why would anybody want to be catholic?

sojourner said:

Where in the world do you think the tradition and the texts came from??? There is an historical continuity in the roots of Xy that you can't just throw out as "wrong."

Click to expand...

People assume that because the bible was canonized, they just added their own twists to it. The way I see it, the Romans made sense of it all. They are the ones that made the distinction of a renegade angel, something that Xy didn't make a connection with. Among many other things.

It all connects perfectly to me, so I am a Bible Christian.

Sum1sGruj said:

People assume that because the bible was canonized, they just added their own twists to it. The way I see it, the Romans made sense of it all. They are the ones that made the distinction of a renegade angel, something that Xy didn't make a connection with. Among many other things.

It all connects perfectly to me, so I am a Bible Christian.

Click to expand...

You're not making any sense. The Romans didn't have a Bible. Neither did the early Xians until about 400 years following the crucifixion.

sojourner said:

You're not making any sense. The Romans didn't have a Bible. Neither did the early Xians until about 400 years following the crucifixion.

Click to expand...

Some Christians had a Bible about 100 years after, although I have a sneaking suspicion that their Bible doesn't match Sum1sGruj's Bible.

sojourner said:

You're not making any sense. The Romans didn't have a Bible. Neither did the early Xians until about 400 years following the crucifixion.

Click to expand...

And that's when the Romans canonized the Bible. Canonize is a verb, not an adjective. They constructed the texts in the most sensible way, and the Bible as we know it was born.
This is the most simple example I can give, as I mentioned it already: Lucifer. They connected the Morning Star as being an adversarial angel.
In the newer versions, they take the name away, but still leave it open for interpretation. I guess the general consensus is that the Bible should be completely open to any understanding.

I nonetheless have the KJV and the IV, and have found it consistent with my own understanding. Some agree, some don't. It's just the nature of interpretation.

Sum1sGruj said:

And that's when the Romans canonized the Bible. Canonize is a verb, not an adjective. They constructed the texts in the most sensible way, and the Bible as we know it was born.
This is the most simple example I can give, as I mentioned it already: Lucifer. They connected the Morning Star as being an adversarial angel.
In the newer versions, they take the name away, but still leave it open for interpretation. I guess the general consensus is that the Bible should be completely open to any understanding.

I nonetheless have the KJV and the IV, and have found it consistent with my own understanding. Some agree, some don't. It's just the nature of interpretation.

Click to expand...

The Romans - do you mean the Roman Catholics? It was a council of bishops who canonized the 73 BOOKS of the bible in 398 AD.

Does your KJV bible have 73 books, or does it have 66?

Kathryn said:

The Romans - do you mean the Roman Catholics? It was a council of bishops who canonized the 73 BOOKS of the bible in 398 AD.

Does your KJV bible have 73 books, or does it have 66?

Click to expand...

66, but the original KJV had 73. How they got lost or possibly omitted is beyond me. All I know is that they made connections that Xy never did.
Lucifer is a very strong Roman conception relating to Phosphorus, the Morning Star.
I think they saw this to be very important because from what is gathered from the NT, there is a split in the realms.

Sum1sGruj said:

And that's when the Romans canonized the Bible. Canonize is a verb, not an adjective. They constructed the texts in the most sensible way, and the Bible as we know it was born.
This is the most simple example I can give, as I mentioned it already: Lucifer. They connected the Morning Star as being an adversarial angel.
In the newer versions, they take the name away, but still leave it open for interpretation. I guess the general consensus is that the Bible should be completely open to any understanding.

I nonetheless have the KJV and the IV, and have found it consistent with my own understanding. Some agree, some don't. It's just the nature of interpretation.

Click to expand...

I don't think your viewpoint is quite consistent with history.
Are you referring to Rev. 2:28 and 22:16? Neither the KJV nor the NRSV say anything about Lucifer. Neither does the Greek in any way transliterate into Lucifer. As we know, the KJV was translated from text which was pre-Church-at-Rome. The NRSV makes use of most ancient sources. I'm failing to see what you're on about here.

sojourner said:

I don't think your viewpoint is quite consistent with history.
Are you referring to Rev. 2:28 and 22:16? Neither the KJV nor the NRSV say anything about Lucifer. Neither does the Greek in any way transliterate into Lucifer. As we know, the KJV was translated from text which was pre-Church-at-Rome. The NRSV makes use of most ancient sources. I'm failing to see what you're on about here.

Click to expand...

KJV, Isaiah 14:12 states Lucifer.

NRSV, Isaiah 14:12 states Day Star

Lucifer, Morning Star, Phosphorus, Venus, Light-bearer. These words don't strike you at all?
It was the Roman connection of the Adversary and the title he was given, Morning Star, which Jesus takes in Revelations.
If you are Christian and believe that there is a renegade angel, this is the coup de grace to the Jew's take on the adversary. They don't believe that the Adversary fell, they believe he is charged by God to tempt man. Jews don't necessarily believe God is so benevolent like we do.
This is why I stated that they simply made sense of it all. It's not as if God came down to the people and gave dossiers on all the angels.

Sum1sGruj said:

KJV, Isaiah 14:12 states Lucifer.

NRSV, Isaiah 14:12 states Day Star

Lucifer, Morning Star, Phosphorus, Venus, Light-bearer. These words don't strike you at all?
It was the Roman connection of the Adversary and the title he was given, Morning Star, which Jesus takes in Revelations.
If you are Christian and believe that there is a renegade angel, this is the coup de grace to the Jew's take on the adversary. They don't believe that the Adversary fell, they believe he is charged by God to tempt man. Jews don't necessarily believe God is so benevolent like we do.
This is why I stated that they simply made sense of it all. It's not as if God came down to the people and gave dossiers on all the angels.

Click to expand...

Which version do you think would be a better translation?

sojourner said:

Which version do you think would be a better translation?

Click to expand...

Honestly, I don't think it matters either way. The interpretation is still there. I don't refer to that particular angel as Satan or Lucifer, but rather just the Adversary. There are a few ways of interpreting it, but I personally believe Lucifer and Satan to be the same being. I think an adversarial angel charged by God is unnecessary as man does it's own bidding.
I believe he was the Serpent who tempted Adam and Eve and was cursed to crawl on his belly for doing so. I think that's a metaphor for being cast out of Heaven. He revolted and then dealt the decisive blow.

But the connection with Jesus as the Morning Star in Revelations is what gives the impression that 'Morning Star' is a title given to the keeper of Earth.
The Adversary was of the Cherubim in Heaven, one of the highest ranks of angels. He was granted this title to be the keeper of Earth. That is why he has such a strong presence here now. In Revelations, Jesus takes the title, Earth is purged, and becomes New Earth.

Ezekial 28:14-17 talks about a fallen cherub who was perfect, but eventually becomes wicked and falls from grace. Effectively, he becomes 'a spectacle of kings', which I will assume to be vanity and greed among the nations.
That pretty much completes what I stated above.

However, this is just how I interpret it. It all works so well together that I can't really see it any other way.
Of course, it's not up to me to say what the validity of it is. But I do know that the Romans were aiming for a similar connection when they identified the Morning Star.

Sum1sGruj said:

66, but the original KJV had 73. How they got lost or possibly omitted is beyond me. All I know is that they made connections that Xy never did.

Click to expand...

They didn't get lost - Protestants removed them from the accepted canon after the protestant reformation. After being a part of the canon for about 1200 years.

As for "making connections that Xy never did," have you read the deuterocanonical books in question? I have. There's nothing weird or non biblical about them as far as I can tell.

I have a real problem with portions of the bible being removed.

Hmmm well i realy wouldnt be chrisyian at all, its an invention made to keep spiritual knowledge in the hands of a few, and nearly everything was stolen from pagan religions that existed long before Xianity

Ásmólfar_Järvelä;2443624 said:

Hmmm well i realy wouldnt be chrisyian at all, its an invention made to keep spiritual knowledge in the hands of a few, and nearly everything was stolen from pagan religions that existed long before Xianity

Click to expand...

Your conclusion is inaccurate, the reframing of human mythic story not excepted.

Kathryn said:

They didn't get lost - Protestants removed them from the accepted canon after the protestant reformation. After being a part of the canon for about 1200 years.

As for "making connections that Xy never did," have you read the deuterocanonical books in question? I have. There's nothing weird or non biblical about them as far as I can tell.

I have a real problem with portions of the bible being removed.

Click to expand...

I have to agree with you on that. I have read what they call the Apocrypha and found it not any different than the rest of the Bible. I have no idea why they removed those books. Especially the Maccabees- which explains Chanukah (aka Hanukkah).

Kathryn said:

They didn't get lost - Protestants removed them from the accepted canon after the protestant reformation. After being a part of the canon for about 1200 years.

As for "making connections that Xy never did," have you read the deuterocanonical books in question? I have. There's nothing weird or non biblical about them as far as I can tell.


I have a real problem with portions of the bible being removed.

Click to expand...

The only ones I know of extensively are the Maccabees.

Other than that, I haven't. But now I have a desire to look into them lol.
I think it's safe to say Protestants had a problem with them..

Research



Wow, that was a lot faster than I expected. Here's a source if anyone is interested:
http://carm.org/reasons-why-apocrypha-does-not-belong-in-bible

btw, sum, when priests bugger little boys, in your view, is that a good example of Christian morality?

Autodidact said:

btw, sum, when priests bugger little boys, in your view, is that a good example of Christian morality?

Click to expand...

Only if they get a candy bar afterward...
:run:

Autodidact said:

btw, sum, when priests bugger little boys, in your view, is that a good example of Christian morality?

Click to expand...

That's not Christian morality.

Is calling someone a bigot and then running to authority when they call you an *** hole because of it a good example of atheistic morality?
And then bragging about it afterward because your morally perfect atheist buddies need gang up on a theist?

I hardly think half of priests are sexual predators. I was raised Catholic and have been around priests since birth. I've confessed to them, received the sacraments from them, been taught by them and socialized with them. I've not met any accused of criminal acts.

The real problem of the deep malaise of our priesthood aside, I am Catholic for many reasons. Yes, it is the religion of my ancestors and this increases the beauty of this faith for me. My sense of spiritual awe, love of God, Christ His Son, love of my fellow human beings, as well as my conscience, were all formed by a host of wonderful, loving, self sacrificial people- most of whom were lay people (and mostly women, at that). Priests are not the only source of vitality in the Catholic faith- far from it!

I am Catholic because of tradition and history. I am Catholic because Christ established the Church as His Mystical Body. I am Catholic because of the Most Holy Eucharist, which is the Lord's gift of His Body and Blood. I am Catholic because of the Holy Mass and the sacraments, for the prayers of the liturgy and devotions like Benediction, the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary. I am Catholic for the ongoing presence of the Virgin Mary in my life.

I am Catholic because I believe incarnate, crucified Love is at the heart and pulse of the Tradition. However much this Love might be obscured, I know that, through and in the Church, I have met it, received it, am nourished by it.

Jordan St. Francis said:

I hardly think half of priests are sexual predators. I was raised Catholic and have been around priests since birth. I've confessed to them, received the sacraments from them, been taught by them and socialized with them. I've not met any any accused of criminal acts.

The real problem of the deep malaise of our priesthood aside, I am Catholic for many reasons. Yes, it is the religion of my ancestors and this increases the beauty of this faith for me. My sense of spiritual awe, love of God, Christ His Son, love of my fellow human beings, as well as my conscience, were all formed by a host of wonderful, loving, self sacrificial people- most of whom were lay people (and mostly women, at that). Priests are not the only source of vitality in the Catholic faith- far from it!

I am Catholic because of tradition and history. I am Catholic because Christ established the Church as His Mystical Body. I am Catholic because of the Most Holy Eucharist, which is the Lord's gift of His Body and Blood. I am Catholic because of the Holy Mass and the sacraments, for the prayers of the liturgy and devotions like Benediction, the Stations of the Cross and the Rosary. I am Catholic for the ongoing presence of the Virgin Mary in my life.

I am Catholic because I believe incarnate, crucified Love is at the heart and pulse of the Tradition. However much this Love might be obscured, I know that, through and in the Church, I have met it, received it, am nourished by it.

Click to expand...

I'm not of Catholic persuasion, but it's all hysteria. People, the media, etc., they make a mountain out of a molehill on anything, no matter how incredibly unethical it is.