NEW POPE

SixFive

bonswa
Forum Member
Mar 12, 2001
18,739
245
63
54
BG, KY, USA
pirate fan said:
six five, I would be curious about some of those traditions you feel have no scriptural basis. I'm not saying that isn't the case, but I think it is probably fewer than you believe.

ok, here's a few. Find scriptural reference to reference the pope/clergy/nuns and that they have to be celibate (I can't find this mentioned anywhere- I think Peter was thought to have been the first pope, right?), infant baptism (I can't find reference to any babies in the bible being sprinkled or baptized- all the baptisms seemed to have been conscious decisions by followers), sprinkling for baptism rather than immersion, needing to use a priest as an intercessor to God for confession rather than just praying to God on you own through Jesus, the basis for the whole church hierarchy (priest bishop, head of the bishops, etc. pope).

PF, these are some of the main ones that I don't understand or that I can't find any reference for in the Bible. If you can explain, that would be cool. The only explanation I have ever heard is that's how it's always been done.
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
bjfinste said:
Great post, Taoist. Carlin's rants about religion often make far more sense than a comedy routine should. I remember watching him on HBO one time, and he did a bit on the 10 commandments, and damn if it didn't ring true. Particularly the part about "thou shalt not kill."

the commandment is "thou shalt not murder"

a bit of a difference than "thou shalt not kill" dont you think?
 

dawgball

Registered User
Forum Member
Feb 12, 2000
10,652
39
48
50
65--this is what I could find, but once again I am not the one who will be able to matter of factly answer these questions.

Although most Protestant traditions baptize babies, Baptists and those influenced by Baptists insist that baptism is only for those who have come to faith. Nowhere in the New Testament, they point out, do we read of infants being baptized.

On the other hand, nowhere do we read of children raised in believing households reaching the age of reason and then being baptized. The only explicit baptism accounts in the Bible involve converts from Judaism or paganism. For children of believers there is no explicit mention of baptism?either in infancy or later.

As we will see, there is no doubt that the early Church practiced infant baptism. Though passages in the New Testament contain principles supporting infant baptism. (e.g., Acts 2:38, 1 Peter 3:21), the first overt statements that the children of believing households were baptized comes from the early Church?where infant baptism was uniformly upheld and regarded as apostolic. In fact, the only reported controversy on the subject was a third-century debate whether or not to delay baptism until the eighth day after birth, like its Old Testament equivalent, circumcision. (see quotation from Cyprian, below; compare Lev. 12:2?3, Col 2:11?12).

Consider, too, that Fathers raised in Christian homes. (such as Irenaeus) would hardly have upheld infant baptism as apostolic if their own baptism had been deferred until the age of reason.

For example, infant baptism is assumed in Irenaeus? writings below. (since he affirms both that regeneration happens in baptism, and also that Jesus came so even infants could be regenerated). Since he was born in a Christian home in Smyrna around the year 140, this means he was probably baptized around 140. He was also probably baptized by the bishop of Smyrna who at that time was Polycarp, a personal disciple of the apostle John, who had died only a few decades before.


There's a lot of "probablys" but it's what i could find.
 

Sun Tzu

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 10, 2003
6,197
9
0
Houston, Texas
Tao is correct of course. But IMHO if you ponder everything in the scriptures the logical conclusion is "murder" although we all have been taught "kill."
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
taoist said:
...actually, the original text was not written in english, so we don't really know, now do we freeze? :rolleyes:

because that is how the original word is translated...so yes we do really know
 

pirate fan

Registered User
Forum Member
Aug 24, 2002
880
1
18
six five, not blowing offyour issues, just busy and I have to get to school this morning in about 1 hour. School all weekend, ugh :cursin:
Baptism was done by John the Baptist as I'm sure you know. After the death of Jesus, we had many groups being followers of whoever, Jesus, John the Baptist, Paul actually sets his followers straight in the book of Acts telling them to follow Jesus and God, not him. Anyhow, baptism was used to help followings of Jesus to grow and was used as a form to create community which in turn the commnity could garner strength from one another, or support through the various difficulties of life. Sometimes their just wasn't a lake or stream around so people preaching the word would take small amount of water and spribkle in upon new converts, which began to include children. The word of God had to travel and spread, and that included parts of the world with little water.
As far as celivacy, this is a Church contrived action as some of the disciles were married themselves, such as Peter. It was a way of showing that the person had given his or her life to God, and not the world. It also gave them more time to spread the Word rather than taking care of a family. You will hear in the Bible people turning themselves over to God, sacrificing all their desires for what God wants. Celibacy was one of the ways to do it. As a side note, also sex was thought of as sinful for many centuries so the celibat person was considered to have a closer relationship with God. We know that is not true today!
Gotta go, I'll try to respond to some of your other questions in a couple days, got school all weekend and I gotta get some bets in. :rolleyes:
 

taoist

The Sage
Forum Member
dr. freeze said:
because that is how the original word is translated...so yes we do really know

...yeah right. :rolleyes:

...and I suppose that you alsio think that the King James version is a perfect word for word translation of the original Arabic/Hebrew, huh? Do you know how many different translations that it went through before the KJV? ...whatever Freeze.... :rolleyes:
 

dr. freeze

BIG12 KING
Forum Member
Aug 25, 2001
7,170
8
0
Mansion
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
where is your evidence that it is not?

the ancient texts translate best as "murder"

or is it all you can do to sit there and roll your eyes on your high horse and assume otherwise with absolutely no reason?

ignorance alert!

"The Jewish Sages note that the word "ratsakh" applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) ? and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as "thou shalt not kill" is too broad. "


http://www.messianic.com/articles/10.htm


http://www.shalach.org/BibleSearch/TenCom.htm
 
Last edited:
Bet on MyBookie
Top