Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?

Yes, “catholic church”, but not “roman catholic church”.

Yes. The “roman catholic” church says all kinds of stuff. Some is true. Some is not. However, if you ask a “roman catholic” priest when the church started, normally they will tell you Peter was the first leader of the church (some will say the first “pope”) which means the believe the church started in the 1st Century.

Of course the more organized church clearly started in the 4th Century.... Emperor Constantine.... etc... etc....

No worries... Wikipedia is a good source and very good starting point.

You still need to read the Bible, as often you get it wrong.

True, however
"Christianity spread throughout the early Roman Empire, with all persecutions due to conflicts with the pagan state religion. In 313, the struggles of the Early Church, were lessened by the Edict of Milan legalization of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine I. In 380, under Emperor Theodosius, Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire by the Edict of Thessaloniki. decree of the Emperor, which would persist until the fall of the Western Roman Empire.Western Empire, and later, with the Byzantine Empire. Eastern Roman Empire, until the Fall of Constantinople. During this time, the period of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, there were considered five primary sees (jurisdictions within the Catholic Church) according to Eusebius: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria, known as the Pentarchy."

I never get it wrong, I post the applicable link to scripture whenever I quote.

You are correct; officially the Catholic Church will claim it's existence to Jesus and his Disciples. I have talked to priests who will tell you that is false and it really dates to the 4th century.

...never....



The nonsense about Jesus coming back as Paul was wrong, as was the nonsense about Judas Maccabeus being Jesus in his prior reincarnation. I even asked for an applicable source and you ignored my request.

It's not wrong, it's interpretation based on knowledge of reincarnation and the "common thread" everyone is always looking for in the Bible. The answer is and always has been right under everyone's nose.

I would also point out that some Masons believe Jacques du Molay was Jesus. That's why I threw that in the mix with the Shroud of Turin bit.

Yes... again... we all know that the church started, or more accurately was organized in the 4th Century. There is literally nothing new about that. No one, to my knowledge, has ever challenged that point.

And if you go to the official Vatican web site, you will see that Peter is noted as the 1st Pope... in the 1st Century AD.... NOT the 4th Century AD.

(I suspect you are misquoting and/or misunderstanding the priest you have been talking to.)



1st Pope of the Catholic Church

1. It is not in the Bible.

2. Reincarnation is not in the Bible

3. Reincarnation is not accepted by any mainstream christian sects.

4. You are mistaken.

5. It is only "interoperation" because you like to invent BS about the bible that is not supported by the bible.

Read it and learn.

Just for the fun of it, to demonstrate the difficulty in tracing and interpreting Biblical writings, I suggest one peruse the following links. They are about papyrus documents the New Testament is based on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papyrus_66

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Bezae

I doubt the priests I have talked to would want to be officially recognized for speaking outside of the doctrine of the Church. I also know a Muslim teacher who told me the Koran was written about 79 years after the death of Mohammed. He wouldn't want me to tell anyone his name either.

Those linked articles don't seem to be addressing "difficulty... (of)...interpreting Biblical writings".

They seem to be discussing specific writings and the translation thereof.

Yeah they do, they show how the church(es) have added or not included certain parts as well. What's interesting about it is these documents are from the early centuries of Christianity, they would have been among the documents the Councils of Nicaea would have had available.

All of which has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible as it is.

It may or may not have to do with what Christianity is, was, or could have/should have been.

However, it has nothing to do with interpreting the Bible.