Jesus didnt build a Bible He built a church

  • Thread starter Thread starter Issa87
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
One was a gift some 40 :eek: yrs ago from my folks when I accepted JESUS as Savior. The others I either bought or found or were given to me.
Did Jesus appear to your parents and declare the book He gave them was His word?
I don’t need a church to tell me what JESUS and Paul said.
Yes you do.
It is written down.
Who had authority to declare that the 66 books in your Bible are God’s word? Why is it 66 and not 73? Who had authority to take out 7 books? Where did they get such authority?
Translation may be different, but His Words endure forever. We have different Bibles, you and i.
Why is that? And who had authority to take books out of your Bible?
 
Did Jesus appear to your parents and declare the book He gave them was His word?

Yes you do.

Who had authority to declare that the 66 books in your Bible are God’s word? Why is it 66 and not 73? Who had authority to take out 7 books? Where did they get such authority?

Why is that? And who had authority to take books out of your Bible?
With all due respect to our Christian brothers and sisters, these questions never really get answered. The best answer always is:
“the authority existed somewhere but is now contained in a book”, as if authority never really existed in in anyone, as if authority is an amorphous force from the sky rather than Christ Incarnate. Or it is now just “wherever”, located in any inspired preacher. But when a real definitive answer is pursued, the authority is always somewhere else. Enduring and continuous authority cannot be admitted.

It makes me wonder, why did Christ bother to do what he did, in human flesh, in the fullness of time, in the middle east, 2000 years ago.
 
It’s true that Christ gave us His Church, but also God did give us a Book.

When I read titles like this, I ask Catholics what Jesus meant when He went from saying “Not one dot, not one iota” to “My words will never pass away.”? What does Jesus mean when He says His words will never pass away? Do we have any words of Jesus outside of the Bible?

So it’s clear God meant to create a Holy Book for us even by Christ’s own words.
You do understand that the vast majority of what Jesus said during the incarnation was never written down? The Gospel of John states so rather plainly.
 
You do understand that the vast majority of what Jesus said during the incarnation was never written down? The Gospel of John states so rather plainly.
What else was said that wasn’t written down?
 
How could I give and example of the

🤷
That’s just it, none of us can offer words from Jesus’ mouth or things that He performed that aren’t found in Holy Writ. So why bring John 21:25 into the discussion?
 
Why do you think that it’s the whore of babylon?
Did you see me call the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon? I hope not.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

#1: Seven Hills

Hunt argues that the Whore “is a city built on seven hills,” which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.

The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered “hill” by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as “mountain” or “mount.” Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on “seven mountains,” it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.

The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.

Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.

Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.

Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.

#2: “Babylon”—What’s in a Name?

Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city “known as Babylon.” This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is “Babylon the Great.”

The phrase “Babylon the great” (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”

“The great city” is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.”

Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one “great city” (“the great city”), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.

This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as “Babylon,” but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.

catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

continued…
 
Why do you think that it’s the whore of babylon?
#3: Commits Fornication

Hunt tells us, “The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome.”

Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with “the kings of the earth” (those nations it conquered).

To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged “unholy alliances” forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are “unholy.”

He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had “unholy alliances” with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).

#4: Clothed in Purple and Red

Hunt states, “She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.

Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.

Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.

The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (“the righteous acts of the saints;” 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).

Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.

It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.

Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that thepriests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).

catholic.com/tracts/hunting-the-whore-of-babylon

continued…
 
And the very next chapter says that in later times some will depart from the faith, forbidding marriage and require abstinence from foods. What’s your point?
This is insinuating that the Catholic Church forbids marriage for priests and nuns? I apologize now if I am wrong.

Marriage is a sacrament, one of 7, in the Catholic Church and is far from forbidding it.

There is this prophetic statement in the Gospel from the Lord in Matthew.

**Matthew 19:12 **

“and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Forgive me if that is not what you were saying.
 
That’s just it, none of us can offer words from Jesus’ mouth or things that He performed that aren’t found in Holy Writ. So why bring John 21:25 into the discussion?
Because it shows that the Bible is far from rom a complete record of Jesus’ sayings and doings and is never meant to be such. It excludes some stuff which I for one think would be pretty helpful to know, and certainly worthy of recordd. What exactly, for example, did Jesus teach in the Temple while He was lost as a tenager that was so profound that those who heard it marvelled at His wisdom at that tender age? What did He write in the sand that was so powerful that it persuaded the persecutors of the woman caught in adultery to look to their own sins and not hers?
 
I don’t need a church to tell me what JESUS and Paul said. It is written down. Translation may be different, but His Words endure forever. We have different Bibles, you and i. That is not at all what Paul said. Look it up, please, and tell me what Paul says in your versions. That is a challenge for all. Thank you and GOD bless.
How can you tell what JESUS and Paul said if you do not have the Bible to tell you what they said. How can you have the Bible that tells you waht they said if there is no Church that put the Bible together; the Bible did not fall like manna from the sky. Finally, how can you reject the translation of the Bible that the Church put together that tells you what JESUS and Paul said and instead prefer to use the your translation or the translation of others.

Can I understand from your statement that the Church was not capable of correctly translating the Word of God from Greek to English, hence you are relying on another translation? If you believe that the Bible is the Word of God (based on the Church saying so, unless it was the Holy Spirit that told you so) and the Bible contains no errors, why can you not accept the Church’s english versionof the Bible. The same Spirit that ensured the preparation of the Bible in Greek by the Church without error would have also ensured the correct translation of the Bible from Greek to English.
 
That’s just it, none of us can offer words from Jesus’ mouth or things that He performed that aren’t found in Holy Writ. So why bring John 21:25 into the discussion?
That’s a good question, and one that should probably be directed to the author, John.

It’s valuable in this discussion because it draws attention to the reality that in addition to what is written, we have personhood.

Yeah, so what?

Christ is a person, not a book. The apostles were persons, not books. They are not just words on a page, they were persons who lived in a real community with each other, interacted with each other in real time, had real gifts that were exercised for the good of all. They were The Church.

And I suppose that is why St John was inspired to include the observation that there is more than what is written, so that we might be drawn to the richness of life that lies unwritten in the people of the Church, but that is nonetheless very real. Tradition. This richness of life is a gift passed from person to person, through time, continuously. It is the breath of the Holy Spirit, passed on. Much of it becomes written, but it lives in Christ, who is a person, through his Church, which is made up of persons.

The book cannot contain the whole essence of the faith. It is an integral part of it.
 
When I read titles like this, I ask Catholics what Jesus meant when He went from saying “Not one dot, not one iota” to “My words will never pass away.”? What does Jesus mean when He says His words will never pass away?
“We speak to him when we pray; we listen to him when we read the divine oracles.”
 
This is insinuating that the Catholic Church forbids marriage for priests and nuns? I apologize now if I am wrong.

Marriage is a sacrament, one of 7, in the Catholic Church and is far from forbidding it.

There is this prophetic statement in the Gospel from the Lord in Matthew.

**Matthew 19:12 **

“and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

Forgive me if that is not what you were saying.
It was more of a response to the poster posting timothy as if that somehow is a good argument on Evangelicals. Basically right after Paul says that people within the Church will start forbidding marriage and abstinence of foods; something that some Church`s are guilty of, but not all.
 
Did you see me call the Catholic Church the whore of Babylon? I hope not.

Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.

continued…
Which makes this nothing more than a strawman.
 
So when you go to church on Sunday and the pastor reads from scripture and then preaches a sermon about it, that’s not a church telling you what that scripture means?
No, it is a pastor. I may be in a church. I think the CC is fairly rigid in its teaching and is the same across the board. Or spose to be. Am I correct in that assumption?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top