Spotlight and corruption/abuse in the church

[DaBossIsBack]

Which version of Matthew?

Although these things are characteristic of Christian behavior - they are not unique to Christians, nor do they distinguish Christians.

This does, though: This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

So, for starters, you can read and work on gaining an understanding of the 111 verses in Matthew Chapters 5-7. That will help us to begin to understand what is involved in being a Christian.

 

[bluelifer]

Although these things are characteristic of Christian behavior - they are not unique to Christians, nor do they distinguish Christians.

This does, though: This means everlasting life, their coming to know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.

So, for starters, you can read and work on gaining an understanding of the 111 verses in Matthew Chapters 5-7. That will help us to begin to understand what is involved in being a Christian.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm certainly no scholar, but the majority of chapters 5-7 basically outlines how to get into Heaven. Then in Chapter 7, verses 21-26, He says even though you might already be doing all of these things, if you haven't done them "in my name", then to Hell with you. Am I reading that right?

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm certainly no scholar, but the majority of chapters 5-7 basically outlines how to get into Heaven. Then in Chapter 7, verses 21-26, He says even though you might already be doing all of these things, if you haven't done them "in my name", then to Hell with you. Am I reading that right?

Tough love.

 

[MegaBlue05]

I had never heard about the movie until it won Best Picture. And honesty I had no idea what it was about until I looked it up. I don't even remember hearing about it in theaters. But a hell of a movie. Worthy of Best Picture And what's sad is my Catholic friends refuse to watch it, like it never happened.

That's part of the reason I quit. Surrounded by ostriches with their heads in the sand. If the church told a lot of them to cut their heads off, they'd do it.

I made a "priests diddle kids" joke at a family reunion one time and you would've thought I shot great-grandma or put my balls in the deviled eggs.

 

[Willy4UK]

That's part of the reason I quit. Surrounded by ostriches with their heads in the sand. If the church told a lot of them to cut their heads off, they'd do it.

I made a "priests diddle kids" joke at a family reunion one time and you would've thought I shot great-grandma or put my balls in the deviled eggs.

I developed low self esteem because my priest at St. Luke didn't molest me.

 

[MegaBlue05]

I developed low self esteem because my priest at St. Luke didn't molest me.

The trick is to get him good and liquored up on Jesus blood. Then, show a little calf by pulling up the altar boy robe (think LL Cool J's pants in the 90s). It'll get any Father hot and bothered. You'd be diddled faster than you could say three Hail Marys.

 

[KingOfBBN]

That's part of the reason I quit. Surrounded by ostriches with their heads in the sand. If the church told a lot of them to cut their heads off, they'd do it.

I made a "priests diddle kids" joke at a family reunion one time and you would've thought I shot great-grandma or put my balls in the deviled eggs.

Bet the same group can see the frequency and linking of Islam and terrorism but doesn't equate child molestation to priests.

 

[CUJO_1970]

View embedded media

Which version of Matthew?

Critics that doubt modern bibles are reliable copies of original writings are nothing new, and there is nothing original that comes out of this guy's mouth. The truth is, we do rely on copies (just like every work from this time period) and some copyists were careless or even tried to alter the text deliberately. However to say:

"We simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately" and "we only have error-ridden copies" - is simply not true and does not hold up to close scrutiny.

This is why scores of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholars who have examined (and continue to examine) existing texts agree that there is not a single work of antiquity that has been so accurately transmitted. For example, one group - the Masoretes were a professional, highly skilled and meticulous group of copyists. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Masoretic texts were compared to Bible scrolls that were written a thousand years earlier it was found they were essentially the same documents with only minor spelling differences. This is why one of the scholars that examined the scrolls said it "provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful."

The same is true for the hundreds + Greek texts all in agreement (research Chester Beatty collection for example) in which Matthew is found, some of which date to within 100 years of the originals. "No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to it's text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound" -Sir Frederic Kenyon.

TL;DR:

There are literally thousands of manuscripts extant that when cross-referenced allow us to establish the Bible Canon (what may and may not be included)

To say we don't have any accurate copies is nonsense and there are scores of scholars that disagree with Bart Ehrman.

 

[DaBossIsBack]

Critics that doubt modern bibles are reliable copies of original writings are nothing new, and there is nothing original that comes out of this guy's mouth. The truth is, we do rely on copies (just like every work from this time period) and some copyists were careless or even tried to alter the text deliberately. However to say:

"We simply cannot be sure that we have reconstructed the original text accurately" and "we only have error-ridden copies" - is simply not true and does not hold up to close scrutiny.

This is why scores of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek scholars who have examined (and continue to examine) existing texts agree that there is not a single work of antiquity that has been so accurately transmitted. For example, one group - the Masoretes were a professional, highly skilled and meticulous group of copyists. When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered the Masoretic texts were compared to Bible scrolls that were written a thousand years earlier it was found they were essentially the same documents with only minor spelling differences. This is why one of the scholars that examined the scrolls said it "provides irrefutable proof that the transmission of the biblical text through a period of more than one thousand years by the hands of Jewish copyists has been extremely faithful and careful."

The same is true for the hundreds + Greek texts all in agreement (research Chester Beatty collection for example) in which Matthew is found, some of which date to within 100 years of the originals. "No other ancient book has anything like such early and plentiful testimony to it's text, and no unbiased scholar would deny that the text that has come down to us is substantially sound" -Sir Frederic Kenyon.

TL;DR:

There are literally thousands of manuscripts extant that when cross-referenced allow us to establish the Bible Canon (what may and may not be included)

To say we don't have any accurate copies is nonsense and there are scores of scholars that disagree with Bart Ehrman.

Whatever helps you sleep.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm certainly no scholar, but the majority of chapters 5-7 basically outlines how to get into Heaven. Then in Chapter 7, verses 21-26, He says even though you might already be doing all of these things, if you haven't done them "in my name", then to Hell with you. Am I reading that right?

It's not really a primer on how to get to heaven. Jesus never said "do this and you'll go to heaven". It's a list of practical things people can live by in their day-to-day lives. You don't even have to be a Christian to benefit from it.

Those other verses are actually 7:21-23 and they deal with hypocrisy and the sorts of things that inspired this thread...not everyone saying to me Lord Lord will enter into the Kingdom..should give us a pretty good idea about the status of many that claim to be Christian but by their works show that they really aren't.

 

[CUJO_1970]

Whatever helps you sleep.

 

[ram1955]

Bet the same group can see the frequency and linking of Islam and terrorism but doesn't equate child molestation to priests.

Difference is: priests committing such acts are not acting according to the Christian faith whereas a muslim terrorist killing non-muslims IS acting consistent with the faith.

 

[KingOfBBN]

Difference is: priests committing such acts are not acting according to the Christian faith whereas a muslim terrorist killing non-muslims IS acting consistent with the faith.

I definitely get that and you're preaching to the choir on that one. I think Islam is the most evil thing on this planet. I was just saying it's associated with it