. That's a claim we can evaluate, and the video does a fairly good job of it, showing quite plainly that the people and places described in the book are completely fictional. I'm convinced there's nothing of ANY historical value that can be salvaged -- it doesn't make sense to decide ANY of it should be taken literally.

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:22 pm**

AP, you keep referencing the \"Big Bang\" as some sort of proof that the laws of physics and mathematics have been broken. Ever consider that the sum of the entire mass/energy of the universe is 0, allowing the \"Big Bang\" theory to coexist with the laws of conservation of mass/energy .....

[/offtopic]

Posted: **Mon Sep 18, 2006 5:28 pm**

The Bible is not always going to show things to be literally true, at least this is what us Catholics believe, because the writing styles are different for different sections. Sections like the creation story show a lesson and a philosophy rather than a history lesson. Even sections like the great flood or the 10 plagues have been scientifically proven by natural causes. This doesn't mean that God didn't set the tone. As I see it, reason alone is the perspective of disorder. Theology puts order to the disorder of the world. Why did a holy man survive and why was he the only one who built a boat? (Of course there were most likely areas that didn't flood on the earth.) Or also how could all of these plagues come so conviently timed and attack the right people at the right time (the poisoned food the first born ate vs. the angel of deeth). I don't think God is a being that would deny the balance of the world he made, but use the world he made to perform his miracles along with some truly unnatural phenomena (the human spirit, the healings of Christ, the resurrection, the images of angels, saints, Mary, and Jesus).

Religion is not made to unravel logic but to explain and enhance logic.

@CCB056, I'm not talking about the law of conservation. I'm talking about the law of cause/action. For every action, there must be a cause.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:12 am**

Here's an analogy that should be plain to a mathematician...

Some mathematical problems are easily resolved because the errors are obvious and the problems simple. Some are much more complex and the errors harder to detect, though evident. Some problems are insoluable.

(I would hardly argue with one who points out that no spaceship awaits the Heaven's Gate followers in the tail of the Hale-Bopp Comet)

Just because one problem is easily resolved to be erroneous does not mean that the more complex and difficult problem is true, or even closer to the truth.

...

Science may be advanced without the need for perfection or infallibility (and in fact sets itself entirely apart from these qualities). With religion there is no allowance for progress since there is no allowance for partial [biblical] falsehood; it's either true or it is not.

Some truths are not merely unknown, but unknowable.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 2:23 am**

Drakona wrote:First, religions are constantly making claims that are accessible to reason

Well, unless I can be convinced that when I die (and my cells cease to function and my perceptions fail to operate) that some kind of ethereal carbon copy will ooze out of my lifeless corpse and ascend to some pearly Club Med in the sky while amazingly retaining my mental and emotional identity ... well, until then, I don't think I'll find much of it accessible to reason.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 3:38 am**

index_html wrote:
Well, unless I can be convinced that when I die (and my cells cease to function and my perceptions fail to operate) that some kind of ethereal carbon copy will ooze out of my lifeless corpse and ascend to some pearly Club Med in the sky while amazingly retaining my mental and emotional identity ... well, until then, I don't think I'll find much of it accessible to reason.

When we die, we are concious of nothing at all. You don't instantly appear at any pearly gates, nor do you burn in eternity in hell. As a matter of fact, hell doesn't really exist.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:22 am**

um.. have you died before?

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:21 pm**

That video was very well laid out, thanks for posting that. I've alwasy wanted to know what that church believed but never took the time as i quicky put them to side as a true church as they dont follow God's ten commandments and they hold the Book of Mormon above the bible. As Jesus atributed both of these things as himself any church that makes those clames is walking on VERY dangerious ground.

When we die, we are concious of nothing at all. You don't instantly appear at any pearly gates, nor do you burn in eternity in hell.

Early christian and Jews around jesus time believed this very thing about death, this is why they called death SLEEP. you can verify this by simply asking a jewish historian and reading the old testiment, Jews didnt believe in an eternal soul...well at least the phaisees didnt. The sadusiees were a smaller sect of judism that were educated in greek schools(basicly our version of college) and took on the pegan belief that people had an eternal soul and went on to heaven or hades as soon as they died. Becuase of this they didnt believe in a resurection.
Why most christians today believe that you go to heaven as soon as you die, but when Jesus comes back he raises the dead, I'll never know. Logic dictates that it's eather one or the other. Eather we all go to heaven all at once when Jesus comes back or we slowely trickel into heaven one at a time when we die...
As for me I've looked at where the belief of going to heaven or hell right away came from and seeing how long christians went with out bibles in the dark ages , it is easy to see how this belief could have come in with all the pagan converts...

On a more practical note, if the Mormon religion wants to survive, it should probably begin deciding which parts of the Book of Mormon should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively based upon which are obviously false or not given modern knowledge. They can then textually justify their decision retrospectively. Once they do that, they'll be in a fairly strong position to take on any criticism of either the supernatural or the natural sort.

I would have to say after seening this video, why would someone hold onto such false beliefs?

The Bible is not always going to show things to be literally true, at least this is what us Catholics believe, because the writing styles are different for different sections. Sections like the creation story show a lesson and a philosophy rather than a history lesson.

Ok, this is one of my biggest complaints about Catholism!
I sat back while people debated if Peter was \"the rock\" or if Jesus/God was. And I was amazed how people could debate one verse and argue the meaning of it in a language that it wasnt written in( it was written in greek not hebrew) while no one pointed out the 43 verses in the old testiment calling God the rock, nor the many new testiment verses even a few by peter calling Jesus the cornerstone rock...see I St. Peter 2: 5-6. If you would like a complete list of these verses ask and i'll bother to type them all out.

Saying that God is not the creator is out right calling GOD A LIAR. Remember, not only did he come down to Mt. Sini among thunder and trunpets and smoke and fire and bellow out the ten commandments, in the sight of alittle over a million people he also wrote in stone that he created the world in 7 literal days! exodus 20 and 22. The 4th commandemnt of the 10 commandments clearly state that God made the world in 7 days, this is not debatable... eather it happened as God said, or he is a liar and the whole bible is a fable. plain and simple. It's up to each and every single one of us to see if what God has written is true or not. As for me, seeing how many times the future was written out and it came to pass 100% of the time is easily the proof that God exists and this gives me the faith to believe that he did the things he said he did that we can't see.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 6:59 pm**

Teddy wrote:That video was very well laid out, thanks for posting that. I've alwasy wanted to know what that church believed but never took the time as i quicky put them to side as a true church as they dont follow God's ten commandments and they hold the Book of Mormon above the bible. As Jesus atributed both of these things as himself any church that makes those clames is walking on VERY dangerious ground.

When we die, we are concious of nothing at all. You don't instantly appear at any pearly gates, nor do you burn in eternity in hell.

Early christian and Jews around jesus time believed this very thing about death, this is why they called death SLEEP. you can verify this by simply asking a jewish historian and reading the old testiment, Jews didnt believe in an eternal soul...well at least the phaisees didnt. The sadusiees were a smaller sect of judism that were educated in greek schools(basicly our version of college) and took on the pegan belief that people had an eternal soul and went on to heaven or hades as soon as they died. Becuase of this they didnt believe in a resurection.
Why most christians today believe that you go to heaven as soon as you die, but when Jesus comes back he raises the dead, I'll never know. Logic dictates that it's eather one or the other. Eather we all go to heaven all at once when Jesus comes back or we slowely trickel into heaven one at a time when we die...
As for me I've looked at where the belief of going to heaven or hell right away came from and seeing how long christians went with out bibles in the dark ages , it is easy to see how this belief could have come in with all the pagan converts...

On a more practical note, if the Mormon religion wants to survive, it should probably begin deciding which parts of the Book of Mormon should be taken literally and which should be taken figuratively based upon which are obviously false or not given modern knowledge. They can then textually justify their decision retrospectively. Once they do that, they'll be in a fairly strong position to take on any criticism of either the supernatural or the natural sort.

I would have to say after seening this video, why would someone hold onto such false beliefs?

The Bible is not always going to show things to be literally true, at least this is what us Catholics believe, because the writing styles are different for different sections. Sections like the creation story show a lesson and a philosophy rather than a history lesson.

Ok, this is one of my biggest complaints about Catholism!
I sat back while people debated if Peter was "the rock" or if Jesus/God was. And I was amazed how people could debate one verse and argue the meaning of it in a language that it wasnt written in( it was written in greek not hebrew) while no one pointed out the 43 verses in the old testiment calling God the rock, nor the many new testiment verses even a few by peter calling Jesus the cornerstone rock...see I St. Peter 2: 5-6. If you would like a complete list of these verses ask and i'll bother to type them all out.

Saying that God is not the creator is out right calling GOD A LIAR. Remember, not only did he come down to Mt. Sini among thunder and trunpets and smoke and fire and bellow out the ten commandments, in the sight of alittle over a million people he also wrote in stone that he created the world in 7 literal days! exodus 20 and 22. The 4th commandemnt of the 10 commandments clearly state that God made the world in 7 days, this is not debatable... eather it happened as God said, or he is a liar and the whole bible is a fable. plain and simple. It's up to each and every single one of us to see if what God has written is true or not. As for me, seeing how many times the future was written out and it came to pass 100% of the time is easily the proof that God exists and this gives me the faith to believe that he did the things he said he did that we can't see.

"either it happened as God said, or he is a liar and the whole bible is a fable. plain and simple."

"As for me, seeing how many times the future was written out and it came to pass 100% of the time is easily the proof that God exists and this gives me the faith to believe that he did the things he said he did that we can't see"

How do these relate? If the bible is a fable, which to me it is, what proof are you talking about?

Bee

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 7:26 pm**

The first five books of the Bible were written at the same time, I think by Moses. Thus, the writing style of the creation story would be used in God's statement. God might have not said he created the world in seven days (just said the creator of the world), or he might have said 7 days to put a meaning behind 7 (God is not a literal being, but a being of boundlessness).

God is the rock of the universe, but Peter is the rock of the Church (God's new covenant on Earth). These rocks are only related by what they mean, the caretaker. Peter is the caretaker of the Church while God is the caretaker of the universe. Also remember that Peter recieved the keys of heaven and earth (infallibility) and Jesus said his Church would last forever (not even the gates of hell can bring it down). Now about that infallibility, it is very complex. What you bound on earth is bound in heaven and what you bound in heaven is bound on earth. This means that the Pope is infallible in moral (earth-heaven) and religious (heaven-earth) teachings (now from the chair of St. Peter).

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 10:49 pm**

This means that the Pope is infallible in moral (earth-heaven) and religious (heaven-earth) teachings (now from the chair of St. Peter).

In order to be \"infallible\" you have to be perfect. There is no \"perfect\" man on this earth and the only 2 that have been were Adam and Christ.

A question though, what bible teaching says that we have to have a pope? I have yet to see that.

Posted: **Tue Sep 19, 2006 11:16 pm**

I just gave you that biblical reference saying that we had to have a Pope. Christ founded a new Church, led by Peter, and ordered him to continue it forever.

Also, one can say something that is true and not be perfect. I am about to make an infallible statement: \"I Exist.\" There, I said something that is infallible although I am imperfect. (As a side note, we Catholics also believe Mary is perfect and maybe even Elijah and Enoch, the 2 guys who went straight to heaven. This is so because dieing is a result of sin. Those who do not have sin of any kind, including original sin, cannot die from natural causes. Jesus, of course, is the exception because He took on the sins of the world.)

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:55 am**

I just gave you that biblical reference saying that we had to have a Pope. Christ founded a new Church, led by Peter, and ordered him to continue it forever.

No you didn't. You failed to point out specific scriptures that call for a pope to be in place.

As a side note, we Catholics also believe Mary is perfect

Based on?

This is so because dieing is a result of sin. Those who do not have sin of any kind, including original sin, cannot die from natural causes. Jesus, of course, is the exception because He took on the sins of the world.)

I think a clearer point would be that he died as a ransom sacrifice for our sins. Saying that he \"took on the sins of the world\" is sort of unclear to your readers.

As far as Elijah and Enoch, can you point out a scripture that actually says that they were \"perfect\"? I don't think you'll find one.

This means that the Pope is infallible in moral (earth-heaven) and religious (heaven-earth) teachings (now from the chair of St. Peter).

How are those gay priests doing? Surely a religion with an infallible person leading it wouldn't blatantly contradict the bible's teachings by going against what it says and adopting the morals of \"modern times\" instead.

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 6:43 am**

Found this while surfing this morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5355758.stm

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:49 am**

Admiral Thrawn wrote:Found this while surfing this morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5355758.stm

Then you'll know that there is a big difference between infallibility and impeccability, and that the pope is only the former when speaking from the chair about important faith matters.

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:20 am**

So you're saying the pope is \"Part time perfect\"?

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 1:50 pm**

Hey Bet, here are a few such prophecys that show that there is something more to the Bible then some old drunk men sitting around a camp fire making up a good story:P (iv'e actually heard some people refer to the Bible as such)

Being that the old testiment has been found(dead sea scrolls) and has been carbon dated to around 160-140 ad. I'll try to stick to prophecys that come from the old testiment related to the comming of Jesus being that we have the proof that the things written were done so long before Jesus came on the earth.

Being that I'm completely horriable at getting coherent thought written down, most of what you will see below will be copy and past from misc web pages.

The Bible says, \"I am the Lord . . . new things do I declare: before they spring forth I tell you of them.\" Isaiah 42:8, 9. \"I am God . . . Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done.\" Isaiah 46:9, 10.

Here are a few scientific statements from the bible long before secular scientists made these discoveries.

A. \"He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing.\" Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.
B. \"He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth.\" Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.
C. \"To make the weight for the winds.\" Job 28:25. Long before scientists knew, God said air has weight.
D. \"By Him [Jesus] all things consist.\" Colossians 1:17. The word \"consist\" here literally means \"hold together\" or \"cohere.\" Many Bible translations put it \"hold together.\" This is the answer to the nuclear physicists' worrisome question about the atom. The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, \"Why doesn't the atom fly apart?\" Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn't. Some scientists are wondering what puzzling power, completely unknown to them, is holding it together. The Bible says that mysterious power is the Creator, God Himself.

Answer: The Old Testament predictions of the Messiah to come were so specific and so clearly fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth that both Jesus and Apollos used these prophecies to prove to the Jews that Jesus was, indeed, the Messiah. There are more than 125 of these prophecies. Let's review just 12 of them:

Code: Select all

Prophecy 	                      Old Testament Scripture 	           New Testament Fulfillment
1. Born in Bethlehem 	              Micah 5:2 	                           Matthew 2:1
2. Born of a virgin 	              Isaiah 7:14 	                           Matthew 1:18-23
3. Of David's lineage 	              Jeremiah 23:5 	                           Revelation 22:16
4. Attempted murder by Herod 	      Jeremiah 31:15 	                           Matthew 2:16-18
5. Betrayal by a friend 	      Psalms 41:9 	                           John 13:18, 19, 26
6. Sold for 30 silver coins 	      Zechariah 11:12 	                           Matthew 26:14-16
7. Crucified 	                      Zechariah 12:10 	                           John 19:16-18, 37
8. Lots cast for His clothes 	      Psalms 22:18 	                           Matthew 27:35
9. No bones broken 	              Psalms 34:20; Exodus 12:46 	           John 19:31-36
10. Buried in rich man's tomb 	      Isaiah 53:9 	                           Matthew 27:57-60
11. Year, day, hour of His death      Daniel 9:26, 27; Exodus 12:6 	           Matthew 27:45-50
12. Raised the third day 	      Hosea 6:2 	                           Acts 10:38-40

Jesus fullfilled more than 125 Old Testament prophecies concerning the Messiah.

Dr. Peter Stoner, former chairman of the departments of mathematics, astronomy, and engineering at Pasadena College (California), worked with 600 students for several years applying the \"principle of probability\" to the prophecies of the Messiah's coming. They chose just eight from the many available and finally decided the chances of all eight being fulfilled in one man in a lifetime is one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000. What would the odds be on the more than 125 prophecies of the Messiah? It couldn't just happen!

One of the neatest of these prophecys is the prophecy for his baptism,death and end of the jewish nation as stated in Daniel chapter 9. Here the exact years are given and very accurate. I would just copy and past the prophecy but a picture is worth a thousand words.. so here is a link with it in detail and a chart.
http://www.bibleuniverse.com/prophecy/a ... n-time.asp

watching the above video posted by Drakona, you see the diffrence there is between a book that is made up like the book of mormon, where nothing in the book can be found. Compair this to the Bible where it has been used to actually find cities!

Are the historical statements of the Bible accurate?
The Bible says, \"I the Lord speak the truth, I declare what is right.\" Isaiah 45:19, RSV.*
Ancient artifacts unearthed by archaeologists repeatedly confirm the accuracy and truth of the Bible.

Answer: Yes, Bible historical statements are accurate. What God says in His book is true. Sometimes, temporarily, evidence may not be found to substantiate certain historical facts from the Bible, but in time the evidence surfaces. Note the following:

A. For years skeptics said the Bible was unreliable because it mentions the Hittite nation (Deuteronomy 7:1) and cities like Nineveh (Jonah 1:1, 2) and Sodom (Genesis 19:1), which they denied ever existed. But now modern archaeology has confirmed that all three did, indeed, exist.

B. Critics also said that Bible-mentioned kings Belshazzar (Daniel 5:1) and Sargon (Isaiah 20:1) never existed. Once again, it has now been confirmed they did exist.

C. Skeptics also said the Bible record of Moses was not reliable because it mentions writing (Exodus 24:4) and wheeled vehicles (Exodus 14:25), neither of which they said existed at the time. They, of course, know better today.

D. At one time the 39 kings of ancient Israel and Judah who reigned during the divided kingdom were authenticated only from the Bible record, so critics charged fabrication. But then archaeologists found cuneiform records that mentioned many of these kings and, once again, the Bible record was proved accurate. Critics have repeatedly been proved wrong as new discoveries confirm biblical people, places, and events. It will always be so.

some additional misc prophecys that i've seen that are true...
Four world empires to arise: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome (Daniel chapters 2, 7, 8 ).(on a side note the last empire rome, notice how it changes at it's fall and it mixes with clay and devides into europe today and the iron even tho it's mixed with clay continues on till the end of the world...in case anyone hasnt noticed several of the popes titles claim that he is \"Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire\")

Cyrus to be the warrior to capture Babylon (Isaiah 45:1-3).

After Babylon's destruction, it would never be inhabited again (Isaiah 13:19, 20; Jeremiah 51:37).

Egypt would never again have a commanding position among the nations (Ezekiel 29:14, 15; 30:12, 13).

oh well, i guess this is enough for now I could keep on writing much more and i havent even touched on many of the fulfilments of the cerimonies such as the passover lamb was not to have any bones broken, it was to show that Jesus wouldnt have any bones broken when he died.

Or like pentacost was the celibration of the \"first fruits harvest\"... the fulfilment of this was God waited 50 days after the resurection till the day of pentacost to pour out the Holy Spirit so the deciples would begin the \"first fruit\" harvest.... many were baptized and the christian church was started.

In the temple, the place where the lamb was slain was on the north side of the court yard... just like Jesus who was taken to the north side of the city to be slain...
these are just a few examples how the cerimonal law of the old testiment fortold many things that would happen..

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 2:30 pm**

Admiral Thrawn wrote: ‹ Select ›
Found this while surfing this morning

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/5355758.stm

Then you'll know that there is a big difference between infallibility and impeccability, and that the pope is only the former when speaking from the chair about important faith matters.

why is it people so easily take the word and claims of these people with out looking to see if they have any merit? you take one verse and like i said before, ignore any other verse on that topic?

Code: Select all

He is the Rock, His work is perfect; For all His ways are justice, A God of truth and without injustice; Righteous and upright is He.	Deut 32:4
...Then he forsook God who made him, and scornfully esteemed to Rock of his salvation.	Deut 32:15
Of the Rock who begot you, you are unmindful, And have forgotten the God who fathered you.	Deut 32:18
How could one chase a thousand, And two put ten thousand to flight, Unless their Rock had sold them, And the LORD had surrendered them?	Deut 32:30
For their rock is not like our Rock, Even our enemies themselves being judges.	Deut 32:31
He will say: 'Where are their gods, The rock in which they sought refuge?	Deut 32:37
No one is holy like the LORD, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.	1 Samuel
2:2
And he said: \"The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer;	2 Samuel
22:2
For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?	2 Samuel
22:32
\"The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let God be exalted, The Rock of my salvation!	2 Samuel
22:47
The God of Israel said, The Rock of Israel spoke to me: He who rules over man must be just, Ruling in the fear of God.	2 Samuel
23:3
The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; My God, my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold	Ps 18:2
For who is God, except the LORD? And who is a rock, except our God?	Ps 18:31
The LORD lives! Blessed be my Rock! Let the God of my salvation be exalted.	Ps 18:46
To You I will cry, O LORD my Rock: Do not be silent to me, Lest, if You are silent to me, I become like those who go down to the pit.	Ps 28:1
Bow down Your ear to me, Deliver me speedily; Be my rock of refuge, A fortress of defense to save me.	Ps 31:2
For You are my rock and my fortress; Therefore, for Your name's sake, Lead me and guide me.	Ps 31:3
I will say to God my Rock, \"Why have You forgotten me? Why do I go mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?	Ps 42:9
He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be greatly moved.	Ps 62:2
He only is my rock and my salvation; He is my defense; I shall not be moved.	Ps 62:6
God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, And my refuge, is in God.	Ps 62:7
Be my strong refuge, To which I may resort continually; You have given the commandment to save me, For You are my rock and my fortress	Ps 71:3	Ps 70:2
Then they remembered that God was their rock, And the Most High God their Redeemer	Ps 78:35
He shall cry to Me, You are my Father, My God, and the rock of my salvation.	Ps 89:26
To declare that the LORD is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.	Ps 92:15
But the LORD has been my defense, And my God the rock of my refuge.	Ps 94:22
O come, let us sing to the LORD! Let us shout joyfully to the Rock of our salvation.	Ps 95:1
Blessed be the LORD my Rock, Who trains my hands for war, And my fingers for battle	Ps 144:1
He will be as a sanctuary, But a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense To both the houses of Israel, As a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.	Isa 8:14
Because you have forgotten the God of your salvation, And have not been mindful of the Rock of your stronghold, Therefore you will plant pleasant plants And set out foreign seedlings;	Isa 17:10
Do not fear, nor be afraid; Have I not told you from that time, and declared it? You are My witnesses. Is there a God beside Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.	Isa 44:7
Listen to Me, you who follow after righteousness, You who seek the LORD: Look to the rock from which you were hewn, And to the hole of the pit from which you were dug.	Isa 51:1

Here is a small sampeling fron the old testiment...
so knowing all this when we get to the new testiment we ask this question.....

Question: Was Peter the \"rock\" on which Jesus will build His church?

Answer: Here is the passage that you are referring to:
Matthew 16:13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He began asking His disciples, saying, \"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?\" Matthew 16:14 And they said, \"Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.\" Matthew 16:15 He said to them, \"But who do you say that I am?\" Matthew 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, \"Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.\" Matthew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said to him, \"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. Matthew 16:18 \"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.\"

The Greek word for Peter is petros, meaning \"a pebble.\" The Greek word for rock is petra, meaning \"a massive rock\" such as bedrock. Jesus is the Rock, petra. Everyone who receives this revelation from the Father like Peter received it-that Jesus is the Son of God (Lord and Savior)-becomes a part of His Church.

Christ used the word petra when He told the parable of the man building a house upon a rock to illustrate its size. Matthew 7:24-25 \"Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock (petra). And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock (petra).\" Jesus was talking about building upon bedrock, not a pebble.

The apostle Paul tells us that Jesus is the foundation upon which we build our lives: 1 Cor. 3:11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The apostle Peter also informed up that every believer is a \"stone\" and that Jesus Christ is the \"cornerstone\" or foundation. 1 Peter 2:4-6 And coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. For this is contained in Scripture: \"Behold I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in Him shall not be disappointed.\"

Every believer is a stone in Christ's Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:36 pm**

Teddy wrote:...prophecies... bla bla bla...

Congratulations on completely missing Bettina's point. She was asking something along the lines of, how does the NT validate the OT when the NT could be just as dubious as the OT? Jesus' existence might be able to be verified outside of the NT (it's arguable), but certainly none of the specifics concerning the prophecies themselves.

Besides, while we're on the subject of your copied and pasted prophecies, I like how anything can be called an OT prophecy so long as it has some faint resemblance to something that happened to Jesus. Take Zech. 11:12:

"I told them, 'If you think it best, give me my pay; but if not, keep it.' So they paid me thirty pieces of silver."

Let's ignore for the fact that even in the NT Judas never really said that and that from the context of the chapter, it looks like whoever is saying that is actually serving God. So really the only thing actually in common is that they both happen to mention 30 pieces of silver.

Now I can get past the fact that maybe, just maybe, the Israelites typically prophesied in past tense instead of future tense, which wouldn't be the most far out thing I've ever heard about them, if true. But even so, this verse has no purport to be a prophecy, much less a messianic one. I mean, to me, it looks like the only thing you're doing is noticing ex post facto that they both mentioned 30 pieces of silver, so suddenly the OT reference must a prophecy and the other must be a NT fulfillment.

Granted, I probably have misunderstood these biblical things to an extent, and someone might take the time to correct some of my subtler points, but am I really that far off here?

Let me tell you what I want to see in the verse (or surrounding verses) for it to be considered a messianic prophecy. Something along the lines of, "There will come a day when the Messiah will X" or "In the coming days the Messiah will have X done to him." In other words, it has to be unarguably a prophecy (which you'd think would be obvious). It has to be unarguably a claim about the Messiah. And it has to make some claim about him or circumstances surrounding him. So-called OT "prophecies" like that thirty pieces of silver coincidence really fail to impress me.

And with that rant said, Bettina still has a good question too.

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:38 pm**

hah...nothing is worth replying to those posts Ted...get out...get some air...smoke some grass. Do something. From the word consist..you came up with the bible establishing physics??

/me shudders

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 3:59 pm**

I missed the blurb about science in the OT, so here are my responses:

Teddy wrote:B. "He . . . sitteth upon the circle of the earth." Isaiah 40:22. The Bible said the earth is round centuries before man found out.

Just in case there's any confusion over whether Job is talking about a circle or a sphere, it is indeed a circle, because if you would have put in the rest of the verse instead of leaving it out:

" 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in."

So in reality, this one seems to perpetuate the myth that the earth is flat.

C. "To make the weight for the winds." Job 28:25. Long before scientists knew, God said air has weight.

And this one when I looked up said this:
"25 When he established the force of the wind
and measured out the waters,"

Teddy wrote:D... The real mystery of the atom does not involve its benumbing mega-power, but rather, "Why doesn't the atom fly apart?" Scientific knowledge says it should, but it doesn't.

Wrong. I mean, by that same reasoning, we could conclude that scientific knowledge says that planets shouldn't orbit the sun. After all, what really causes gravity? Fortunately, this is a purely metaphysical pursuit, and science attempts to describe gravity only in terms of its effects, i.e. what it does. What gravity really is isn't so important to science. The nuclear forces aren't so different except that they come along later in scientific discovery.

Teddy wrote:A. "He . . . hangeth the earth upon nothing." Job 26:7. This scientific fact is from Job, the Bible's oldest book.

I'm not even really sure what that actually means, but pretty much any of the so-called scientific OT claims, including this one, can be debunked solely on the basis that they don't purport to be making any scientific claims. I mean, this is just a poem. And if I asked you if just a few verses later, in Job 26:11, if Job was making a scientific claim with:

"11 The pillars of the heavens quake,
aghast at his rebuke."

...you would say of course not. So let's at least be consistent here, shall we? If Job isn't making a scientific claim about the heavens being supported by pillars, then he's probably not making one a few verses earlier when he's saying something ambiguous about how the earth hangs. It's just supposed to be a poem with some nice religious meaning. Take it as that and that only. Unless it actually purports to be making a scientific claim about reality, don't assume it does.

Posted: **Wed Sep 20, 2006 4:50 pm**

\"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades shall not overpower it.\"

Unless if Jesus couldn't speak correctly, he is clearly using \"this\" to refer to Peter. If he meant himself, he would have said \"and upon myself I will build my Church.\" This doesn't mean that Catholics are not followers of Christ. Priests act in the person of Christ. The Pope is the mediator between truth and the world as can be proven biblically by the statement of the ownership of the keys (another reason why Jesus said Peter was the rock of his Church). Peter is given keys from Christ over the truths of heaven and earth and thus has access to the truth of heaven and earth and a leadership position on earth to act as a mediator between God and the new covenant. Jesus established tradition through many passages (I don't need to prove this hopefully) and said to Peter that he must use new tradition (authority of the papacy) over old tradition (old tradition = soon to be the Bible from Jesus' time along with Jewish tradition) in order to unveil the mysteries of the world. This shows that the Church may go through trials, but will always stay as Jesus' mediator to the world. Also, why would Jesus teach his apostles all of the Sacramanets (as can be all depicted in biblical texts) if they were to be like his normal disciples. Why did Jesus have a special group (the first bishops) and picked one out of the group as the leader (Pope Peter).

Regarding that article questioning the Pope's infallibility:
Here is Pope Infallibility 101.
1. If the Pope says 1+1=3, he does not offend his infallibility.
2. If the Pope says the world is flat, he does not offend his infallibility.
3. If the Pope starts the Crusades or a \"holy war,\" he does not offend his infallibility.
4. If the Pope says he is sorry for offending the Muslim people, he does not offend his infallibility.
5. The above statements do not apply to the keys of heaven/earth because they do not place laws on morality/religion. The below statements hold infalliblity ground.
6. If the Pope sits on the chair of Peter (shows that he knows what he is saying to be true and is not speaking based on opinion) and makes a law about morality or religion (only 1 infallible statement has been made from the chair of Peter and that is that Mary did not die but ascended into heaven), such a statement is infallible.
7. If the Pope makes a teaching concerning morality (abortion is wrong) or religion (only males can become priests), such a statement can be infallible. The statement doesn't have to be infallible. The statement, however, should be treated in high regards and thus accepted.

I could go on and on defending any thing you throw at the Catholic Church. However, I am limited in my knowledge (I am younger than CCB056). The best way to settle your curiosity about the right religion is to go to the direct source. Pick up some Catholic books defending the Catholic faith and explaining why Catholics do what they do. As for myself, I figure I already belong to the right religion for these reasons:
1. It was the only Church founded by Christ.
2. It is the first Christian Church.
3. I have read much into the other religions and have found many flaws that are against logic.
4. I have found no flaws in my faith that are illogical.
5. The Catholic Church seems to be the most organized, peace-bearing, and helpful Church out there as of today. They don't force religion upon other people. They merely offer it.
6. My favorite statement, \"You know nothing of the universe for certain but your own existance. Everything else (senses, history, logic, religion, and etc.) relies on faith in order to enter one's perception of acceptance.\"

Now relating this whole Catholic issue to reason and religion:
Religion itself can be broken down into reason (Biblical text) and religion (tradition). The Biblical text clearly shows that it is limited and points to the new covenant's authority (the tradition of the Church). So really we have logic (philosophy), then literature (Bible Study), then tradition (theology) in the scheme of things.

Posted: **Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:20 am**

Congratulations on completely missing Bettina's point. She was asking something along the lines of, how does the NT validate the OT when the NT could be just as dubious as the OT? Jesus' existence might be able to be verified outside of the NT (it's arguable), but certainly none of the specifics concerning the prophecies themselves.

how do you get this? My whole point was in saying there was something unique with the Bible. here we have prophecys written somewhere between 1000-400 years before the events happened. These events are not vague but point out very specific events.

Besides, while we're on the subject of your copied and pasted prophecies, I like how anything can be called an OT prophecy so long as it has some faint resemblance to something that happened to Jesus. Take Zech. 11:12:

Wow, I'd hate to see what you'd do with a book like Revelation which is in symbols when you cant even read english.. but hey, lets back up and look at a larger part of the chapter....

First off in 3 diffrent Bibles i have NKJV, KJV,NIV there is a BIG heading on the top of chapter 11 \"rejection of the Messiah\" so i guess all the scholors who translated these bibles felt this was in no way related to Jesus...

so lets just see what is what while were on the topic. I'm going to start on verse 12, because if you cant get the last half of this chapter, trying to explain the first half wont do any good.

12, then I said to them, \"If it is agreeable to you, give me my wages; and if not, refrain.\" So the weighed out for my wages thirty pieces of silver.

ok, first off, when Judas betrayed Jesus... was he working for someone? yes he was and I'm sure there had to be some negotion on the price Judas set on turning Jesus over....

13 and the Lord said to me,\"Throw it to the potter\" - that princely price they set on me. So I took the 30 pieces of silver and threw them into the house of the Lord for the potter.

Again here the Lord is saying that the princely price set on him was 30 pieces of silver and it's talking of how Judas once he saw what he had done, threw the money back to the Pharasees, who then took the 30 pieces of silver and bought the potters field.....

and here in verses 14 it talks about how God is now going to break the brotherhood between Judah and Iseral. To this day, i cant think of a church that doesnt teach that anyone who accepts Jesus is considered spritual Iseral.

I could go on, verses 15-17 continue fortelling how the pharisees would be \"foolish shepards\" of Gods flock...

Was this really that unclear????? As for using this method to justify the New Testiment, we have at our disposal quite a few prophecy in the letters from the apostles and a whole book dedicated to telling the future- Revelation. Just like here, God clearly spells out the future(now mostly our past) of the christian church... and it isnt too hard to understand. Altho it uses symbols, every symbol is described elswhere in the bible with it's definition. Using this God gives us very clear pictures of what happeded in early christianity and what is going to happen. Seeing how accurate these prophecys are, for me at least, proof positive of the inspiriation of the bible. As far as posting them here..... they would step on alot of toes.

Just remember. when you break down the ages of the world(acording to the bible) you have creation to abraham(4004-2004 bc) God called abraham and his decendants to minister to the fallen away world. Abrahams decendants(2004- 4 bc) had Gods word, had turned from giving it to the world and had added all kinds of things to worshing God that God never initiated.... this in turn caused conflict between Jesus and religious leaders who were to proud to admit that the crap they added to the Jewish religion was wrong, and ended in Jesus dying... now us in the christian age have had Gods word for 2000 years also.. My point in brining up any discussion is simply to get people to think about what they believe and why do they believe what they believe...

Jesus warned us that there is a wide path that many follow and a narrow path THAT FEW FIND. I'm not hear to down anyones beliefs or to tell them what to believe... but if were not looking at what we believe , how can we say were on the narrow path if we are not looking? Logic would dictate that if the majority are on the wide path so would most of the children be born there and unless these look to see which path they are on... they may be blindly walking the wrong one....

Now on to what Aggressor just wrote, I've grown up Catholic... I'm well aware of the teachings and in most discussions I have gotten into with our local parish priests, I usually have to show them what the church teaches..... sad to see I such ignorance as to what your own church believes.

anyway, you again just took one verse, that has been translated most likely from greek(as the original was written) to latin, to english as most Catholic bibles are. this verse in question interpeted as such gives one man leadership over not only the church but SALVATION ITSELF!!! Now remember you just stated above that the Pope cannot screw up in teachings....

as to your claims that the church is peacful, the only one that existed from the beginning ext... better get your facts straight, or how about i just give them to you straight from the pages of your churches teachings....

Code: Select all

Popes declaring salavtion is only found in Roman Catholic church:

 \"Do not hold aloof from the Church; for nothing is stronger than the Church. The Church is thy hope, thy salvation, thy refuge.\" St. John Chrysostom, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. IX, Introduction to the Two Homilies on Eutropius, Homily II.

\"The Saviour Himself is the door of the sheepfold: 'I am the door of the sheep.' Into this fold of Jesus Christ, no man may enter unless he be led by the Sovereign Pontiff; and only if they be united to him can men be saved, for the Roman Pontiff is the Vicar of Christ and His personal representative on earth.\" (Pope John XXIII in his homily to the Bishops and faithful assisting at his coronation on November 4, 1958).

Pope Leo XIII

    * \"This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God's commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.\" (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 653).

Pope Eugene IV

    *


      \"The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, even if he pour out his blood for the Name of Christ, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.\" (Pope Eugene IV, the Bull Cantate Domino, 1441.)

Pope Pelagius II (A.D. 578 - 590)

\"Consider the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and unity of the Church cannot have the Lord. ...Although given over to flames and fires, they burn, or, thrown to wild beasts, they lay down their lives, there will not be (for them) that crown of faith but the punishment of faithlessness. ...Such a one can be slain, he cannot be crowned. ...[If] slain outside the Church, he cannot attain the rewards of the Church.\" (Denzinger 246-247)
Pope Saint Gregory the Great (A.D. 590 - 604)

\"Now the holy Church universal proclaims that God cannot be truly worshipped saving within herself, asserting that all they that are without her shall never be saved.\" (Moralia)
Pope Innocent III (A.D. 1198 - 1216)

    * \"Indeed, there is but one universal Church of the faithful outside of which no one at all is saved.\" (Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council, 1215; Denz. 151)
    * \"With our hearts we believe and with our lips we confess but one Church, not that of the heretics, but the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, outside which we believe that no one is saved.\" (Denzinger 423) 

Pope Boniface VIII in his Bull Unam Sanctam issued in 1302:

    * \"We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.\" (Denz. 469) [note: This definition (de fide definita) seems unanswerable, but the liberals boldly claim that this is not a definition intended for the universal Church, but only a pronouncement meant to deal with the local problem of Philip the Fair. But when Philip demanded of Pope Clement V, the first Avignon Pope, that he withdraw Unam Sanctam, Pope Clement did not do so, but issued the Brief Meruit February 1, 1306, which despite its extremely conciliatory tone, clearly states that Unam Sanctam contains a \"definition\":] \"That is why we do not wish or intend that any prejudice be engendered for that king and kingdom by the definition and declaration of our predecessor Pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, which began by the words Unam Sanctam.\" (51 Corpus Juris Canonici, (Extravag. commun., lib. V, tit. VII, cap. 2) ed. Freiburg, Vol. II, p. 1300.) 

Pope Leo X reaffirmed the teaching of Boniface VIII: (1512-1517)

    * \"Where the necessity of salvation is concerned all the faithful of Christ must be subject to the Roman Pontiff, as we are taught by Holy Scripture, the testimony of the holy fathers, and by that constitution of our predecessor of happy memory, Boniface VIII, which begins Unam Sanctam.\" (Pope Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) Conciliorum Oecumenicorum Decreta, Edidit Centro di Documentazione, Instituto per Science Religiose, Herder, Bologna, 1962, no. 40, pp. 619, 620.) 

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829)

\"We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'\" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)
Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878)

    * \"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood.\" (Denzinger 1647) 

Pope Leo XIII: (A.D. 1878 - 1903)

    * \"By the ministry of this Church so gloriously founded by Him, He willed to perpetuate the mission which He had Himself received from the Father; and on the one hand, having put within her all the means necessary for man's salvation, on the other hand, He formally enjoined upon men the duty of obeying His Church as Himself, and religiously taking her as a guide of their whole lives. \"He that heareth you, heareth Me; he that despiseth you, despiseth me.\" (Luke 10:16) Therefore, it is from the Church alone that the law of Christ must be asked: and, consequently, if for man Christ is the way, the Church, too, is the way, the former of Himself and by His nature, the latter by delegation and communication of power. Consequently, all who wish to reach salvation outside the Church, are mistaken as to the way and are engaged in a vain effort.\" (Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical, Tametsi, November 1, 1900; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 647.)

Now this is only a handful of refrences for this one teaching....so I guess the rest of us outside the church are just realy in trouble???
But hey, lets see what else this ONE verse translated this way has called the church to teach.....

Code: Select all

Popes claiming to be God on Earth:

\"It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross.\" \"Auckland Bishop Says Pope Presides From the Cross\" AUCKLAND, New Zealand, SEPT. 20, 2004, Zenit.org

\"In founders and foundresses [of the consecrated orders of nuns and priests, etc.] we see a constant and lively sense of the Church, which they manifest by their full participation in all aspects of the Church's life, and in their ready obedience to the bishops and especially to the Roman Pontiff. Against this background of love towards Holy Church, 'the pillar and bulwark of the truth' (1 Tim 3:15), we readily understand the devotion of Saint Francis of Assisi for 'THE LORD POPE', the daughterly outspokenness of Saint Catherine of Siena towards the one whom she called 'SWEET CHRIST ON EARTH', the apostolic obedience and the sentire cum Ecclesia of Saint Ignatius Loyola, and the joyful profession of faith made by Saint Teresa of Avila: 'I am a daughter of the Church'. We can also understand the deep desire of Saint Theresa of the Child Jesus: 'In the heart of the Church, my mother, I will be love'. These testimonies are representative of the full ecclesial communion which the Saints, founders and foundresses, have shared in diverse and often difficult times and circumstances. They are examples which consecrated persons need constantly to recall if they are to resist the particularly strong centrifugal and disruptive forces at work today. A distinctive aspect of ecclesial communion is allegiance of mind and heart to the magisterium of the bishops, an allegiance which must be lived honestly and clearly testified to before the People of God by all consecrated persons, especially those involved in theological research, teaching, publishing, catechesis and the use of the means of social communication. Because consecrated persons have a special place in the church, their attitude in this regard is of immense importance for the whole people of God\" (Pope John Paul II, \"Apostolic Exhortation on the Consecrated Life and Its Mission in the Church and in the World,\" to the bishops and clergy, religious orders and congregations, societies of apostolic life, secular institutes, and all the faithful, given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, March 25, 1996) (Emphasis added)
 
\"It seems that Pope John Paul II now presides over the universal Church from his place upon Christ's cross,\" said Bishop Dunn, who traveled with seven other prelates to Rome. Taken from an article entitled, \"Auckland Bishop Says Pope Presides From the Cross\" AUCKLAND, New Zealand, SEPT. 20, 2004 -Zenit.org (Article # ZE04092001)


\"The Pope is of so great dignity, and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God. and the vicar of God.\" -Ferraris Ecclesiastical dictionary

\"All names which in the Scriptures are applied to Christ, by virtue of which it is established that He is over the church, all the same names are applied to the Pope.\" - On the Authority of the Councils, book 2, chapter 17
 

\"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth.\" Pope Pius V, quoted in Barclay, Chapter XXVII, p. 218, \"Cities Petrus Bertanous\".

 \"...the Pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.\" Lucius Ferraris, in \"Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica\", Volume V, article on \"Papa, Article II\", titled \"Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility\", #1, 5, 13-15, 18, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.

  \"The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth...by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on earth.\" Quoted in the New York Catechism.

-These words appeared in the Roman Canon Law: \"To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical.-I?i the Gloss \"Extravagantes\" o.f Pope John XXII Cum inter, Tit. XIV, Cap. IV. Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685.

-Father A. Pereira says: \"It is quite certain that Popes have never approved or rejected this title 'Lord God the Pope,' for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome in 1580 by Gregory XIII.\"

-Writers on the Canon Law say, \"The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in heaven and earth.\"- Barclay Cap. XXVII, p. 218. Cities Petrus Bertrandus, Pius V. - Cardinal Cusa supports his statement.

.-Pope Nicholas I declared that \"the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who, being God, cannot be judged by man.\" - Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can. 7, Satis evidentur, Decret Gratian Primer Para.

\"The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man (...) he is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief of kings, having plenitude of power.\" -Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', pp.25-29

  \"The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires (...) complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God Himself.\" -Leo VIII, «On the Chief Duties of Christians as Citizens», Encyclical letter, 1890
 
\"God separates those whom the Roman Pontiff, who exercises the functions, not of mere man, but of the true God (...) dissolves, not by human but rather by divine authority.\" -Decretals of Gregory IX», Book 1, Chapter 7.3
 
\"Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions (infernorum).\" -Lucius Ferraris, «Prompta Bibliotheca», 1763, Volume VI, 'Papa II', p.26)

\"Innocent III has written: \"Indeed, it is not top much to say that in view of the sublimity of their offices the priests are so many gods.\" -The dignity of the priesthood by Liguori p, 36

\"The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself, hidden under the veil of flesh.\" Catholic National July 1895.

\"We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty\" ...Pope Leo XIII Encyclical Letter of June 20, 1894,

Posted: **Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:22 am**

Wow, these are some pretty proud claims... and jsut from one verse....Are you sure you dont want to again look at the WHOLE chapter in detail and also consider other verses in the new testiment on this topic????
Luke 1:42 tells the same story altho in much less detail as the story in question... luke however tells us of Simons name change to cephas but somehow NO information at all about being leader of the church... now this is important info for the church and the other 2 gospels dont even record the event....

Again in 1 peter chaper 2, peter tells us all about how all christians are living stones built upon the foundation of Christ...

And on to the claims of peace and not forcing beliefs..

Code: Select all

\"On August 24, 1527, Roman Catholics in France, by prearranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The Pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome.\"-Western Watchman, Nov.21, 1912 (Catholic)

  \"There was no village of the Vaudois valleys but had its martyrs. The Waldenses were burned; they were cast into damp and horrid dungeons; they were smothered in crowds in mountain caverns, mothers and babes, and old men and women together; they were sent out into exile in the winter night, unclothed and unfed, to climb the snowy mountains; they were hurled over the rocks; their houses and lands were taken from them; their children were stolen to be indoctrinated with the religion which they abhorred. Rapacious individuals were sent among them to strip them of their property, to persecute and exterminate them. Thousands of heretics\" or Waldenses, \"old men, women and children, were hung, quartered, broken upon the wheel, or burned alive and their property confiscated for the benefit of the king, and Holy See.\"-Thompson - The Papacy and the Civil Power

\"The greatest of all the ecumenical Councils held in the West previous to Trent had been Innocent III's Fourth Lateran Council (1215).  In the 3rd Canon of that Council it is enacted that bishops should inquire at least once a year in every parish, with power, if need be, to compel the whole community on oath to name any heretics whom they knew.  An aider or abettor of a heretic is himself ipso facto excommunicate; if discovered and publicly excommunicated, he incurs civil death, and those who communicate with such abettors shall themselves be excommunicated.  For the heretics themselves, they are to be 'exterminated,' and any prince neglecting to exterminate them is to be deposed by the Pope, who will release his subjects from their allegiance.  Even, if we would otherwise have doubted what 'extermination' means in its final implications, the word is clearly glossed by St. Thomas Aquinas (Summa 2-2, xi, 3) 'remove from the world by death.'\" -Dr. G. G. Coulton - ANGLICAN ESSAYS:

\"Experience teaches that there is no other remedy for the evil, but to put heretics (Protestants) to death; for the (Romish) church proceeded gradually and tried every remedy: at first she merely excommunicatied them; afterwards she added a fine; then she banished them; and finally she was constrained to put them to death.\" -Cardinal Bellarmine famous champion of Romanism cited by Schumucker p. 76

The Word says... \"They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service.  And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me.\" John 16:2-3
March 12, 2000, Pope John Paul II ADMITTED the Roman Catholic Church KILLED the believers and does NOT know the Father or Jesus. To deny that, is to deny the very words of Jesus Christ. See proof here... -Pope and Forgiveness?-

 \"That the Church of Rome has shed more innocent blood than any other institution that has ever existed among mankind, will be questioned by no Protestant who has a competent knowledge of history . . . It is impossible to form a complete conception of the multitude of her victims, and it is quite certain that no powers of imagination can adequately realize their sufferings.\"--W. E. H. Lecky, History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe, vol. 2, p. 32, 1910 edition.  (An excellent though lengthy article describing in detail the right of the Roman Catholic Church to do this, will be found in The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 12, p. 266.)

 \"For professing faith contrary to the teachings of the Church of Rome, history records the martyrdom of more then one hundred million people. A million Waldenses and Albigenses [Swiss and French Protestants] perished during a crusade proclaimed by Pope Innocent III in 1208. Beginning from the establishment of the Jesuits in 1540 to 1580, nine hundred thousand were destroyed. One hundred and fifty thousand perished by the Inquisition in thirty years. Within the space of thirty-eight years after the edict of Charles V against the Protestants, fifty thousand persons were hanged, beheaded, or burned alive for heresy. Eighteen thousand more perished during the administration of the Duke of Alva in five and a half years.\"--Brief Bible Readings, p. 16.
 [On August 24, 1572, Roman Catholics in France, by pre-arranged plan, under Jesuit influence, murdered 70,000 Protestants within the space of two months. The pope rejoiced when he heard the news of the successful outcome.
\"Catholics say only 30,000 were slain. Protestants put the number at 70,000. We prefer the latter figure. If there were 70,000 Huguenots [French Protestants] in Paris the night of the massacre, so much the more justification for the slaughter . . . We have heard ring out many times the very bells that called the Catholics together on that fatal night. They always sounded sweetly in our ears\"--Western Watchman, Nov. 21, 1912 [Roman Catholic].

\"You ask if he (the Roman Catholic) were lord in the land, and you were in a minority, if not in numbers yet in power, what would he do to you? That, we say, would entirely depend upon circumstances. If it would benefit the cause of Catholicism, he would tolerate you: If expedient, he would imprison you, banish you, fine you; possibly, he might even hang you. But be assured of one thing: He would never tolerate you for the sake of 'the glorious principles of civil and religious liberty' . . . Catholicism is the most intolerant of creeds. It is intolerance itself, for it is truth itself.\"--\"Civil and Religious Liberty,\" in The Rambler, 8, Sept, 1851, pp. 174, 178. [\"The Rambler\" was an English Roman Catholic journal published from 1848 to 1862].
 \"From the birth of popery to the present time, it is estimated by careful and credible historians, that more than fifty millions of the human family, have been slaughtered for the crime of heresy by popish persecutors,--an average of more than 40,000 religious murders for every year of the existence of popery to the present day. Of course the average number of victims yearly, was vastly greater, during those gloomy ages when popery was in her glory and reigned despot of the world; and it has been much less since the power of the popes has diminished to tyrannize over the nations, and to compel the princes of the earth, by the terrors of excommunication, interdiction, and deposition, to butcher their heretical subjects.\"--John Dowling, The History of Romanism, pp. 541-542.
 
 \" 'The church,' says [Martin] Luther, 'has never burned a heretic.' . . I reply that this argument proves not the opinion, but the ignorance or impudence of Luther. Since almost infinite numbers were either burned or otherwise killed, Luther either did not know it, and was therefore ignorant, or if he was not ignorant, he is convicted of impudence and falsehood,--for that heretics were often burned by the [Catholic Church may be proved from many examples.\"--Robert Bellarmine, Disputationes de Controversiis, Tom. II, Lib. III, cap. XXII, 1628 edition [Bellarmine is one of the most respected Jesuit teachers in the history of the Gregorian University in Rome, the largest Jesuit training school in the world].
 
\"There are many unquestionable cases of Protestants punished as heretics in nearly all the lands where Roman Catholics have had power, right down to the French Revolution [right down to 1798].\"--G. G. Coulton, The Death-Penalty for Heresy, Medieval Studies, No. 18, 1924 edition, pp. 62 [The author was a well-known member of the French Academy and an enthusiastic champion of Catholicism].

\"The Catholic Church has persecuted ... when she thinks it is good to use physical force she will use it... Will the Catholic Church give bond that she will not persecute?... The Catholic Church gives no bonds for her good behaviour.\" -Western Watchman, Dec. 24, 1908

\"The church may by divine right confiscate the property of heretics, imprison their person, and condemn them to flames.  In our age, the right to inflict the severest penalties, even death, belongs to the church.  There is no graver offense than heresy, therefore it must be rooted out.\" - Public Eccliastical, Vol. 2, p.142.

Mr. Raywood Frazier, in the booklet \"Catholic Words and Actions,\" presents documentary proof of the intensive persecution of Protestants and non-Catholics in Columbia, South America, between 1949 and 1953. The Catholic Church had the support of the Columbian government in the destruction of many churches, and the liquidation of more than 1,000 documented cases -- some of whom were shot, drowned, or emasculated. He says there is evidence of over 60,000 killed. Pope Pius XII awarded the President of Columbia with one of the highest awards which the Church bestows, and praised Columbia for its example of the Catholic faith.\" (Pp. 59,60)

The defense of Roman Catholics to this presentation is as follows: \"Communists destroy churches because they are God's enemies; Catholic's destroy churches because they are God's friends... Against such men-founded churches... Catholics in Latin America should arise and wipe them out with fire.\" -John J. Oberlander, in The Voice of Freedom, 1954, p. 20.

The rector of the Catholic Institute of Paris, H.M.A. Baudrillart, revealed the attitude of the church and her leaders toward persecution. \"When confronted with heresy,\" he said, \"she does not content herself with persuasion, arguments of an intellectual and moral order appear to her insufficient, and she has recourse to force, to corporal punishment, to torture.\" The Catholic Church, The Renassance, and Protestantism, pp. 182-183

 The following collection of quotes are cited from The American Textbook of Popery which in turn quotes from the Directory for the Inquisitors (page numbers listed are for the Directory)--

\"He is a heretic who does not believe what the Roman Hierarchy teaches. --A heretic merits the pains of fire. --By the Gospel, the canons, civil law, and custom, heretics must be burned.\"--148, 169

\"All sects of heretics are condemned and various punishments are appointed for them and their accomplices.\" --Pope Alexander IV, --p. 135

\"Statutes that impede the execution of the duties which appertain to the office of Inquisitors are null and void.\" --Pope Urban IV, p. 106

\"They who bury persons knowing them to be excommunicated, or their receivers, defenders, or favourers, shall not be absolved unless they dig up the corpse; and the place shall be deprived of the usual immunities of sepulture.\" --Pope Alexander IV, p. 104

\"All defence is denied to heretics.\" p. 153

\"For the suspicion alone of heresy, purgation is demanded.\" --p. 156

\"Heretics are by right condemned.\" --p. 157

\"He who is without the church can neither be reconciled nor saved.\" --p. 144

By the way... The BIBLE says... Luke 3:14, \"..., Do violence to no man\"

These words of hate not only contridict the Bible, they are \"infalliable\" teaching according to the Popes decrees above......

Remember, as a christian it only makes stands to reason for us to check out the claims our teachers and leaders make to see if they are true.

DescentBB

Reason and Religion

Reason and Religion

Re: Reason and Religion