Who Will be the Next Pope.....

[IdeomotorPrisoner]

I meant 17th century. 1600s = 17th century. But I've already been quoted wrong...

I like the Apocryphal Texts. It's a travesty The Book of Judith was expelled. But those were often the intermediary texts between the Hebrew prophets and Christ's martyrdom.. They had all the mixed influence in an around the time of The Maccabean Revolt. 

The Apocrypha has Platonism, Stoicism, and Cynicism concepts throughout. A more deep dive into the psychology. You can't do Cynicism without The Book of Judith.. (about 100 BCE). The Apocrypha are really Hellenistic, and show an evolution away from Mesopotamia influence and towards everyone else they were interacting with.  They tossed out all the transitional texts that show thought was gearing up for Christianity. 

Like Phoenicia is a monolatrous in between the pantheon and a single Ba'al (god),  the Apocrypha are the texts in between "GOD IS EVERYTHING" and "The One True God vs. Satan" version.
 
So why choose to keep mostly the Persian good/evil influence for the New Testament and leave the older version behind? 

Probably something about control. An ecumenical determination of what God should actually say.

[BeyondKnowledge]

Just finished reading the last dozen or so replies. 

Nice discussion on how the word of God has changed over time. Like he did not get it right in the beginning so some people changed the books. 

Now, where is this 'word of God' as some people believe it is? The truth unchanging...

Funny how God is not in any of it but some god man made in his image is. And always changing to keep the church in control of the masses. 

Now a church has a new guy in charge to change it again. Just to stir thing up and try to remain revalent to maintain control. A public, nicer, version of the Mafia is what I see.

[FlyersFan]

But hell is such a late addition to the doctrine. 

It's a Christian doctrine.
And it was there right from the start when Jesus taught it.
It just took a while for the message to spread, just like all of the gospels.

Sheol had no fire and wasn't punishment.   
Hell does have fire and is eternal punishment.
They are clearly two different things.
Sheol was a place of waiting for what was next and was neutral.
Hell is a place for eternity and is punishment.
This is Jesus teaching and this is what Pope Leo says is in store for anyone committing abortion or promoting it, and not being repentant for doing so

 "But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.” Revelation 21:8

 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matthew 10:28

 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46

"And throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth" Matthew 13:50

"If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off.  It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands go to hell, where the fire never goes out."  Mark 9:43

etc etc etc

[UltraBudgie]

 "And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matthew 25:46

Just as one example from what you quoted, this is what I am talking about. Look at the original text, not the doctrinal-oriented translations:

Matthew 25:46 "καὶ ἀπελεύσονται οὗτοι εἰς κόλασιν αἰώνιον οἱ δὲ δίκαιοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον"

The key phrase here is "κόλασιν αἰώνιον" (kolasis aiōnios). From the text I mentioned above:

The word κόλασις (kolasis) originally meant “pruning” or “docking” or “obviating the growth” of trees or other plants, and then came to mean “confinement,” “being held in check,” “punishment,” or “chastisement,” chiefly with the connotation of “correction.” Classically, the word was distinguished (by Aristotle, for instance) from τιμωρία (timōria), which means a retributive punishment only. Whether such a distinction holds here is difficult to say, since by late antiquity kolasis seems to have been used by many to describe punishment of any kind; but the only other use of the noun in the New Testament is in 1 John 4:18, where it refers not to retributive punishment, but to the suffering experienced by someone who is subject to fear because not yet perfected in charity. The verbal form, κολάζω (kolazō), appears twice: in Acts 4:21, where it clearly refers only to disciplinary punishment, and in 2 Peter 2:9 in reference to fallen angels and unrighteous men, where it probably means “being held in check” or “penned in” [until the day of judgment].

And with regard to aiōnios:

...there is a genuine ambiguity in the term in Greek that is impossible to render directly in an English equivalent. Aiōnios is an adjective drawn from the substantive αἰών (aiōn, or aeon), which can sometimes mean a period of endless duration, but which more properly, throughout the whole of ancient and late antique Greek literature, means “an age,” or “a long period of time” of indeterminate duration, or even just “a substantial interval.” Its proper equivalent in Latin would be aevum. At times, it can refer to an historical epoch, to a time “long past” or “far in the future,” to something as shadowy and fleeting as the lifespan of a single person (in Homer and the Attic dramatists this is its typical meaning), or even to a considerably shorter period than that (say, a year). It can also, as it frequently does in the New Testament, refer to a particular universal dispensation: either the present world or the world to come or a heavenly sphere of reality beyond our own. Moreover, the adjective aiōnios, unlike the adjective ἀΐδιος (aïdios) or adverb ἀεί (aei), never clearly means “eternal” or “everlasting” in any incontrovertible sense, nor does the noun aiōn simply mean “eternity” in the way that the noun ἀϊδιότης (aïdiotēs) does; neither does aiōnios mean “endless,” as ἀτέλευτος (atelevtos) or ἀτελεύτητος (atelevtētos) does; and, in fact, there are enough instances in the New Testament where the adjective or the noun obviously does not mean “eternal” or “eternity” that it seems to me unwise simply to presume such meanings in any instances at all. Where it is used of that which is by nature eternal, God in himself, it certainly carries the connotation that, say, the English words “enduring” or “abiding” would do in the same context: everlasting. But that is a connotation by extension, not the univocal core of the word. A perfect example of the word’s ambiguity can be found in Romans 16:25–26, where in successive verses it is used first of “times ages past” or “times ages-long” (χρόνοις αἰωνίοις [chronois aiōniois]) and then of “the eternal God” or “the enduring God” or even perhaps “the God of Ages” (τοῦ αἰωνίου θεοῦ [tou aiōniou theou]), though practically no translation gives any clue that the same word is being used in both formulations.

Thus a better translation of that verse you reference may be:

Matthew 25:46 "And these will go to the chastening of that Age, but the just to the life of that Age."

The distinction in Greek between chronos and aeon is subtle, and worth much study. Deserving more than a digression in this thread. But please do be careful of glib translations, with regard to any doctrinal agenda, of whatever bent. I have found careful study, moving to source documents and historical context, to be a surer path to better perceiving the truth in scripture, rather than depending solely on the translations and say-so of worldly authorities.


Edit: and so as not to be seeming to cherry-pick just one of the verses you quoted, let me do another:

 "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell." - Matthew 10:28

Looking at the original, we have:

Matthew 10:28 "καὶ μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτεινόντων τὸ σῶμα τὴν δὲ ψυχὴν μὴ δυναμένων ἀποκτεῖναι· φοβηθήτε δὲ μᾶλλον τὸν δυνάμενον καὶ ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀπολέσαι ἐν γεέννῃ"

The word you have provided translated as "hell" is γέεννα (geenna). But looking at the original meaning of the word at the time it was used, we have (from Strong's):

γέεννα géenna, gheh'-en-nah; of Hebrew origin (H1516 and H2011); valley of (the son of) Hinnom; ge-henna (or Ge-Hinnom), a valley of Jerusalem

This was originally the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned; a fit symbol of the wicked and their future destruction.

Nothing here about some anti-heaven at all, rather casting into Hinnom appears to be a symbol of an act of God in which the wicked, their vile personages, and all their worldly works fall into ruin and rot, rather than the sustenance of the soul in eternal torment.

[quintessentone]

He says abortion is murder and a mortal sin that you go to hell for if you don't repent of it.
He says that the 'trans' fad is demonic, that God made men and women, and that trying to
change that goes against God's plan.
He says that marriage is between a man and a woman, and that homosexuals can't marry
others of the same gender.
He says those things are the words of God. (and yes, there is biblical quotes that can back that up).

Since, in your words, he 'speaks the teachings of Jesus and that's all right with you', then you should listen to him and change your stand on abortion and gays and trans, eh?  According to him God says it's a mortal sin and you go to hell for supporting them.

He also speaks the words of Jesus (Matthew 16:18-19) stating that the Catholic church is the 'right' church, that it's the church God Himself started, and that it has full authority given to it by God Himself.   (Also 1 Acts 16-26 for apostolic succession in the church Jesus founded, the Catholic church)

When is the last time you read the bible?  
Jesus never taught about 'borders' or 'open borders'.  He wasnt' political.
Jesus never taught about climate change either.  
Nor did Jesus teach about illegal criminal immigrants telling countries to welcome the criminal invasion of tens of millions of them to take over the country and bring it down.  (that's not what 'welcome the stranger' means)
Those are all Leos left wing political OPINIONS that do not come from any teaching of Jesus.

Me: He is still formulating his teachings and at the end of it all only God can judge us. None of us know God's plan, since the dawn of time we can only interpret and preach with and without bias, but one thing is for sure, "love your neighbour as you love yourself" will never change it's meaning, or it's necessity for us.

AI:

"Here's a more detailed look at his teachings and potential stance on key issues:

 Social Justice and Human Rights:

• Workers' Rights: Pope Leo XIV's name choice, Leo XIV, is a nod to Pope Leo XIII, who championed workers' rights and challenged capitalism's excesses, according to The Nation. 
  

• Migrants: He has a strong history of caring for migrants, especially those from Venezuela, reflecting his experience in Peru, as noted by NPR. 
  
•  
  
• Synodality: He is expected to continue Pope Francis's commitment to synodality, a process of "walking together" that involves listening to and collaborating with lay people, according to The Conversation. 
  

Social Issues:

• Abortion and Euthanasia: He, like his predecessor, strongly opposes abortion and euthanasia, seeing them as evidence of a "throwaway culture," as reported by LiveNOW from FOX. 
  

• LGBTQ+ Catholics: While he is not expected to change official doctrine on marriage or homosexual acts, he is likely to continue the efforts to make the Church more inclusive and welcoming to LGBTQ+ Catholics, according to LiveNOW from FOX. 
  
• Women in the Church: He has been open to the possibility of ordaining women as deacons, but has not taken it further, according to The Conversation. 
  

Other Key Areas:

• Hope and Mercy: He is expected to emphasize the importance of hope, joy, mercy, and tenderness as antidotes to despair, according to La croix international. 
  

• Technology and AI: He has strong views on the potential and pitfalls of technology and AI, emphasizing the need for ethical development and international regulation, according to Vox. 
  
• Climate Change: He will likely continue Pope Francis's commitment to addressing the climate crisis, as noted by The Guardian. 
  

**In summary, Pope Leo XIV is expected to be a "bridge builder," emphasizing social justice, inclusivity, and a more merciful approach to faith while upholding core Catholic teachings on life, marriage, and family."

What do you know of my stance on abortion? It's obvious you chose to ignore my previous posts when I stated that I am anti-abortion but struggle with removing a woman's right to choose and that the government should provide women with the means to not have to make one of two difficult choices; abort the child with perhaps a lifetime of regret, or have the child and face poverty and all other negatives that come with that. Help women - don't take away their rights! What with population/birth rate decline worldwide, governments would be wise to institute programs to make having babies and subsequent childcare affordability a walk in the park.

Anyway, I don't want this to devolve into another umpteen abortion debate debacle where everyone ends up on opposite angry sides, without offering any real solutions. Especially when you can't be bothered to remember who is on which side of the abortion discussion.

Everything you posted above is wrong or twisted, and when he uses Jesus' teachings, it all has to do with empathy and compassion, the major point you always seem to miss. Obviously some of your sanctuary cities get the message even if you do not. Who will pick the produce from the fields now?

This Pope blends Jesus' teachings and addresses modern challenges in such a way that, to me, blends well for these times.

The Bible, I read, God nor Jesus mentions anything about abortion or transpeople, however, mortal man back then was always opining without wisdom, empathy and/or compassion - a sign of their times.

[UltraBudgie]

The Bible, I read, God nor Jesus mentions anything about abortion or transpeople, however, mortal man is always opining without wisdom, empathy and/or compassion - a sign of their times.

I like your reply. But there is this:

Matthew 19:11-12 (trans.)
But he said to them, “Not all can accept this saying—save those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were gelded by men, and there are eunuchs who gelded themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let him who can accept this accept it.”

Perhaps not what was meant, but perhaps so?

[quintessentone]

I like your reply. But there is this:

Matthew 19:11-12 (trans.)
But he said to them, “Not all can accept this saying—save those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who were born so from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were gelded by men, and there are eunuchs who gelded themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the heavens. Let him who can accept this accept it.”

Perhaps not what was meant, but perhaps so?

"Let him who can accept this accept it." 

Well it appears without empathy, compassion and understanding quite a few people can't accept it.

It's a fact of creation, God's creation.

AI: "Jesus expands on the concept of a eunuch here, describing some men as being born eunuchs, meaning those who naturally lack sexual desire or the ability to have sex. This would seem to include those who are born with physical complications, as well as those with sexual desires incompatible with marriage."

Incompatible with marriage - taken into context at that time, would be marriage to a woman - where women were chattel, and the whole point of marriage was to procreate.

Jesus was more concerned about sexual immorality and deviancy and that does not necessarily mean two homosexual men in love that commit to each other for life would be in those categories given that context.