Is the Bible the only sacred texts and why or why not.

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Don't they realize that the kingdom is in the heart when the saved person receives the Holy Spirit?

Indeed, one can only realize 'God' by 'God' being reflected within their own being, within their own consciousness, since 'God' is the source and sustainer of that consciousness.

"Know ye not that you are the temple of God and the spirit of God dwells in you"?
 

God's Truth

New member
Indeed, one can only realize 'God' by 'God' being reflected within their own being, within their own consciousness, since 'God' is the source and sustainer of that consciousness.

You have that flair of other gods and religions about you that is unacceptable to a person who follows the Way.
 

Zeke

Well-known member
Such a Christian authority as The Catholic Encyclopedia (VII, 645) says that
"even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their author. For this reason they were incapable of bearing witness to the original form."
In an enlightening lecture entitled Paul the Gnostic Opponent of Peter, Massey reveals that
"as Irenaeus tells us, the Gnostics, of whom Marcion was one, charged the other apostles with hypocrisy, because they ‘framed their doctrine according to the capacity of their hearers, fabling blind things for the blind according to their blindness; for the dull according to their dulness; for those in error according to their errors.’"
A strong statement is made in the History of the Christian Religion to the Year 200, by Charles B. Waite, to the effect that a comprehensive review of the first one hundred and seventy years of
WHO IS THIS KING OF GLORY?

110
Christianity discloses the ignorance and superstition of even the most enlightened and best educated of the Fathers; with rare exceptions they were men who utterly despised learning, especially that of the pagans attempting to study the laws of the material universe. Construing in the narrowest sense the maxim that the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, they construed the Jewish scriptures and sayings of Christ in the most fanciful and whimsical ways. Their credulity was unbounded and "they had a sublime disregard for truth. . . . Their unscrupulousness when seeking for arguments to enforce their positions is notorious, as well as the prevalence among them of what are known as pious frauds."
Waite says of Eusebius, the Christian historian, that not only the most unblushing falsehoods but literary forgeries of the vilest character darken the pages of his apologetic and historical writings. In speaking of such and other irregularities, Miss Isabel B. Holbrook, a capable student of esoteric religions, writes in one of her brochures:
"Among the most notorious of these forgeries were gross liberties and interpolations concerning Christ into the writings of the historian Josephus, of Porphyry and other heathen and Church writers."
Waite further declares that Eusebius has contributed more to Christian history than any other and "no one is guilty of more mistakes."
136
"Eusebius has a peculiar faculty for diverging from the truth. He was ready to supply by fabrication what was wanting in historical data."
Niebuhr terms Eusebius "a very dishonest writer."
The thirty-second chapter of the Twelfth Book of Anselm, Evangelical Preparation, bears for its title this scandalous proposition: "How it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine and for the benefit of those who want to be deceived." (From Gibbon, Vindication, 76.)
Chrysostom is quoted (Comm. on I Cor., IX, 19; Diegesis, p. 309) as saying: "Great is the force of deceit, provided it is not excited by a treacherous intention."
Even Cardinal Newman appears to endorse subterfuge for the glory of the faith. In the Apology for His Life (Appendix, 345) he writes: "The Greek Fathers thought that when there was a justa causa an untruth need not be a lie."
What could be more explicit than this entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia (XII, 768)?"
"There was need for a revision, which is not yet complete, ranging over all that has been handed down from the Middle Ages, under the style and title of the Fathers, Councils, Roman and other official archives. In all these departments forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale."
WHO IS THIS KING OF GLORY?

111
Lecky states that the Fathers laid down as a distinct proposition that pious frauds were justifiable!

And as is witnessed here they are continually reinforced by all sects link to the historical foundation made justifiable by that methodology, which is why I scoff at anyone claiming to be Christian trying to cut ties with the mother of their bloody foundation.
 

Ask Mr. Religion

☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) &#9
Gold Subscriber
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Such a Christian authority as The Catholic Encyclopedia (VII, 645) says

:AMR1:

It is an encyclopedia with an obvious bias. Be discerning to avoid swallowing the whole camel.

AMR
 

Zeke

Well-known member
:AMR1:

It is an encyclopedia with an obvious bias. Be discerning to avoid swallowing the whole camel.

AMR

It's from the institution you agree with on the crucifixion being a historical event, which is the foundational underpinning your ecclesiastical system is swallowing.
 

freelight

Eclectic Theosophist
Shining light on ignorance....................

Shining light on ignorance....................

Just ignore Zeke. He's one of those urantia loons.


:rolleyes:

Sorry but thats just not true, just because zeke has posted in our Urantia thread doesnt make him a UB reader, let alone an enthusiast in that particular revelation, and moreso does not make him a 'loon', anymore than your subscribing and believing in traditional Christian pop-theology makes you a 'bible goon',...but perhaps that could be debated.

At least he challenges and questions what is handed down to man in any book, and sees that much of the 'narrative' may be fictional, contrived or merely parables containing deeper meanings and metaphors, and are not necessarily meant to be taking 'literally', neither be historically true per se,....but what matters is a deeper truth or revelation behind the images and symbols. - all is interpreted/translated subjectively anyways. All points of view are subject to change, with more or better information, insight or progressive revelation.

On that note, my former commentary holds, since no matter how hard you try or what utility of dogma or evolved doctrine deemed 'orthodox' is employed, you still cant put 'God' in a 'box'.

So, you cannot hold ONLY ONE book or a collection of books (a 'bible' of any kind) as being sanctioned or inspired by God, while every other religious book, spiritual writing that has risen in the past ages and will rise in the future is not or could not be inspired by 'God', for to assume such is maniacal, irrational and insane. You could not contain, restrict or limit the infinite Spirit or wisdom of Deity if you tried, since a finite mind cannot prohibit or limit the omnipresence of infinite intelligence.......EVER.


--------------
 

Zeke

Well-known member
:rolleyes:

Sorry but thats just not true, just because zeke has posted in our Urantia thread doesnt make him a UB reader, let alone an enthusiast in that particular revelation, and moreso does not make him a 'loon', anymore than your subscribing and believing in traditional Christian pop-theology makes you a 'bible goon',...but perhaps that could be debated.

At least he challenges and questions what is handed down to man in any book, and sees that much of the 'narrative' may be fictional, contrived or merely parables containing deeper meanings and metaphors, and are not necessarily meant to be taking 'literally', neither be historically true per se,....but what matters is a deeper truth or revelation behind the images and symbols. - all is interpreted/translated subjectively anyways. All points of view are subject to change, with more or better information, insight or progressive revelation.

On that note, my former commentary holds, since no matter how hard you try or what utility of dogma or evolved doctrine deemed 'orthodox' is employed, you still cant put 'God' in a 'box'.

So, you cannot hold ONLY ONE book or a collection of books (a 'bible' of any kind) as being sanctioned or inspired by God, while every other religious book, spiritual writing that has risen in the past ages and will rise in the future is not or could not be inspired by 'God', for to assume such is maniacal, irrational and insane. You could not contain, restrict or limit the infinite Spirit or wisdom of Deity if you tried, since a finite mind cannot prohibit or limit the omnipresence of infinite intelligence.......EVER.


--------------

These are the same people that think they can own something while forced to pay taxes on it, so I don't give them much credibility on spiritual discernment while their still polishing dead letters as historical documents and calling spiritual pearls like Luke 17:21, 1 Corinthians 3:16, new age loony tunes, their strutting around bragging about their right divisional skills which is no better than their interpretation on ownership.
 
Top