Celibacy

Originally posted by twhitehead
You didn't let me down, you just gave me a good laugh.

Same here...

Originally posted by stoker
do you think gods word is only in the bible from the time of adam, there are many more works, than the 66 books, they were put together for our start of knowledge by the r,c, pope, its for you to discover the wide range as god has given us

The Bible says that sometime in the future new scrolls will be opened. So yes something in the future will be given to us by God that would shed new light on spiritual matters about the future to us. But the Bible gives no clue as to what that would be.
But the Bible also clearly says "God is not a God of confusion but of Truth".
So that simple explination of how God is would be to test if anything that has been pinned since the Bible was written would be of these "new scrolls'.
Whatever you have in mind ask yourself this simple question: Does it contradict the Bible in anyway?
Since God does not lie and cannot tell a lie, then any writing you can show that you think is inspired by him would have to continue on with the same truths, themes, directions, laws and principles as the Bible we now posses has.
The Bible says he is eternal and so are his ways.
So the question now is what book can you show that we have on this earth since the Bible was written that completely 100% continues on with the Bibles truths and is not polluted with mans philosophies or ideals in it? Does these new scrolls exist now or are they still to come?

Originally posted by galveston75
The Bible says that sometime in the future new scrolls will be opened. So yes something in the future will be given to us by God that would shed new light on spiritual matters about the future to us. But the Bible gives no clue as to what that would be.
But the Bible also clearly says "God is not a God of confusion but of Truth".
So that simple expl ...[text shortened]... ns philosophies or ideals in it? Does these new scrolls exist now or are they still to come?

well you forget that the bible did not exist until the pope. now if you say scrolls in the future are you talking about from the bibles grouping or from about 2000 years ago give or take afew years. the books left out are grouped in sevral collections and if you want the future books revealed then barnabus gospel, thomas gospel, magdaline gospel, or further back more from the earlier prophets. god is truth but as jesus spoke in riddles to the learned of the day and reaved to his followers, so god reveals his truth for the seek and you shall find. now as for contradiction to the bible thats for the reader to seek there is a mixture within thomas gospel but does that mean the translation is wrong or our understanding wrong
? again seek and you shal find one gospel i read [carnt remeber the name] a load of rubish but without reading it i would not have known, yes there is only one deciver of the world, but how do you know the bible was translated correctly and do you not seek out gods truth even reading of the saints who gave us futher teachings or are you ignoreing them?

Originally posted by stoker
well you forget that the bible did not exist until the pope. now if you say scrolls in the future are you talking about from the bibles grouping or from about 2000 years ago give or take afew years. the books left out are grouped in sevral collections and if you want the future books revealed then barnabus gospel, thomas gospel, magdaline gospel, or further b ...[text shortened]... ut gods truth even reading of the saints who gave us futher teachings or are you ignoreing them?

These other writings your referring to were not included in the Bible as we know it because God did not approve of those writings or else they would have been included in your Bible today.
Either one puts faith and trust in our God and what he has given to us at this time or one doesn't.

Originally posted by galveston75
These other writings your referring to were not included in the Bible as we know it because God did not approve of those writings or else they would have been included in your Bible today.
Either one puts faith and trust in our God and what he has given to us at this time or one doesn't.

I think the point that Twitehead was making was that the bible only came into existence because of the efforts of the Catholic-Orthodox churches. The canon was largely contested over several centuries and even still there remain irresolvable disputes between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians about the exact canon of the bible. If you reject the authority of the early church which decided the basic canon, why should you retain their canon? Why not include the gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul and Thecla in your canon?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This thread is about the requirement by the Roman Catholic Church that
priests must remain celibate to continue as priest in the RCC. Do you
think this is a good rule? Should they be allowed to marry if the promise
to remain celibate?

Sorry about that, I was off-topic then. Being a Protestant, I believe it is completely acceptable for the head of a Church to marry and have children. I do not see a strict biblical backing for the celibacy requirement. However, I do have a little bit of an issue with declaring a centuries old tradition unfair and just breaking it. If one wants to become a Catholic Priest then I feel that person should by default be willing to abide by the rules of the Catholic Church. Otherwise, they should pursue becoming a Priest or Minister for another denomination with rules they feel they can live with.

Originally posted by galveston75
These other writings your referring to were not included in the Bible as we know it because God did not approve of those writings or else they would have been included in your Bible today.
Either one puts faith and trust in our God and what he has given to us at this time or one doesn't.

Thats one of the arguments that made me laugh. Here we are discussing whether or not the rule about celibacy is from God. It is a very old rule, about as old as the Bible. Yet you claim the Bible was 'given to us' and the celibacy rule was not.

I also bet that you reject the Apocryphal books yet some Bibles do contain them.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I think the point that Twitehead was making was that the bible only came into existence because of the efforts of the Catholic-Orthodox churches. The canon was largely contested over several centuries and even still there remain irresolvable disputes between Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant Christians about the exact canon of the bible. If you reject the a ...[text shortened]... their canon? Why not include the gospel of Thomas or the Acts of Paul and Thecla in your canon?

The faith that I have in God and his ability to control what was written in the Bible and his ability to control it to this day. Not saying that all Bibles are correct in every word because some translations have been tainted to favor some doctrines such as the trinity which is not a Bible teaching.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Thats one of the arguments that made me laugh. Here we are discussing whether or not the rule about celibacy is from God. It is a very old rule, about as old as the Bible. Yet you claim the Bible was 'given to us' and the celibacy rule was not.

I also bet that you reject the Apocryphal books yet some Bibles do contain them.

Rejecting the Apocryphal books or other Gospels does not mean that there
is no truth at all in them. The belief is that they were not inspired writings
and they were not widely used by the Christians of the day. Some of them
may have been forgeries and not actually written by the author identified.
Rejecting them was an attempt to keep false teachings from entering the
church.

Originally posted by galveston75
The faith that I have in God and his ability to control what was written in the Bible and his ability to control it to this day. Not saying that all Bibles are correct in every word because some translations have been tainted to favor some doctrines such as the trinity which is not a Bible teaching.

the bible is mans creation, based on teachings of the prophets, i think the original meanings [like let] were humanly wrongly missused. but if you mean he put his spirit in the translaters of the day to do there utmost best then that i agree with, however they put the song of solomon in and left out the wisdom of solomon [im sure you have read it] , but fot some who are anti roman catholic forget its they who put the books together that we follow today. FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT . but its man who gives them the trinity title

Originally posted by RJHinds
Rejecting the Apocryphal books or other Gospels does not mean that there
is no truth at all in them. The belief is that they were not inspired writings
and they were not widely used by the Christians of the day. Some of them
may have been forgeries and not actually written by the author identified.
Rejecting them was an attempt to keep false teachings from entering the
church.

Yet galveston75 accepts or rejects based on whether or not God managed to get them between the same book covers.

Originally posted by galveston75
The faith that I have in God and his ability to control what was written in the Bible and his ability to control it to this day. Not saying that all Bibles are correct in every word because some translations have been tainted to favor some doctrines such as the trinity which is not a Bible teaching.

You get more hilarious by the minute! What is in some Bibles is not a Bible teaching!

Originally posted by twhitehead
You get more hilarious by the minute! What is in some Bibles is not a Bible teaching!

You know if you'd grow up and get serious with your conversations and would stop with the childish insults, you might be worth talking to but I don't see that happening at this point..............
Is your existance here just to make a fool of yourself over and over?

Originally posted by stoker
the bible is mans creation, based on teachings of the prophets, i think the original meanings [like let] were humanly wrongly missused. but if you mean he put his spirit in the translaters of the day to do there utmost best then that i agree with, however they put the song of solomon in and left out the wisdom of solomon [im sure you have read it] , but fot s ...[text shortened]... hat we follow today. FATHER, SON, AND HOLY SPIRIT . but its man who gives them the trinity title

So do you not think the Bible is inspired by God and is God not able to make sure what is in it is by him totally? Why would he allow such a book to be pinned and then survive as it has over the centuries with all that have tried to destroy it and still mock it today even by ones here on this forum?

Originally posted by galveston75
You know if you'd grow up and get serious with your conversations and would stop with the childish insults, you might be worth talking to but I don't see that happening at this point..............
Is your existance here just to make a fool of yourself over and over?

Go back and read your recent posts again and imagine how they read from the point of view of someone who is not Christian. Hopefully you will not only see how funny you sound, but realize that I am not being childish nor making a fool of myself.