RELIGION....(part 2)

[seth_kahn]

---

I think that there shouldn't be debates about the contents of the Bible.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
All Sacred Scripture is but one book, and this one book is Christ, "because all divine Scripture speaks of Christ, and all divine Scripture is fulfilled in Christ" (Hugh of St. Victor, De arca Noe 2,8:PL 176,642: cf. ibid. 2,9:PL 176,642-643).

135 "The Sacred Scriptures contain the Word of God and, because they are inspired, they are truly the Word of God" (DV 24).

136 God is the author of Sacred Scripture because he inspired its human authors; he acts in them and by means of them. He thus gives assurance that their writings teach without error his saving truth (cf. DV 11).

137 Interpretation of the inspired Scripture must be attentive above all to what God wants to reveal through the sacred authors for our salvation. What comes from the Spirit is not fully "understood except by the Spirit's action' (cf. Origen, Hom. in Ex. 4, 5: PG 12, 320).

138 The Church accepts and venerates as inspired the 46 books of the Old Testament and the 27 books of the New.

139 The four Gospels occupy a central place because Christ Jesus is their center.

140 The unity of the two Testaments proceeds from the unity of God's plan and his Revelation. The Old Testament prepares for the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old; the two shed light on each other; both are true Word of God.

141 "The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures as she venerated the Body of the Lord" (DV 21): both nourish and govern the whole Christian life. "Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path" (Ps 119:105; cf. Is 50:4).

[mosimos]

I just hope that forumers here should not frequently used the Bible to support their arguments. The words of the Bible is for reflection and contempaltion. To use it to further ones argument desecrates it. If the words of the Bible are used as arguments the tendency is that the interpretation would become literal.

Lets have a philosophical discourse then used the Bible as a guide to expound the meaning of our philosophical arguments.

[mannyamador]

This affirms that faith IS manifested through deeds, through helping others (James 1: 27 )

That's just YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATION. But the words are clear: faith alone does not save.

in other words, the Word expressed through writing, found in The Books is sufficient enough for the most important truth of all: Eternal Life in the Son of God (1 Jn 5: 13 )

LIke I already pointed out, even a single Gospel will communicate that. In fact THE WORD, Christ Himself, did so WITHOUT writing a thing. So your statement is a mere platitude, and does not really say much.

But nowhere in the Bible does it say that ALL doctrines and teachings of Christ are in the Bible. Nor does it say anywhere that we should compile a book and make it the sole rule of faith.

[mannyamador]

What Paul is writing in First Timothy - he is NOT referring to presbyters who practice the questionable unorthodox doctrinals that originated from the apostates......

Such as yourself!

Again, all your arguments are based on YOUR PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS, which are not necessarily better than anyone else's. All you've made are claims without any evidence to back them up.

And it isn't Biblical that elders of a congregation MUST be celibate. (1 Cor. 7: 9 )

Neither is it biblical to conclude that they must be married.

While the Roman church can indeed trace it's origins way back, it doesn't mean their teachings are all true..... In context of what the apostasy Paul and the other apostles have predicted (2 Cor. 11: 3 - 4) and Isaiah predicting that Israel would return to sin and slavery.... indeed Israel has.... for about 15 centuries.

More of your wacky PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS WITHOUT HISTORICAL EVIDENCE TO BACK THEM UP. You make all sorts of wacky accusations but you have no historical evidence to prove them. In difect contrast, we have presented clear, documented hostorical evidence to show that the Church is the very same one Christ founded with His Apostles. The formal authority is unbroken throughout history. The doctrinal purity is preserved, which is far more than I can say for your heretical personal fantasies.

[mannyamador]

Those who have their allegiance on Jesus Christ alone and His Gospel in it's unadulterated form, those without errors of hedonistic easy believism or heterodox or Gnosticism and et cetera, but those who abide in His teachings. They are the remnant.

But of course you have ZERO PROOF that you are part of that remnant.

More wacky perosnal interpretations!

[potterboy]

personal interpretations cud be more like an edited picture.

we need a time machine.

[dacs]

I just hope that forumers here should not frequently used the Bible to support their arguments. The words of the Bible is for reflection and contempaltion. To use it to further ones argument desecrates it.

... same as to translate it to further one's belief.

If the words of the Bible are used as arguments the tendency is that the interpretation would become literal.

There are instances, though, that the literal meaning is the contextual meaning. Therefore, interpreting it literally could not be avoided.

Lets have a philosophical discourse then used the Bible as a guide to expound the meaning of our philosophical arguments.

...

[fingolfin]

..enough about bible verses. what about the present situation of religion today?? about the corruption done by the catholic priest, the revenues they get from the people. Their secret vices. I know a lot of evil deeds these people have been doing.

[bad donkey!]

some people just take the bible too literally...tsk.tsk.tsk..

RIGHT!! i think the bible is not something that we should follow, literally. it is just merely a guide, or probably and eye-opener for what is righteous. just for an example, is was said in the bible that God told abraham to kill his son. does that mean that all of us has to kill all our siblings too? its stupid right? what was meant is being obedient to God, live in righteousness and a moral life.

God gave us minds, we should use it

not to mention free will...

[bad donkey!]

did you know guys that religion is a good business? Imagine you can dictate people on how much to give for it is being stated in the bible. Not to mention its tax free.

Not in the Catholic Church.

yap...in the catholic church they do not force there people to give specific monetary donation....we are allowed to give by free will...Forgive my ignorance where do the 10% of what you have has to be given to the church came from? I personally have been to a gathering when the time comes for the donations, a person walks up and talks to the people and talks convincing them to give...Talking like a salesman with a smiling face on..I don't mean to be rude but why is that? They say "God rewards a cheerfull giver" I heartilly believe that, but does it really mean that you have to give the 10% to the church?....Anyone can easilly take advantage of this...I'm sure the anwers that I would get will be more quotations from the bible...