If you believe the Bible?

[Sleeper]

For anyone of the various perspectives, the following is truth.

Anyone who is not a Roman Catholic, and thus a follower of the heirs of Christ through the vehicle of Peter, is a heretic.

EDIT - Zenith, I was going to include the Orthodox but I thought it might confuse the Protestants a little too much. You are, of course, entirely correct on the Patriarch's nature as a Christian head, as well as your contentions concerning the truth that
Orthodoxy is the sect closest to the 3rd and 4th Century Christians who created what we understand to be the central tenants of Christianity. Great post too!

Matthew, the most important as far as Jesus' divinity is concerned (The Gospel which makes Jesus both God and the Son of God), and first (in order) in the New Testament, tells us this is so:

Matthew 16:18
18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.


Thoughts?

[Zenith Darksea]

St Peter also established the Holy Orthodox Patriachate of Antioch, according to the same Ecclesiastical tradition that tells us that he established the Patriarchate of Rome.

Perhaps then Patriarch Ignatius IV of Antioch should be our Papal overlord?

Actually, there is an Orthodox understanding of this passage, one that both the Eastern and Western Churches had held until the Roman Pope got the idea that he'd like to rule Christendom like a king. Both St Theophylact of Ochrid and St John Chrysostom (recognised by the Roman Catholics as well as by the Orthodox to be saints) interpret this verse (Matt. 16:18) not to be referring to Peter's person, but to his confession of faith, upon which the Church was established. This was a confession of faith shared by all the Apostles.

Moreover, take a look at what these (Western) saints had to say about this verse:

He (St. Peter), then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men....
St Ambrose of Milan, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord, IV.32-V.34

To all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power...the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power...
St Cyprian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Catholic Church, 4

The other Apostles were made equal with Peter in a fellowship of dignity and power.
St Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticus, II.5

Peter then was only the first among the apostles as Stephen was the first among deacons.
St Augustine, Sermon 316

Although it may seem that this power of loosing and binding was given by the Lord only to Peter, we must nevertheless know without any doubt that it was given to the other apostles...Indeed even now the same office is committed to the whole Church in her bishops and priests.
St Bede, Hom. I.20

It's funny really that until the Middle Ages even Western Christians agreed with what modern Orthodox Christians still say - this authority was imputed on the whole Christian Church through the Apostolic confession of faith. Since, after Rome decided to change this confession of faith in various ways (including the very recent - 1870 - addition of Papal Infallibility, a grossly heretical doctrine), Matt. 16:18 really suggests that we should turn to the Orthodox Church, as the only genuine continuation of that Apostolic confession.

[tco]

My answer comes in form of a question. I have one question why do you belive the Bible. I mean it was written by man over 1500 years ago. Why?:hmmm:

[tfarr007]

My answer comes in form of a question. I have one question why do you belive the Bible. I mean it was written by man over 1500 years ago. Why?:hmmm:

The bible, like most other religious texts is not only a fascinating account of history but also has surprisingly accurate description of the formation of the universe. "In the beginning, there was light" is one of the most accurate scientific statements made in ancient times. Electromagnetic Radiation (light), one of the first superforces to split several millionyears after the big bang, was the basis for the formation of the galaxies. Despite it's being maniputed by clergy and edited at the council of nicea, it remains a remarkable document. Bible- minus damnation/slavation= fascinating ancient text

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

Despite it's being maniputed by clergy and edited at the council of nicea, it remains a remarkable document. Bible- minus damnation/slavation= fascinating ancient text

It was not "edited at the council of nicea". It was not even discussed at the Council of Nicea.

Seriously, New Testament was just a book suddenly jumped out in 5th Century without any direct trace who actually wrote the contains.

All of the books of the New Testament are attested long before the Fifth Century. The consensus of which books were "scriptural" and which weren't was reached by the fourth quarter of the Second Century. The first list of canonical texts that we have dates to AD 367.

It did not "suddenly" appear in the Fifth Century at all.

[Medicus]

The bible, like most other religious texts is not only a fascinating account of history but also has surprisingly accurate description of the formation of the universe. "In the beginning, there was light" is one of the most accurate scientific statements made in ancient times. Electromagnetic Radiation (light), one of the first superforces to split several millionyears after the big bang, was the basis for the formation of the galaxies. Despite it's being maniputed by clergy and edited at the council of nicea, it remains a remarkable document. Bible- minus damnation/slavation= fascinating ancient text

Handy coincidence that, eh?

[James Cook]

Anyone who is not a Roman Catholic, and thus a follower of the heirs of Christ through the vehicle of Peter, is a heretic

Thoughts?

I am Scared

[Garnier]

Umm, Peter was a follower of Jesus.

Where does it say anyone who's not a catholic is a heretic? Anyway even if you can somehow imply it, the rest of the Bible says that it is by faith in Jesus, not by following a religion, that you are to be saved.

I do not follow any religion - but I do know Jesus.

My answer comes in form of a question. I have one question why do you belive the Bible. I mean it was written by man over 1500 years ago. Why?

I suppose Caesar's writings are all myths.

[hellheaven1987]

I suppose Caesar's writings are all myths.

Lol, except there is no evidence to prove who actually wrote those Gospels, and even more questionable the condition and motivation of those "writers".

Seriously, New Testament was just a book suddenly jumped out in 5th Century without any direct trace who actually wrote the contains. The exist of Jesus was another no evidence case besides some no author Gospels. The only thing that makes New Testament believable is the historical events which historian can find them throughout other better records.

[zznɟ ǝɥʇ]

I am Scared

Man you should pull a Benny then...

You know, the guy from The Mummy that had a bunch of different religious necklaces on.

2:21

[kev-o]

I suppose that Socratice and Confucious were made up as well.

[hellheaven1987]

I suppose that Socratice and Confucious were made up as well.

There is, obviously, a direct and firm evidences to prove who wrote those books. Can you give evidence who wrote each of Gospels and who edit the New Testament??? We don't even know when each Gospel was writing at all except a few, not to mention Socrate or Confucius did not use some Holy force in their teaching.

Seriously, if Jesus or Apostles wrote those Gospels then I would believe them - the answer is unfortunately, largely "NO" for most Gospels.

[Sleeper]

TG is right. The First Council of Nicaea was mostly dedicated to which view of Jesus' Godhead would most benefit the Church. The Arian or the Trinitarian and things of that sort. It was about interpretation not excluding the unclean gospels.

[MaximiIian]

Thoughts?

Personally, I think the bible's all a crock of ****. The majority of the OT is horrible storytelling with history as a backdrop, and the NT is a mythologising of one of several martyrs for a radical, nationalist Jewish sect.
Because of this, very little of it reflects reality, and much of it cannot be held as accurate or reliable for history.

[Sleeper]

Your friend Eric stole that line.

[MaximiIian]

Everyone steals lines. That's how memes and ideas are spread. Without people doing that, humanity would have been left in the dark ages of a pre-agricultural society.
It's a necessary part of communication, thought, and progress.

[Sleeper]

It is. I just thought you should know that the guy he most likely stole it from is worth exploring. He may have seen it in a movie though, in which case, he is probably as good a thing to quote.

[MaximiIian]

It is. I just thought you should know that the guy he most likely stole it from is worth exploring....

It just seemed to me like you couldn't respond to my post, and chose to instead respond to my signature, something totally irrelevant to the present conversation.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Nationalist? I hardly see it as nationalist Jesus proclaimned himself the son of god sent to all which would suggest that he wasn't proclaiming himself the king of Isreal.

[hellheaven1987]

Nationalist? I hardly see it as nationalist Jesus proclaimned himself the son of god sent to all which would suggest that he wasn't proclaiming himself the king of Isreal.

Because Son of God is bigger than any king or emperor in the world...