I have spent my entire life in search of the Truth. I care nothing about what final form that Truth takes. I care only that I pursue it in earnest; which means I look at all the evidence. In that pursuit I follow the evidence, not any desires I may have, since my only desire is to understand the Truth.
The evidence suggests that what I stated is the best theory to fit all the facts. I can list the evidence all day long if you wish to engage, but it requires you actually look at it. If you think I haven't spent any time studying the Bible; I spent two decades studying it and arguing with biblical scholars and theologians. I'm you're Huckleberry.
If you wish to see the beginning of the evidence chain I can submit please see the link in my response to another person in this same thread.
Do you study the bible, or Luther’s version, chopped and mis-translated to fit his new theology, this theology that no one taught and no one believed prior to the 1500s? If you want to discuss the Douay Rheims, I’d consider. Otherwise it’s like debating the repairing of a Ford engine with a Mitsubishi Chilton.
I have studied... everything. I said that already. I look at ALL the evidence.
If you want to discuss the Douay Rheims
Why don't we talk about the origins of the bible, like I have been trying to do (see my link above as I suggested). You think something written, or translated, from the "original Latin" of a book created hundreds of years after the time attributed to Jesus has more meaning than the original works that created it? A translation, final compilation, and edit of a book created by a council whose mandate was to create a Religion to unite the disparate religions of the Holy Roman Empire (previously known as the Roman Empire until that Council of Nicaea)?
You seem to think because a book is old it is true. You seem to think that because the book itself circularly describes itself as "The Truth" it must be so.
Who really put that book together? Who really left other books out, and performed the final translation from scrolls that were themselves in many cases translations? If one looks deeply enough, you can find that sentences were added when compared to other works found, MANY parts have translations that are controversial and have remained controversial for millennia. That council may have even added an entire book (Revelations). That particular book in no small part really solidifies the whole thing into one "Divine Book." That's terribly convenient and very interestingly is the most controversial of all books as to its original authorship.
The bible has taught all of humanity for millennia to not see themselves as sovereign, but as "servants to God," where the most common meaning taken from the word "servant" is "slave," at least by effect.
In the case of the Catholic Church, people are also taught to be servants to the decree of the Holy Roman Empire through the Pope. Jesus was all about teaching us our sovereignty. The bible (ALL of the versions since the "original" from Nicaea) is all about taking it away and giving our self-reliance and empowerment to a "higher power" (in the case of the "Latin translation," two higher powers).
This is what Catholics believe. If you believe we believe differently from this, you’re not open to the Truth.
http://www.drbo.org/catechism.htm
Further, we are subject to a pope (if we had one, sedevacante) not as a man who makes his own rules or loyalty to a dead empire, but because he is Vicar of Christ. The Church cannot err as She is under the divine Protection of the Holy Ghost.
When you are willing to address the evidence I have presented, get back to me. Until then, I believe you have found the Truth, because that is what The Matrix has trained you to believe. For the rest of us, we will pursue the evidence, and leave the "unwavering faith" to the 4-6%.
I have spent my entire life in search of the Truth. I care nothing about what final form that Truth takes. I care only that I pursue it in earnest; which means I look at all the evidence. In that pursuit I follow the evidence, not any desires I may have, since my only desire is to understand the Truth.
The evidence suggests that what I stated is the best theory to fit all the facts. I can list the evidence all day long if you wish to engage, but it requires you actually look at it. If you think I haven't spent any time studying the Bible; I spent two decades studying it and arguing with biblical scholars and theologians. I'm you're Huckleberry.
If you wish to see the beginning of the evidence chain I can submit please see the link in my response to another person in this same thread.
Do you study the bible, or Luther’s version, chopped and mis-translated to fit his new theology, this theology that no one taught and no one believed prior to the 1500s? If you want to discuss the Douay Rheims, I’d consider. Otherwise it’s like debating the repairing of a Ford engine with a Mitsubishi Chilton.
I have studied... everything. I said that already. I look at ALL the evidence.
Why don't we talk about the origins of the bible, like I have been trying to do (see my link above as I suggested). You think something written, or translated, from the "original Latin" of a book created hundreds of years after the time attributed to Jesus has more meaning than the original works that created it? A translation, final compilation, and edit of a book created by a council whose mandate was to create a Religion to unite the disparate religions of the Holy Roman Empire (previously known as the Roman Empire until that Council of Nicaea)?
You seem to think because a book is old it is true. You seem to think that because the book itself circularly describes itself as "The Truth" it must be so.
Who really put that book together? Who really left other books out, and performed the final translation from scrolls that were themselves in many cases translations? If one looks deeply enough, you can find that sentences were added when compared to other works found, MANY parts have translations that are controversial and have remained controversial for millennia. That council may have even added an entire book (Revelations). That particular book in no small part really solidifies the whole thing into one "Divine Book." That's terribly convenient and very interestingly is the most controversial of all books as to its original authorship.
The bible has taught all of humanity for millennia to not see themselves as sovereign, but as "servants to God," where the most common meaning taken from the word "servant" is "slave," at least by effect.
In the case of the Catholic Church, people are also taught to be servants to the decree of the Holy Roman Empire through the Pope. Jesus was all about teaching us our sovereignty. The bible (ALL of the versions since the "original" from Nicaea) is all about taking it away and giving our self-reliance and empowerment to a "higher power" (in the case of the "Latin translation," two higher powers).
This is what Catholics believe. If you believe we believe differently from this, you’re not open to the Truth. http://www.drbo.org/catechism.htm
Further, we are subject to a pope (if we had one, sedevacante) not as a man who makes his own rules or loyalty to a dead empire, but because he is Vicar of Christ. The Church cannot err as She is under the divine Protection of the Holy Ghost.
When you are willing to address the evidence I have presented, get back to me. Until then, I believe you have found the Truth, because that is what The Matrix has trained you to believe. For the rest of us, we will pursue the evidence, and leave the "unwavering faith" to the 4-6%.