First 200 - 300 years - Jesus is God?

[thessalonian]

Another thead where the OP is ignored. Constantine, the supposed cause of all wrong theology can't be shown to have started any of it. Yet, everyone likes him as their scapegoat. Imigcan and henry use him to put down the theology of others. The supporters of the Gospel of Thomas nonsense as well. Even Mormons and JW's like to get in on the act. Constantine is the poster child of anti-catholicism it would seem. It gives them a simple answer, rather than their own examination of history which takes time and thought. I am sure even Soth will use it when it is convenient in a thread where he disagrees with us. Truly sad.

 

[thessalonian]

I think the issue is not that God doesn't exist as a trinity but that you don't have to believe in the doctrine of the trinity to be saved. In other words justification comes through believing the gospel, the good news, "and this word is the good news that was preached to you".

1Pe 1:20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for your sake,
1Pe 1:21 who through him are believers in God, who raised him from the dead and gave him glory, so that your faith and hope are in God.

1Pe 1:22 Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
1Pe 1:23 since you have been born again, not of perishable seed but of imperishable, through the living and abiding word of God;
1Pe 1:24 for "All flesh is like grass and all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls,
1Pe 1:25 but the word of the Lord remains forever." And this word is the good news that was preached to you.

The idea that you must believe the doctrine of the trinity is one of the outcomes of the councils of Nicea and is first seen "formally" in the Athanasian Creed which follows the Apostle's and Nicean Creed, which emerged from the second council at constantinople at I think 523. AD.

What influenced them to make that decision by that time.. don't know. Would be interesting to look into more. But it is interesting how the goalposts have moved so to speak and the creeds have "evolved" over time. You would expect it to be the case that the truth is the truth and therefore would remain unaltered.

English,

The Council of Nicea had nothing to do with deternming whether someone was saved or not based on whether they believed in the trinity. It merely was about what is the true makeup of the God we claim to know. If the scripture does not reveal who God is then what good is it.

Start your own thread if you want to discuss whether someone is saved or not who does not believe in the trinity because that is not what this thread is about. Sorry.

Blessings though

 

[belovedwolfofgod]

Jesus Christ being only man does not make sense to me in the context of the covenants. Basically, God entered into a covenant with Abraham, but it was more of a promise ("i will make you descendants number greater than the stars") and less of a contractual agreement. The Law then, though it ushered in the ability to forsake it and thus brings in death, was also an act of mercy and grace. It showed us the light and how to walk in it, even if we couldnt. The covenant with David is even a relational covenant. All of these covenants resemble the covenants that Eastern kings and emporers would make with vassals to an extent. Eastern kings and such had a reciprocal relationship though. They needed the people to keep themselves in power. God needs none of us and therefore the analogy departs at this point. The Covenants with God are unprompted by us, we could not bring them about. God had nothing to gain because He is God and in need of nothing. It was God attempting to establish a relationship with us. Which brings me to my point.

The final covenant, the "new covenant" as it is referred to by Paul, was more than a ransom. It was the final step in a relational covenant. The fulfillment of that relationship. God has always tried to draw us to Himself, however, we have been unable to respond to it properly. The old covenants tried to bring us to an understanding that God was trying to bind Himself to us and would bind Himself to us. Hence the Incarnation, where God took on flesh and perfectly bound the human and the Divine in one man and we are called to be baptised into that man and then die in that man. If Jesus were not also God, the entire theme of the Covenants just make no sense to me and we seem to lack a fully relational God and there always exists a seperation of Human and Divine. Jesus would be where the bridge is with the two natures in one person, thus fully and completely binding God and man together as man and woman are bound together in marriage where the "two become one flesh."

 

[mutzrein]

Another thead where the OP is ignored. Constantine, the supposed cause of all wrong theology can't be shown to have started any of it. Yet, everyone likes him as their scapegoat. Imigcan and henry use him to put down the theology of others. The supporters of the Gospel of Thomas nonsense as well. Even Mormons and JW's like to get in on the act. Constantine is the poster child of anti-catholicism it would seem. It gives them a simple answer, rather than their own examination of history which takes time and thought. I am sure even Soth will use it when it is convenient in a thread where he disagrees with us. Truly sad.

Hey Thess - maybe you'd like to check this thread out. Doesn't seem to me as though you have answered the OP. http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=22781

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

Constantine was NOT a 'scapegoat', he was simply a pagan Emperor of a nation seeking power to control the the known world. He just happened to be a 'victim' of history. Caught up in a time when Christianity had begun to infiltrate his kingdom.

I have STUDIED Constantine and offer nothing other than what I have learned. I will NOT state that EVERYTHING that we know of him is 100 percent accurate. For as with ANY historical character, there is ALWAYS speculation as to their thoughts and ideas. But we do know much of his history.

No Thess, if there IS a scapegoat, it is those that chose to simply ADD Christ to their previous pagan ritual instead of 'starting over' with ONLY God and Christ. NO ONE CAN BE FORCED to reject God. They can certainly be murdered for a refusal to reject, but they cannot be forced to reject. So, if there IS a scapegoat, it it NOTHING more, nothing less, than those that chose to 'create' a 'new' form of Christianity instead of following Christ Himself.

And look at the evidence; A religion that sets up ONE man to be 'god on earth'. One man on earth that is able to grant or deny salvation HIMSELF. One man whose followers are taught that 'HE IS INFALLIBLE'. ALL this goes completely AGAINST the Word of God. For there is NOT ONE THAT IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE. Get it?

 

[thessalonian]

Constantine was NOT a 'scapegoat', he was simply a pagan Emperor of a nation seeking power to control the the known world. He just happened to be a 'victim' of history. Caught up in a time when Christianity had begun to infiltrate his kingdom.

'

Do you read? Do you think? I didn't say he was a scapegoat back then. I said he is now for everything that everyone wants to claim doen't go all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles.

And look at the evidence; A religion that sets up ONE man to be 'god on earth'. One man on earth that is able to grant or deny salvation HIMSELF. One man whose followers are taught that 'HE IS INFALLIBLE'. ALL this goes completely AGAINST the Word of God. For there is NOT ONE THAT IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE. Get it?

It is you that doesn't get it. Personal opinion is what you are about. The infallible I. You assert your thinking as the word of God. You have no clue of what infallibility of the Pope is about. You have no idea of what the word of God is about because you set yourself up as your own "god on earth". What goes on in those cells in your head is what is true. Paul said to entrust the teachings to faithful witnessess who will teach others. But you said, "I teach myself". Tell me, if you were in that group of faithful witnesses (2 Tim 2) and you said, "well I think...." what do you suppose would have happened to you? They would have thrown you out on your ear.

And no the Pope is not set up as the only source of truth and understanding in the Catholic Church by any shape or strech of your wild self promoting imagination. There are far more statements by councils that we consider infallible than by the pope. Grant salvation? What are you talking about? None righteous? Once again you prove you have no clue. We do not say popes are sinless. Stop speaking of what you do not know and making yourself to be a fool!


God bless

 

[thessalonian]

Constantine was NOT a 'scapegoat', he was simply a pagan Emperor of a nation seeking power to control the the known world. He just happened to be a 'victim' of history. Caught up in a time when Christianity had begun to infiltrate his kingdom.

'

Do you read? Do you think? I didn't say he was a scapegoat back then. I said he is now for everything that everyone wants to claim doen't go all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles.

And look at the evidence; A religion that sets up ONE man to be 'god on earth'. One man on earth that is able to grant or deny salvation HIMSELF. One man whose followers are taught that 'HE IS INFALLIBLE'. ALL this goes completely AGAINST the Word of God. For there is NOT ONE THAT IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE. Get it?

It is you that doesn't get it. Personal opinion is what you are about. The infallible I. You assert your thinking as the word of God. You have no clue of what infallibility of the Pope is about. You have no idea of what the word of God is about because you set yourself up as your own "god on earth". What goes on in those cells in your head is what is true. Paul said to entrust the teachings to faithful witnessess who will teach others. But you said, "I teach myself". Tell me, if you were in that group of faithful witnesses (2 Tim 2) and you said, "well I think...." what do you suppose would have happened to you? They would have thrown you out on your ear.

And no the Pope is not set up as the only source of truth and understanding in the Catholic Church by any shape or strech of your wild self promoting imagination. There are far more statements by councils that we consider infallible than by the pope. Grant salvation? What are you talking about? None righteous? Once again you prove you have no clue. We do not say popes are sinless. Stop speaking of what you do not know and making yourself to be a fool!


God bless

 

[Imagican]

Constantine was NOT a 'scapegoat', he was simply a pagan Emperor of a nation seeking power to control the the known world. He just happened to be a 'victim' of history. Caught up in a time when Christianity had begun to infiltrate his kingdom.

'

Do you read? Do you think? I didn't say he was a scapegoat back then. I said he is now for everything that everyone wants to claim doen't go all the way back to Jesus and the Apostles.

[quote:1f341]And look at the evidence; A religion that sets up ONE man to be 'god on earth'. One man on earth that is able to grant or deny salvation HIMSELF. One man whose followers are taught that 'HE IS INFALLIBLE'. ALL this goes completely AGAINST the Word of God. For there is NOT ONE THAT IS RIGHTEOUS, NO, NOT ONE. Get it?

It is you that doesn't get it. Personal opinion is what you are about. The infallible I. You assert your thinking as the word of God. You have no clue of what infallibility of the Pope is about. You have no idea of what the word of God is about because you set yourself up as your own "god on earth". What goes on in those cells in your head is what is true. Paul said to entrust the teachings to faithful witnessess who will teach others. But you said, "I teach myself". Tell me, if you were in that group of faithful witnesses (2 Tim 2) and you said, "well I think...." what do you suppose would have happened to you? They would have thrown you out on your ear.

And no the Pope is not set up as the only source of truth and understanding in the Catholic Church by any shape or strech of your wild self promoting imagination. There are far more statements by councils that we consider infallible than by the pope. Grant salvation? What are you talking about? None righteous? Once again you prove you have no clue. We do not say popes are sinless. Stop speaking of what you do not know and making yourself to be a fool!


God bless[/quote:1f341]

Another thead where the OP is ignored. Constantine, the supposed cause of all wrong theology can't be shown to have started any of it. Yet, everyone likes him as their scapegoat. Imigcan and henry use him to put down the theology of others. The supporters of the Gospel of Thomas nonsense as well. Even Mormons and JW's like to get in on the act. Constantine is the poster child of anti-catholicism it would seem. It gives them a simple answer, rather than their own examination of history which takes time and thought. I am sure even Soth will use it when it is convenient in a thread where he disagrees with us. Truly sad.

Yes Thess, I read rather well, (and my spelling isn't bad either). I am sorry that my post didn't confront or argue 'your' point the 'way' in which you wanted it to.

No Thess, I do NOT teach myself and have offered this over and over again. You insist that if I don't 'see it YOUR way' that I MUST be teaching myself. I disagree my friend. I am taught what I NEED to know through the Word of God and the Holy Spirit. It is YOU that NEEDS the teachings of others for the lack of confidence to develope a personal relationship yourself. Your church tells you that God loves you and you are forced to accept it by faith in their words. I, on the other hand, KNOW that God loves me and NEED no man to tell me this for His love is manifest in MY LIFE. I have offered previous that it need NOT be this way my brother. You too can experience EXACTLY what I offer. But that's up to you.

I offer such statements as IMO or I think or what I believe in order to try and humble myself without 'seeming' to be 'telling others' the truth. I think you have read more into it than I have offered. Most of what I think I 'really know', but to offer others the ability to participate without hesitation I simply state many FACTS as 'my opinion. It's called humility Thess. I 'try' to be all things to all men.............. It doesn't always work out the way I intend for it to though.

Now, I believe that YOU are the one that is offering deception rather than 'truth'. For I KNOW that the Pope has been considered to have the Power to excommunicate those that he chooses. And from EVERYTHING that I have read, this means to 'kick them out of the, (in their opinion), ONE TRUE CHURCH'. Now, if this doesn't mean that the Pope has the power, (in the Catholic community), to either offer or deny SALVATION, then please explain it to me and the good folks out here where I am mistaken.

Look Thess, if you truly believe in 'your' doctrine, then defend it, don't deny it or offer falsehoods to 'cover up' the parts that you may be ashamed of. Come clean and be honest. I didn't create the doctrine so PLEASE, don't take it out on me because you 'don't like it'. It's up to you Thess to follow that which is 'truth', NOT me. If your church isn't teaching that, then find one that is instead of getting angry with me for pointing it out.

I am not here to anger you Thess and find it quite difficult that you could get so upset with someone over the internet. I am 'just a stranger' with an understanding that I choose to offer to others. It's up to them whether they accept it or reject it. But what I offer are words, nothing more. For the meanings and purpose behind these words can ONLY be offered by God through the Holy Spirit. So, if my words offend you I can ONLY believe that they are of substantial substance. For if you were to call my mother a whore, I would simply think that you were an ignorant person that didn't know any better than to talk about my mother. I would point out your error and then ignore such comments. I certainly wouldn't take offense to something that is NOT true. For lies of another can alter my reality little, but, if I have something to hide or something that I AM ashamed for others to KNOW, I would certainly take offense towards one that offered to 'expose it'. Think about that one for a second.

 

[thessalonian]

I am not upset. You simply can't handle someone being direct with you and calling a spade a spade. Your a false teacher. You distort scripture. Those are facts. The Catholic Church does not force me to do anything. You claim to know what I think and who tells me to think it. This is pure biggotry on your part and I have to say getting down right stupid. Your Jesus Christ is just a man and men cannot save. God alone can save. Therefore you Jesus is a false Jesus. Do I sound mad to you again? Read in what you like. It is not loving of me to give those who would twist and distort God's word and call themselves teachers of his truth any quarter. You lead the sheep astray. You are a wolf among the flock. A false teacher. The gates of hell trying to prevail. What you offer me is destruction! Sorry this makes you feel bad. Oh well.


2 Pet 3
16] speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
[17] You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, beware lest you be carried away with the error of lawless men and lose your own stability.
[18] But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.

2Pet.2
[1] But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.

You deny the Master and make him out to be only a man. Men cannot save.

 

[thessalonian]

2 Tim 2
and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Oh those weak minded Ephesions. Didn't Paul trust in the Holy Spirit and Jesus teaching them directly? Apparently not. He thought they needed men as teachers and pastors.

Eph.4
[11] And his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers,

I tell you Imagican, those faithful witnesses and teachers would have thrown you out on your ear. Thinking your a one man show of truth.

 

[Imagican]

Thess,

I respect you 'opinion' but do NOT agree with it.

I have yet to 'purposely' twist scripture to'suit' myself. I simply offer it as I understand it. I see the results of my relationship in my life and therefore have 'proof' that what I understand is NOT MY understanding, but something 'beyond' my fleshly understanding.

Perhaps I WOULD have been 'thrown out on my ear' by those that 'created' what YOU believe. But, I believe that I would have been accepted with 'open arms' by the 'true' followers of Jesus Christ. For the MOST important ONE THING that we could EVER learn from God is LOVE. His love, so that we may mirror this love to others. This 'I' am 'beginning' to learn.

I am ONLY a bigot from 'your' perspective. From mine, I DO NOT hate the Catholic Church, I simply try and warn others of what it 'stands' for. Unfortunately for hundreds and hundreds of years, many didn't NOT have this luxury. They were 'forced' to follow REGARDLESS of their beliefs or feelings that may or may NOT have been contrary to the Catholic faith.

You continually accuse me of 'twisting' scripture. All I see is this as a 'false' accusation simply directed at my offerings for they DO NOT conform to yours. I have SHOWN how the Catholics have 'twisted' scripture to fit 'their' understanding. I simply read, study, pray and BEG for understanding FROM the Father Himself, through His Son, Jesus Christ.

NO, Thess, Jesus was/is NOT just 'a man'. He IS the Son of God. Gifted with the Power that God has bestowed upon Him. He IS the ONLY begotten and therefore is heir to the Father Himself. A 'form' of diety but NOT the Father Himself.

You would be surprised to understand EXACTLY how I DO percieve Christ. For it is VERY similar to your own. I simply have come to the understanding that the Christ I worship was NOT a 'man-made' entity that I can determine the nature of. I am the 'created', NOT the Creator.

Does God love me Thess? Can God forgive me if He so chooses? Can I follow Christ WITHOUT doing it 'YOUR WAY'? See, I know that the answer to these is and overwhelming YES. And, from scripture I have been WARNED against doing it 'your way'. I follow NO man to the Father, but Christ His Son instead.

You would have me 'enslaved' to men that would offer ME as a sacrifice to the 'father of lies'. Drag me right along with you if I were to allow it. i choose NOT to be dragged in that direction and then you accuse me of following Satan. Funny, but that you would offer such treatment of your brother only offers to 'reveal' who and what it is that 'YOU' follow. And, it is NOTHING more than a mirror image of that which you choose to worship.

 

[thessalonian]

Does God love me Thess? Can God forgive me if He so chooses? Can I follow Christ WITHOUT doing it 'YOUR WAY'? See, I know that the answer to these is and overwhelming YES. And, from scripture I have been WARNED against doing it 'your way'. I follow NO man to the Father, but Christ His Son instead.

Your twisting may well not be deliberate but the effect is the same.

Perhaps I WOULD have been 'thrown out on my ear' by those that 'created' what YOU believe.

This is funny. Those in 2 Tim 2:2 created what I believe? That we need teachers? That's good magic.


More prejudicial statements that only display ignorance (not sure I can give you this excuse anymore) and prejudice toward Catholics and Catholicism. "Obey and submit to your leaders" the scripture says. But Imag says that we can't know who the leaders are anymore so I will write that verse out of the Bible. "I will give you shepherds" the Lord says but Imagican says, write that verse out as well. And Paul says there are teachers but in his pride Imagican refuses to listen to that word of God and ignores it in his bible. You follow yourself! That is clear. "Trust not in your own understanding" prov 3:5 again and again and again. Hey, don't you follow a man when you read a translation, assuming that that translation is right? Oh, you forgot about that.

Now we have one man thinking that Jesus isn't a deity but kinda sort a. Once again Imagican is a one man show coming up with his own definition of a god and telling us he alone offers us the truth about this on this board. His Holy Spirit is telling him the truth and we are all confused. I pray for understanding and so do many others on this board. I ask forgiveness yet Mr. Imagican says I don't get it. He says he offers me truth and I don't have it. He apparently thinks I am damned to hell if I don't do it his way. The Bible tells me otherwise Mr. Imagican.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

I simply offer it as I understand it.

what I understand is NOT MY understanding, but something 'beyond' my fleshly understanding.

Either you just declared yourself infallible, or your beleif is horribly contradictory.

Perhaps I WOULD have been 'thrown out on my ear' by those that 'created' what YOU believe.

Created? What has the Church created that wasn't already a held belief?

But, I believe that I would have been accepted with 'open arms' by the 'true' followers of Jesus Christ.

Is St. John a true follower of Christ? John 1:1

Is St. Thomas a true follower of Christ? John 20:28

For the MOST important ONE THING that we could EVER learn from God is LOVE. His love, so that we may mirror this love to others. This 'I' am 'beginning' to learn

.

Cool.

 

[thessalonian]

FSW,

Let's add these:

John 9
37: Jesus said to him, "You have seen him, and it is he who speaks to you."
38: He said, "Lord, I believe"; and he worshiped him.
39: Jesus said, "For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind."

Mark 5
: And when he saw Jesus from afar, he ran and worshiped him;

7: and crying out with a loud voice, he said, "What have you to do with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? I adjure you by God, do not torment me."

Even he unclean spirt worshipped him, for every knew must bow!

Is 25:

22: "Turn to ME and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other.
23: By myself I have sworn, from my mouth has gone forth in righteousness a word that shall not return: `To ME every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.'


Hey let's pair that with this one:

Phil 2:
10: that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

Imagine that. knee's bending beofre Jesus!

Pretty clear. Oh, I can see the obvuscation coming of coruse. They may not mean to twist but the effect will be the same.

blessings

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

And if I may Thess:

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel.

Emmanuel means "God with us".

If the Word is Jesus, and the Word is God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...

Wouldn't that make God with us?

Isaiah 9:6 - The child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who are they speaking of? If it's Jesus....Then why would Isaiah call him 'Mighty God'?

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

 

[thessalonian]

Yes you may and thank you for doing so. :

 

[Imagican]

+JMJ+

I simply offer it as I understand it.

[quote:6fc65]what I understand is NOT MY understanding, but something 'beyond' my fleshly understanding.

Either you just declared yourself infallible, or your beleif is horribly contradictory.

NOTHING of the 'flesh' IS infalible. So, NO I didn't 'set myself up' as being so. I guess that leaves tha alternative according to 'your' understanding. While 'you' will insist that I MUST accept 'trinity' in order to be 'accepted' into or by 'your' religion as able to discern or be 'inspired'. So be it.

I choose not to even use the word religion except in reference to others. I couldn't care less about 'man-made' tradition or religions that teach contrary to the Word.

Perhaps I WOULD have been 'thrown out on my ear' by those that 'created' what YOU believe.

Created? What has the Church created that wasn't already a held belief?

Let us begin with 'just a sprinkling':

"trinity", 'the confessional', 'torture and murder', 'a pope', 'Mary as the 'queen' of heaven, 'indulgencies', 'the iron maiden', 'denying the cup', 'bowing down to idols', 'building 'mini towers of Babel', 'Jesus IS God', 'the rack', 'stealing in the name of God', murder in the name of God', 'perdition', 'sprinkling', 'the rosary', 'prayer to the Saints', the list is getting quite lengnthy huh? 'celibate priests', 'nuns', 'a belief that the communion is REAL instead of 'symbolic'.

This should be a pretty good start. We can go over others later if you wish.

But, I believe that I would have been accepted with 'open arms' by the 'true' followers of Jesus Christ.

Is St. John a true follower of Christ? John 1:1

Is St. Thomas a true follower of Christ? John 20:28

John, absolutely, However, as Judas betrayed Christ, there is NO reason to believe that those we never heard of again followed Christ. But, for the sake of argument, I will say 'maybe' for Thomas.

For the MOST important ONE THING that we could EVER learn from God is LOVE. His love, so that we may mirror this love to others. This 'I' am 'beginning' to learn

.

Cool.[/quote:6fc65]

And I hope I was clear in my meaning of this last line. Not that I am 'beginning to learn 'that' love is, but the love of.

Thess, I'll get to your posts later. It seems that the two of us are simply battering the 'same' words back and forth to no avail, I'm going to give it a break for now.

 

[thessalonian]

Ah yes, those doctrines of torture and murder right out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. What is "building a mini tower of babel? and "the iron maiden". Havent' seen those doctrines in the CCC either. And most certainly we are forced to believe in the rack as well. We don't do sprinking. Perdition? You mean hell? Don't you believe in hell? I'm sure you will eventually. I believe in nuns. I saw one once. Don't you believe in them? More scriptural opinoin from you. How nice. i am sure you can convince me that your opinion is infallibly true.. :

 

[BradtheImpaler]

+JMJ+

And if I may Thess:

Isaiah 7:14 - a virgin will bear a Son named Emmanuel.

Emmanuel means "God with us".

If the Word is Jesus, and the Word is God, and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...

Wouldn't that make God with us?

He wasn't named Emmanuel he was named Jesus. :bday: oops!

Isaiah 9:6 - The child to be born shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Who are they speaking of?

Hezekiah.

If it's Jesus....Then why would Isaiah call him 'Mighty God'?

Because the usage of that term in the Hebrew can also mean "God - LIKE one". I would tell you to look up the definition but you probably know it already and are obviously determined to believe what your Church tells you to instead.

John 1:18 - In this verse Jesus is called the 'Only begotten Son'. In the Greek the word used is 'monogenes' which means unique, only member of a kind. It does not mean created.

What is he the only member of?

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

NOTHING of the 'flesh' IS infalible.

Why did Jesus give men the ability to bind and loose?
Why did Jesus tell a man to feed his sheep?

So, NO I didn't 'set myself up' as being so. I guess that leaves tha alternative according to 'your' understanding.

So then you did contradict youself?

While 'you' will insist that I MUST accept 'trinity' in order to be 'accepted' into or by 'your' religion as able to discern or be 'inspired'. So be it.

Deal.

I choose not to even use the word religion except in reference to others. I couldn't care less about 'man-made' tradition or religions that teach contrary to the Word.

Nothing of the Church is contrary to the Word.

St. Paul says that we must hold fast to the tradition that he and the apostles past down to us. He didn't say that Jesus past them down, he said himself and the apostles.
If this tradition came from them...wouldn't that make it man-made?

"trinity",

This was a beleif before the Church declared it so.

'the confessional'

Do you mean confession?

Jesus did give the authority to bound and loose in heaven and earth...does this not include sin?
Jesus gave the apostles the ability to forgive sins. John 20:23
St. James did say we should "confess our sins to one another". James 5:16

'torture and murder'

,

I'll be sure to look up a document that condones torture and murder. :roll:

Yes, men in the Church did horrible things. This does not mean that the gates of hell did in fact prevail.
When Martin Luther came by he was right about one thing. The Church needed reform; we needed reform in behaviour not in doctrine.

'a pope',

"Thou are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my Church" Mathew 16:18

Peter is commissioned to fee Christ's lambs. Why Peter?

'Mary as the 'queen' of heaven,

For starters, if she's good enough for Christ, she's good enought for me.
Mary is the Mother of Jesus Christ!
Think about it. Jesus...the Son of God. Submitting himself to the authority of a woman!
Jesus became man. By doing so, was he not then subject to His Father's law? The law is summarized in the Decaloage (sp?).
We are commanded to honor our father and mother.
'Honor' comes from the Hebrew 'kaboda' which means to give glory and honor to greatest of one's ability. Did Jesus fail to do this? If he did he would have been a sinner. He wasn't of course. In fact, he was perfect . Which means he honored Mary perfectly. Whether you beleive Jesus is God or not, I'm sure you acknowlege that He does have 'all things under His feet', right?. As I have said before, Jesus honored His Mother perfectly. If you were in Jesus' position (quick summary: Lord of all things, and perfect in everyway) wouldn't you honor your mother in this way?
If Jesus did not honor His mother to the best of His ability , he would have failed to be without sin.

'indulgencies',

Bind and loose.

But, We can go into purgatory if you would like.

'the iron maiden', 'denying the cup'

Never heard of these.

'bowing down to idols',

When you say 'bow down' I can assume you mean worship. I don't worship statues.
Bowing down is not always worship.

'building 'mini towers of Babel',

...What?

'Jesus IS God',

This beleif was held before the Council of Nicea.

'the rack',

Never heard of it.

'stealing in the name of God'

murder in the name of God'

Once again an action committed by man. This does not reflect the doctrine of the Church.

'perdition',

I'm not sure what that is.

'sprinkling'

, '

Sprinkling what? Holy Water at Baptism? That's forbidden.

the rosary',

Which part? What do you have against the Gospels?

'prayer to the Saints'

Have you ever asked someone to pray for you?
Scripture says that the Saints have prayers too.

the list is getting quite lengnthy huh?

Yeah, my fingers are starting to get cramped up.

'celibate priests'

1 Corinthians 7:1-2

1 Corinthians 7:8

'nuns'

Is their something wrong with women giving up their lives to pray, serve the poor, and teach?

a belief that the communion is REAL instead of 'symbolic'.

Where in Scripture does it say it's symbolic?

It's seems more like it's geared in the other direction.

This should be a pretty good start. We can go over others later if you wish.

Sure!