Which bible teachings do you think are made up by the church or true teachings of the bible?

[jessicaleks93]

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

 

[SavedInHim]

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

You first.

 

[Hobie]

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

Well I dont know about personal gain but I came across a few sites that showed what doctrines and traditions are not sanctioned and here is a few pagan practices that were brought in:

• The rituals and practices of a priesthood to intercede and rule over the laity
• A infallible vicar of Christ
• Rote prayer
• The Rosary (rote prayer to Mary for intercession)
• Scapulars
• Indulgences
• Worship of Mary (in reality this pagan goddess with child pre-existed Mary and was known as the Queen of Heaven)
• Holy Rituals
• Sacraments
• Holy water
• The mission, practices, and methods of the Jesuits
• Eucharistic Christ (The bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ whenever conjured up by a priest)

And its not just practices but the ideas behind them, take for example the use of 'Saints' by some Christians.

Here are some of the examples: San Serapio was used to appealed to in case of stomach-ache; Santa Polonia for tooth-ache; San Jose, San Juan Bautista and Santa Catalina for headache; San Bernardo and San Cirilo for indigestion; San Luis for cholera; San Francisco for colic; San Ignacio and Santa Lutgarda for childbirth; Santa Balsania for scrofula; San Felix for ulcers; Santa Agueda for nursing mothers; San Babilas for burns; San Gorge for an infected cut; Santa Quiteria for dog's bite; San Ciriaco for diseases of the ear; Santa Lucia for the eyes; San Pedro for fever; and Santa Rita for the impossible and on and on. Some of the early Christians themselves protested against the cult of the Saints: for example, Vigilantius and Faustus in the fifth century. But on the other side were such great apologists as Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Chrysostom, and Basil, who though claiming that God alone was worshipped, expressed full belief in the efficacy of the intercession of the Saints.

Going to the festivals which were brought in, there are some specific festivals that go back directly to pagan customs connected with the dead. All Saints' Day, was observed on the the Roman festival of the dead, the Lemuria. In the modern festival the faithful visit the tombs of the Saints, venerate their relics, and pray for their blessing. The next day also, the second of November, All Souls' Day, unquestionably reproduces some of the features of the Parentalia. The Parentalia or dies parentales ("ancestral days") was a nine-day festival held to honor the dead ancestors with visits to tombs and sacred offerings. It got into the church, and Christians went to the cemeteries and decked the graves of the members of their family with flowers and candles, and there were ceremonies which took the place of the ancient sacrifice, directed to the repose of the souls of the departed. It just goes on and on....

 

[jessicaleks93]

You first.

There's no 'right or wrong' answer per say, its just an open topic for discussion.
One that comes to mind is the animals we are told not to eat, such as pigs or rats, not that I want to eat a rat! but I think this was likely more because they bred disease, not because they were unclean animals spiritually, why would God make animals that weren't clean, spiritually. Unless I'm misunderstanding what clean and unclean means.

Another is women in the church, not being allowed to speak, or they must either cover or cut their hair, long exposed hair has been shown to increase a person's intuition, and women have been long regarded as 'portals to the spirit world' as we are the ones who birth in spirits, and I think maybe this rule was brought in because they didn't want a woman's direct revelation from God / Holy Spirit in church as it could conflict with what the church, or church leader was saying at that time, that may not have been God's will.

And whilst I do think homosexuality is a sin, it could also be seen that sodomy even in heterosexuality was said to be a sin for spread of disease and prevention of children being born into a church, who would be tithe paying members.

 

[Bob]

Thank you posting this provocative question. Although it is not clear what your motivation is, let’s focus instead on the essential truths of the Bible.

The Bible is a book about God: who He is, His expectations for all of us, and His promises to us. God loves us, and we can demonstrate our love for God by loving our neighbors (sharing & caring, being gentle & kind, and embracing lifetime, monogamous marriages between women and men).

The Bible tells us that God accomplishes His purposes for us by working through people, even the least likely and including those who oppose Him. (See, e.g., the books of Ruth and Esther.)

We also learn that our basic nature is to be self-centered, to be covetous, and to rationalize our covetousness. Overcoming our base nature is a lifetime of struggle, but with God’s help it is possible.

Some people believe that if even one thing in the Bible is not God’s word, then we cannot trust any of it. Perhaps they would prefer to decide their own versions of the good versus the bad (just like all the other social animals).

Peace and blessing.

 

[Ronald Nolette]

You first.

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

This is a very generic non information question.

you say as we know, but fail to show any chops or changes due to power, politics etc. You need to specify things in order to have a discussion. Otherwise you are opening this up to everyones opinions and feelings.

 

[GracePeace]

There's no 'right or wrong' answer per say, its just an open topic for discussion.
One that comes to mind is the animals we are told not to eat, such as pigs or rats, not that I want to eat a rat! but I think this was likely more because they bred disease, not because they were unclean animals spiritually, why would God make animals that weren't clean, spiritually. Unless I'm misunderstanding what clean and unclean means.

Another is women in the church, not being allowed to speak, or they must either cover or cut their hair, long exposed hair has been shown to increase a person's intuition, and women have been long regarded as 'portals to the spirit world' as we are the ones who birth in spirits, and I think maybe this rule was brought in because they didn't want a woman's direct revelation from God / Holy Spirit in church as it could conflict with what the church, or church leader was saying at that time, that may not have been God's will.

And whilst I do think homosexuality is a sin, it could also be seen that sodomy even in heterosexuality was said to be a sin for spread of disease and prevention of children being born into a church, who would be tithe paying members.

Everything the Bible says comes from the Holy Spirit, every spirit that contradicts the Holy Spirit ("Has God said...?") is from an unholy desire. Simple.

 

[quietthinker]

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

'My sheep hear my voice'.....Jesus

 

[Brakelite]

Teachings/doctrines that are not in the Bible... Sunday sacredness.
And closely associated with that...the abolition of the 7th day Sabbath.
Christian groups attempt to justify the above, but both are a product of tradition, not scripture.

 

[Taken]

Which bible teachings do you think are made up by the church or true teachings of the bible?

Scripture is a BOOK of KNOWLEDGE.

* The intent of the knowledge is to give individuals an opportunity to Learn About The Invisible, unheard, unseen, untouchable, Creator and Maker of all things.

* It is obvious from the beginning of manKIND God established an Order and Way to “communicate” with His “creations” without compromising His Supreme Holiness.

* It is obvious imperfect manKIND was tasked with little by little Learning About God, AND to the best of their ABILITY to orally teach others, from little children to adults About God.

* It is obvious God “instructed” manKIND, with Gods “OWN” laundry list, of LIKES, DISLIKES, and WHY, and CONSEQUENCES.

* It is obvious early manKIND was “instructed” to Write, aka, Making, Copying, Distributing a RECORD About God, Of Gods instructional LIKES, DISLIKES, WHY, EXAMPLES, CONSEQUENCES.

* It is obvious the Writings have widely been copied and distributed.
* It is obvious Generationally Humans begin as ignorant babes, learn by seeing, by hearing, and by mimicking behaviors, AND some continue into adult-hood by seeing, by hearing and by mimicking behaviors….while some Adults Choose to READ and VERIFY their seeing, their hearing, their mimicking, IS Scripturally Agreeable according to God…
Or Not.

* Any individual who CAN Read, CAN Read the Scriptures, bit by bit, line by line, and conclude THIS IS acceptable and pleasing to God, THAT IS NOT acceptable or pleasing to God…and the WHY,
And the CONSEQUENCES thereof.

* Any individual WHO freely Chooses to Read the Scriptures, CAN determine, What they hear, see, mimic, IS or IS Not acceptable and pleasing to God.

* Point being… the KNOWLEDGE is not Secret or complicated, and has Nothing to do with UNDERSTANDING (or interpreting) the knowledge, but rather a very Basic Choice of an Individual’s desire to be pleasing and acceptable to God, or pleasing and acceptable to manKind.

Not a big secret, thousands of manKIND all having the SAME belief IN God, yet vehemently disagree what men believe ARE acceptable (to God), behaviors.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[quietthinker]

1 Corinthians 13:1-2

1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing.

 

[MatthewG]

Jesus is coming back, is a traditionally taught misguided sermon in church, in my opinion today.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Jesus is coming back, is a traditionally taught misguided sermon in church, in my opinion today.

The problem here is that if i bring up bible teachings, someone will come along and oppose it with white knuckles.
As you just asserted, Jesus is either not coming back, or your "interpretation" is the only correct one ( which it is not)

 

[rebuilder 454]

Just the valid teaching of prosperity is going to invoke all kinds of rubbish against WOF.
Even though i am not WOF.
I got a bible and it CLEARLY teaches prosperity.

Pssssst ....it is the emphasis of it that is error.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Or the authority of the believer.
Another bible truth that almost nobody on this board has any idea about.

 

[St. SteVen]

As we know the books of the bible, translations and bible teachings have been chopped and changed throughout history due to power / political gain. Which parts of the bible / teachings do you think are not true teachings of the bible but that of the church that were put in there for personal gain in history?
Or bible teachings that were put in the the bible for good ways of living that were not actually spiritually inspired such as rules that would have been to ward of spread of disease rather than sin.

Welcome to the forum.
Interesting topic, thanks.

Here's one that comes to mind.
The church teaches that the only grounds for divorces is adultery. (sexual immorality)
But that is not what Jesus actually said.

The basis for this teaching is found in Matthew 19:9
See the NIV translation below, taking note of verse 10 as well as verse 9. (at the very bottom of this post)
Then compare the KJV below that. Note the use of the word "fornication" which matches the NT Greek.

This makes a HUGE difference, especially when considering the cultural setting of the Israelites under the law.
Jesus was saying that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, which is sexual intercourse before marriage. (not after)
What does this mean? Both in the historical context and to the misinterpretation assigned by the church today. ???

For the Israelites, a bride's parents presented her as a virgin to her husband-to-be. The law of Moses made a provision for this.
If the husband-to-be discovered that he had been given a bride that was not a virgin, he could divorce her. (for fornication)
Unfortunately, some new husbands were making false claims in order to divorce their new brides. The fornication loophole.
Parents were allowed to challenge this claim if it was false. See Deuteronomy 22:16-18

Therefore, the KJV translation is correct and the church got it wrong.
Jesus said there is no grounds for divorce except for fornication. Now read verse 10 again.
Better not to marry? Indeed. Not if you have ANY plans to divorce.

Matthew 19:8-10 NIV
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

--- COMPARE ---

Matthew 19:8-10 KJV
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

/

 

[St. SteVen]

The problem here is that if i bring up bible teachings, someone will come along and oppose it with white knuckles.

Better "white knuckles" than brass knuckles, I suppose. - LOL
Which is what they typically come after me with.



/

 

[rebuilder 454]

Welcome to the forum.
Interesting topic, thanks.

Here's one that comes to mind.
The church teaches that the only grounds for divorces is adultery. (sexual immorality)
But that is not what Jesus actually said.

The basis for this teaching is found in Matthew 19:9
See the NIV translation below, taking note of verse 10 as well as verse 9. (at the very bottom of this post)
Then compare the KJV below that. Note the use of the word "fornication" which matches the NT Greek.

This makes a HUGE difference, especially when considering the cultural setting of the Israelites under the law.
Jesus was saying that the only grounds for divorce is fornication, which is sexual intercourse before marriage. (not after)
What does this mean? Both in the historical context and to the misinterpretation assigned by the church today. ???

For the Israelites, a bride's parents presented her as a virgin to her husband-to-be. The law of Moses made a provision for this.
If the husband-to-be discovered that he had been given a bride that was not a virgin, he could divorce her. (for fornication)
Unfortunately, some new husbands were making false claims in order to divorce their new brides. The fornication loophole.
Parents were allowed to challenge this claim if it was false. See Deuteronomy 22:16-18

Therefore, the KJV translation is correct and the church got it wrong.
Jesus said there is no grounds for divorce except for fornication. Now read verse 10 again.
Better not to marry? Indeed. Not if you have ANY plans to divorce.

Matthew 19:8-10 NIV
Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

--- COMPARE ---

Matthew 19:8-10 KJV
He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives:
but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication,
and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
10 His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

/

I challenge that on a couple of points.
1 ) adultery breaks the marrige Covenant
2) in the Jewish wedding, at consummation ,the woman would bleed ,and the blood was caught on a cloth.
That cloth was given to the bride's parents to safeguard that she was a virgin at marriage. Now if she wasn't sometimes the groom would secretly put some goats blood on that cloth and give it to her parents. This entire thing was an honor System to protect the honor of the Bride.
If the husband falsely brings accusation against his wife, the parents would produce the cloth, which was no doubt signed and dated by a rabbi or by Witnesses. So the bride had this protection against any false accusation.

 

[rebuilder 454]

Better "white knuckles" than brass knuckles, I suppose. - LOL
Which is what they typically come after me with.

View attachment 39316

/

lol
I know what you mean. At our men's bible study we have a Pauline only heretic that sometimes dominates the whole 60 minutes of the Bible class. I am so sick of this guy with his heretic teaching, and why on Earth they allow him to keep disrupting the class with pure nonsense is beyond me.
I'm ready to quit that thing all together because I Stay perturbed for hours after that class. Sometimes I say stuff and I totally demolish his entire deal, and the man is left in ashes, and all I'm doing is reading scripture that is so opposed to that Pauline only mess that is just beyond me why he keeps listening to Les Feldick.
So the problem is that Les Feldick can't seem to read his own Bible. And so this Pauline only doctrinal heretic is determined to bring forth his edited version of the Bible.
I think what happens is over time they get such an incredibly heavy investment in their false Doctrine that Pride will not let them turn loose of it

 

[St. SteVen]

I challenge that on a couple of points.
1 ) adultery breaks the marrige Covenant
2) in the Jewish wedding, at consummation ,the woman would bleed ,and the blood was caught on a cloth.
That cloth was given to the bride's parents to safeguard that she was a virgin at marriage. Now if she wasn't sometimes the groom would secretly put some goats blood on that cloth and give it to her parents. This entire thing was an honor System to protect the honor of the Bride.
If the husband falsely brings accusation against his wife, the parents would produce the cloth, which was no doubt signed and dated by a rabbi or by Witnesses. So the bride had this protection against any false accusation.

It sounds like you are basically agreeing with my post.
Not much reason for a "challenge". right?

Could you cite a source for your info? If not that's fine.

Here's a question though.
Why would the cloth come from the husband if the bride's parents
are protecting her honor by producing it as proof of her virginity?

Deuteronomy 22:16-18
Her father will say to the elders,
“I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her.
17 Now he has slandered her and said, ‘I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.’
But here is the proof of my daughter’s virginity.”
Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town,
18 and the elders shall take the man and punish him.

/