Bible verses Pope. Who is wrong?

[polonius]

Is the Bible or the Pope in error here?

Romans 3:23 New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
" since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"

OR

Ineffabilis Deus
Apostolic Constitution of Pope Pius IX on the Immaculate Conception (December 8, 1854)
“Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect, would possess that fullness of holy innocence and sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no mind can succeed in comprehending fully.�

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 1 by polonius.advice]

That looks clear cut to me. I wonder why there was ever thought to be a need to venerate Mary?

The doctrine of original sin pretty much demands it. We can't have Jesus being stained by original sin. Therefore Mary must somehow be divorced from original sin as well as being free from having committed any sins of her own.

It seems to me that this is just yet another one of those unavoidable self-contradictions in this theology.

Let's not forget that many Christians accept the theological claim that Jesus is both 100% God, and 100% man simultaneously. That too is an extreme contradiction of concepts. Yet many Christians embrace this apology with open arms as well.

So why not also embrace a totally sinless Mary? So what if it also represent contradictions in other ways? Clearly contradictions mean nothing in this theology. This theology is filled to the brim with self-contradictory claims.

Here's another one.

Jesus is one with the Father. Jesus is God. Yet when Jesus returns to heaven he sits at the right-hand of God. Yet another contradiction.

Here's another one.

Heaven is supposed to be a spiritual realm, but Jesus takes his physical body up to heaven with him. Yet another contradiction.

In Christianity there's no point in rejecting contradictions, because as soon as we do that there's nothing left of the theology.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

You may not realise it but this is called elephant hurling. Its the process of throwing as much stuff into an argument to make it seem larger than it is. You know that your posts are 1/4 content and 3/4 rants. So why not think of others and self edit?

The doctrine of original sin is your 1/4 and it is definitely in error as you describe it.

You are basically saying that God isnt omnipotent, that he can't be born without sin.

Since God is omnipotent therefore he can be born without sin.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 11 by Divine Insight]

You may not realise it but this is called elephant hurling. Its the process of throwing as much stuff into an argument to make it seem larger than it is. You know that your posts are 1/4 content and 3/4 rants. So why not think of others and self edit?

First off, I disagree with your suggestion that 3/4 of my post was a rant. I was simply pointing out that in this theology contradictions are clearly irrelevant as there are many, and giving two clear examples could hardly be called a "rant".

They are simply evidence to back up the point I was making.

The doctrine of original sin is your 1/4 and it is definitely in error as you describe it.

You are basically saying that God isnt omnipotent, that he can't be born without sin.

Since God is omnipotent therefore he can be born without sin.

We can go down this theological road as well. However this road is not without its own potholes.

To begin with, if this God is truly omniscient then he should have been well aware that Christian theologians in the future would be having difficulties with why Jesus was born of a mortal woman who herself could not have been free of sin without causing a theological catastrophe.

Therefore a truly omniscient God should have made sure that an explanation for this was given in the scriptures. But none is given.

~~~~~~

Now the following you may want to call a "rant", however I see the following as a very sincere and genuine theological concern. A concern that I would bring up if I was a theologian.

If this God is as omnipotent as you claim, then why is he bothering to have Jesus born as a human baby via Mary in the first place?

Why not just create Jesus from the dust of the earth out in the desert and simply have Jesus walk into Israel as a 30 year old man prepared to preach the Gospel?

I mean, seriously. In fact, to be quite honest about it this is precisely how I would expect an omnipotent God to do it. I would never expect an omnipotent God to have Jesus being born as a human baby from a mortal woman. What would be the purpose of that? There is no need for that in the overall theology. Moreover, to do it that way only suggests that this is just another demigod myth. Having Gods being born of mortal woman was a common man-made myth of the period. Because of this I would suggest that a truly omnipotent God would have done things differently. Why should the real God do things the same way that men had been claiming it was done in previous mythologies?

Like I say, you might see this as a 'rant', but for me it's a serious theological question. It's begs the question of whether this entire story is nothing more than just yet another man-made demigod tale.

So for me, the fact that Jesus was claimed to have been born of a mortal woman who was impregnated by a God is a serious red flag that suggests that this mythology isn't really any different from countless others than had preceded it.

Shouldn't theologians themselves question the credibility of these ancient stories?

I've stated it many times. If theology requires a prerequisite belief that the stories are true and are of divine origin, then it's not a valid academic study. All it amounts to at that point is a faith-based religion posing as an academic study.

Even theologians need to question the validity of the stories if they want to claim to have a credible academic discipline.

Otherwise it's just "Bible Study" being pretentiously held up as a valid academic study.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 13 by Divine Insight]

Why is that a problem? Surely the better response is to think about why an omni God does or doesn't do something.

You know i wondered about Mary on the train and came up with the charitable idea that perhaps the veneration of mary was an attempt to help women in society.

[Divine Insight]

Why is that a problem? Surely the better response is to think about why an omni God does or doesn't do something.

But is theology a valid academic study if the theologians always assume that there is a God behind the stories? Doesn't that reduce theology to nothing more than a glorified Bible Study class?

The assumption is always being made that a God did it, and therefore only explanations in harmony with that premise are permitted. This would then be a study that forces it's own prerequisite premise that a God must be behind the stories.

I think a far better approach to theology is to make a list of two columns. One marked "Things that sound like an omnipotent God would do". The other marked, "Things that sound like men would have made up or copied from previous mythologies."

Then as we go through the Biblical scriptures instead of assuming there is a God behind everything and making excuses for why a God might have done those things, we could end up with a far more rational assessment of whether or not the stories even appear to have been the actions of any God.

I suggest that if theologians had used the method I suggest above they would have concluded that the Bible is clearly nothing more than man-made tales a very long time ago.

I'm convinced that the only thing that keeps theology alive as a subject is because theologians are only accepted if they view it as a bible study class and instead of questioning whether a God would do something they focus on making excuses for why a God would do the things claimed in the Bible, no matter how absurd those things might be.

In other words, I claim that if theology was taken to a serious level the conclusion that the Bible is not describing the behavior of any God would have been the conclusion of theology quite some time ago. Not unlike the conclusion that the Greek stories of Gods were obviously just myths too.

~~~~~~

In the meantime For the topic of this thread I suggest that it should be clear that Paul is the one who is incompatible with the teachings of Jesus as I had already pointed out in post #2

We already have Paul teaching very different things from what Jesus taught anyway.

So now we need to choose between Paul and Jesus.

What any Popes might have thought would be irrelevant at that point. The Popes didn't write any of the Biblical scriptures.

So it's really Paul versus Jesus.

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

Well at least you are honest in arguing from your ideology rather than from the text.

But it might not be the best approach in life unless you are trying to confirm your own biases.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

Well at least you are honest in arguing from your ideology rather than from the text.

But it might not be the best approach in life unless you are trying to confirm your own biases.

But isn't that what theologians are doing?

They are doing nothing more than trying to confirm their own biases that the Bible is actually describing some God.

Also, why should this have anything at all to do with how I might approach life?

As far as I can see I would not need to change anything if the stories of Jesus were true.

I would even argue from the Gospel texts that Jesus himself proclaimed that it was not necessary to believe in him, or in his words. I would argue that words attributed to Jesus tell us precisely what we can do entirely on our own free will to guarantee our eternal life. No need to accept Jesus as our "savior" at all.

I would argue that from the Gospel texts the only people who would need to seek amnesty from Jesus would be those who don't qualify on their own merit according to Jesus' own words.

And finally, I would argue again from the Gospel texts as I did in post #2 that even Jesus has proclaimed that 99% of the people who make it to heaven do so on their own righteousness.

I can't imagine why I should think that I would be among the 1% who would need to beg for repentance to be allowed in.

So even if these ancient stories are true my destiny to heaven has been guaranteed by Jesus, and I don't even need to believe in Jesus for this to be so. According to Jesus' own proclamations.

As far as Paul is concerned and the dogma of Pauline Christianity that "All men are sinners", I say hogwash.

That's not what Jesus taught.

Clearly those who worship Paul are ignoring Jesus entirely.

So according to Jesus in this Biblical theology, my destiny to eternal life in heaven has been guaranteed by Jesus, and earned by myself. This may not be true for all other humans, obviously. However, according to the scriptures it's necessarily true for me.

So for me, it doesn't matter whether the religion is true or false. According to Jesus I go to heaven whether I believe or not.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 15 by Divine Insight]

Well at least you are honest in arguing from your ideology rather than from the text.

But it might not be the best approach in life unless you are trying to confirm your own biases.

But isn't that what theologians are doing?

They are doing nothing more than trying to confirm their own biases that the Bible is actually describing some God.

Also, why should this have anything at all to do with how I might approach life?

As far as I can see I would not need to change anything if the stories of Jesus were true.

I would even argue from the Gospel texts that Jesus himself proclaimed that it was not necessary to believe in him, or in his words. I would argue that words attributed to Jesus tell us precisely what we can do entirely on our own free will to guarantee our eternal life. No need to accept Jesus as our "savior" at all.

I would argue that from the Gospel texts the only people who would need to seek amnesty from Jesus would be those who don't qualify on their own merit according to Jesus' own words.

And finally, I would argue again from the Gospel texts as I did in post #2 that even Jesus has proclaimed that 99% of the people who make it to heaven do so on their own righteousness.

I can't imagine why I should think that I would be among the 1% who would need to beg for repentance to be allowed in.

So even if these ancient stories are true my destiny to heaven has been guaranteed by Jesus, and I don't even need to believe in Jesus for this to be so. According to Jesus' own proclamations.

As far as Paul is concerned and the dogma of Pauline Christianity that "All men are sinners", I say hogwash.

That's not what Jesus taught.

Clearly those who worship Paul are ignoring Jesus entirely.

So according to Jesus in this Biblical theology, my destiny to eternal life in heaven has been guaranteed by Jesus, and earned by myself. This may not be true for all other humans, obviously. However, according to the scriptures it's necessarily true for me.

So for me, it doesn't matter whether the religion is true or false. According to Jesus I go to heaven whether I believe or not.

I agree with most of the contents of one's post except the last sentence.
Please elaborate it.

Regards

[Divine Insight]

So for me, it doesn't matter whether the religion is true or false. According to Jesus I go to heaven whether I believe or not.

I agree with most of the contents of one's post except the last sentence.
Please elaborate it.

Regards

Well, this is based on various quotes attributed to Jesus in the New Testament. Also, keep in mind that I don't believe that all the quotes attributed to Jesus in the New Testament can be trusted to have actually been said by Jesus. The entire Gospels are openly confessed to be hearsay. I also hold that the Gospels are filled with contradictions too. So I have no doubt that people can find contradictory verses. However, this doesn't bother me because all that does is confirm my position that the Gospels are indeed self-contradictory.

Anyway, here are some of the reasons why I claim that Jesus has guaranteed to me personally that my destiny will be heaven. In fact, I hold that if this is false, then either the Gospels are necessarily false, or Jesus himself would need to be a liar.

With that said here we go:

John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

According to John Jesus is the sole judge of men. The Father God no longer judges anyone. Apparently the original God grew tired of his pet humans and decided to give them to his Son Jesus to play with. So Jesus is the judge now.

John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.

Here in John 12:47 we see Jesus proclaiming that he will not judge anyone for not believing in him or in his words.

John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.

So here in John 12:48 Jesus is saying that he will not judge those who reject him but the words that he has spoken shall be what will judge them in the last day.

Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven

Finally in Luke 6:37 we have words spoken by Jesus. Now keep in mind that these particular words may not be meaningful for everyone as everyone may not qualify for the criteria these words require. However, I do qualify for these words, and therefore they apply to me. And that's all I need to be concerned with.

I judge no one. Therefore according to the word of Jesus I shall not be judged. Apparently on the last day I will not be judged. Instead I'll just go directly to heaven. Clearly I cannot be judged because Jesus has made it clear that if I don't judge others I won't be judged. So if I'm judged, that would make Jesus a liar and we can't have that.

I condemn no one. Therefore I shall not be condemned, according to the word of Jesus. It would be impossible for Jesus to condemn me without becoming a liar. I don't condemn anyone and I never have.

I forgive others. Therefore, according to Jesus I shall be forgiven. So it's not even necessary for me to be sin-free. Neither do I need to ask for forgiveness, because according to the word of Jesus if I forgive others I will be forgiven. So since I forgive others I will automatically be forgiven of any sins or transgressions charged against me.

Therefore by the WORD of Jesus I will go directly to heaven and there won't even be any need for me to be judged on judgement day. No need to ask for forgiveness. No need to be sin free. Period.

My destiny to heaven has been guaranteed by Jesus. And I don't even need to believe in Jesus or his words. If his words are true, I go to heaven. If his words are false then there is no Jesus and no heaven, so in that case I go wherever atheists go.

I can't lose.

Well, I could lose if I were to violate the criteria laid out in Luke 6:37, but it just so happens that I have no desire to judge or condemn anyone, and thus far I have forgiven everyone who has sinned against me. So thus far I qualify. I'm not saying that can't change. But I currently don't foresee any reasons to expect that it would. I'm 68 years old and thus far I have been in harmony with the criteria of Luke 6:37 even before I ever read it.

I don't try to "follow" the criteria of Luke 6:37. I just happen to coincidentally meet those requirement naturally. It's just who I am.

~~~~~~

Now, having said the above, I realize that there may be other contradictory quotes that people might be able to find. I've never seen any yet. Unless we go fishing around in Paul's writings. But I reject Paul's writing. Jesus warned that false prophets would come after him claiming to be preaching in his name. I see no reason that Paul doesn't qualify as a false prophet. Jesus never mentioned Paul or predicted that he would come. So I have no reason to believe anything Paul ever wrote.

Of course, I don't have any reason to believe things attributed to Jesus either. But that's irrelevant. From what is written it apparently doesn't matter whether I believe in words attributed to Jesus or not.

~~~~~~

Finally, I would also like to point out the following that I had mentioned earlier in post #2 of this thread:

Luke.15
[4] What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?
[7] I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

I see this as Jesus saying that out of every 100 people who go to heaven 99 of them get there based on their own merit. And only 1 person in 100 needs to repent in order to get in.

So realistically it makes sense that I would most likely be in the 99% anyway. If I needed to repent I would be the odd-ball-out.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 19 by Divine Insight]

Divine Insight :
Also, keep in mind that I don't believe that all the quotes attributed to Jesus in the New Testament can be trusted to have actually been said by Jesus. The entire Gospels are openly confessed to be hearsay. I also hold that the Gospels are filled with contradictions too. So I have no doubt that people can find contradictory verses. However, this doesn't bother me because all that does is confirm my position that the Gospels are indeed self-contradictory.

I agree with one that:

~all the quotes attributed to Jesus in the New Testament cannot be trusted to have actually been said by Jesus.
~It is true that the entire Gospels are openly confessed to be hearsay.
~It is also true that Gospels are filled with contradictions too.
~This is also true and no doubt in it that people can find contradictory verses in the NT.

This is because Pauline-Christianity got hold of anonymous narrations and doctored them cunningly to trick the followers of Jesus to the hold of Pauline-Christianity, nevertheless, one could find the clues and signs to separate truth from the fiction. Right, please?

Regards