1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is Catholicism a Christian religion ?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Neuropteron, Jun 4, 2021.

  1. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    Those are indeed great reasons to become more childlike. Children are less spiritually impure than adults. Which is why the Kingdom is for one's such as them, because that's what we'll be doing in the Kingdom: living an innocent, pure, existence of love for each other and God. I'll say, there's nothing quite like spiritually snuggling in with God, taking rest and comfort in my abba. Just being God's child.

    Baptism isn't about some level of spiritual or certainly mental attainment or maturity. It's about love and desire for God and all souls can love and have desire for God, in fact the closer they are to the innocence of the babes the more they are able to do so. The infant's soul cries out to God clearly, and I'm happy to be part of a Church that allows them into the covenant.

    There isn't a need. The Catholic Church doesn't teach that there is a need.

    That's what I said, they use prayer ropes, but not rosaries.

    Who are you to say whose prayer is from the heart and whose is not? Is there something barring me from meaning to the core of my heart a prayer that I make multiple times? If a mother prays every night to God for her son to get off drugs, is she less than if she had only prayed once?

    If you can't say a prayer more than once without meaning it, then don't. If you don't like the idea of "prayer without ceasing", or using prayer as both a communication and a rod to keep our thoughts tamed and on God, then don't. I'll be here meaning every prayer I say with every ounce of my person. I'll be wanting the mercy of Christ upon me all day, every day, and so I will pray, to the best of my ability, without ceasing "Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, the sinner."

    Also, that doesn't even address what I argued again. Which is that there is enough information on the development of Christian prayer ropes to defend against the accusation that it is a foreign religious intervention.

    Everything has intricacies.

    Is a city going to in actuality float out of the sky? Is a ten-headed monstrosity going to rise out of the ocean? Is there an actual fiery pit that those not living in Christ are condemned to? Is there a literal book that Jesus checks your name for, like a bouncer or Santa Clause? Those're all 'intricacies'.

    Fallible men identify them by interpreting history.

    Then you aren't listening, there are plenty of Christian denominations who hold officially or de facto an interpretation that only differs in that they believe it will be a millennial reign and not a forever one

    It isn't about a lack of knowledge, it's about a reality that we are limited. Do you pretend to know everything about God's nature and plans? Do you claim that you know without error what in the symbolic prophetic dreams is to be taken literally and what allegorically? Are you going to be displeased and complain if salvation is a spiritual union that the human brain can't fully grasp and not a literal city of gold with pearl gates?

    It's what you think about what the Bible says.

    I want to know how you the person Deeje understands what the Bible says. You quoted the Apocalypse of John again, so again I ask. Do you understand that to mean a literal city being lowered from outer space to earth through the atmosphere? A rift in reality that opens to heaven and the city comes through? Allegory of how God's city will be heaven sent, but it will actually be physically built like any other city?

    Texts rarely explain themselves, that's why the Apostles taught and they taught far more than they wrote. And if you ignore the teachings you'll never properly understand the texts.
     
  2. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yeah, the head deacon at my parish talked about that in my RCIA class too.
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  3. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    @Deeje

    If you see this, I'm going to respond to the rest of your response as soon as I can, which will hopefully be in the next 3 or so hours. I don't want you to think I'm not answering you.
     
  4. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was going to go through point by point, but then I saw this. Which I think epitomizes the difference between how you approach scripture and how I do and so I wanted to start with this. When I read something in scripture that I don't understand, I never say "That is not possible", I say "Lord, help me to understand how this is". When Christos is identified as Jehova, I don't say "It can't be!" I say "Lord help me." If we approach God with demands of what can or cannot be, then we will never be able to grow in Him. We must let Him dictate to us what is.

    Now back to the regular schedule.

    Logic, as you previously appealed to, is also philosophy from outside the Bible.

    You're running away from the questions again. Do you believe there is a truth about existence such that God is God and you are human? Do you believe God is eternal? If you answer yes to those, then you also believe in the eternal divine substance. Trying to run away from thinking about existence by crying that pagans also thought about existence is hardly compelling.

    Scripture agrees with me "nothing that was made was made without Him" Tell me, what does nothing mean? Does nothing actually include something?

    No, it's a very important distinction and why they made it. Creations are not begotten they are different categories of origin. Things that are begotten are from oneself and of oneself, this is why they kept trying to stone Jesus, to be the begotten son of God is to be God. Of course, they thought that He was declaring Himself a polytheistic second God and not His actual claim.

    We believe that the Father eternally generates the Son, it is a matter outside of time because God it eternal and outside time. It is in the Father's nature to beget the Son, and so He eternally has and there is no point or place in existence you can, even with all knowledge, direct me to wherein my Lord Christ Jesus is not begotten.

    You can't point to the scripture that says that. We only have scripture that says Jehova God created everything and scripture that says Jesus Christ created everything. Anything else is you inserting man made interpretive tradition into the text.

    Do I really need to list all of the times God was referred to by theos. Or that when Thomas called Christ "My Lord and My God" he specifically used the definitive article? So, whether you want to argue it has a difference or not. The Apostles named Jesus both God and the God.

    Yes to the first, he was pointing out that claiming divine authority is nothing to be stoned for even according to the law. Or rather, that you would only stone someone falsely claiming divine authority. He was saying I am the Son of God that is of God and I am claiming my authority as the ruler of heaven and earth as his son. Like I said above, they didn't understand that this claim cannot be what they thought, because God is one, so He wasn't claiming to be a new God but identity with the one.

    Look how close you are to getting it. This Greek text used a word that Greek speaking Jews used as a replacement for the Tetragammaton, the personal name of God, to refer to Jesus. Therefore the Greek speaking Jews and converts of the late 1st and early second century understood that Jesus is identifiable with the God of Israel, and instead of thinking that's intended you use mental gymnastics to come to the conclusion that all of the ancient greek speakers were confused, that the people who were directly taught by the apostles didn't correct them, and that turned to apostasy for the whole church everywhere.

    Did you pull this out before I directly address what you're about to say next? That passage directly links Christos to YHVH, and again your answer is to say "No, that can't be" and reject the truth of the scripture. Christos is YHVH. When YHVH was tempted in the desert it was Christos being tempted in the desert. When YHVH created the world as the scriptures say, Christ Jesus the Word created the world as the scriptures say.

    WHAT!? The Father wants to interact with sinful humans. He is our abba. Our papa. The Father we cling to. We are to go to Him as His adored children, He wants nothing more than interact with us.

    It's also something that they instructed the others on how to do properly. We can know this from passages like Hebrews 6:2 where Paul tells his audience that he is not going to go over the doctrine of laying on of hands again. Which means he already instructed them on it before, similarly in Timothy, Paul instructs not to be hasty in the laying on of hands, which must mean they were to continue the practice.

    Also, what do you mean you don't agree with apostolic succession? You don't believe that the apostles appointed people to run the churches (1 Tim 5:17) they founded and ordained(the Greek word literally means extended the hand) them?

    No where in the Bible is the stipulation that with the end of the apostolic period the gifts of the spirit would end, nor are the miraculous gifts the only gifts of the spirit. The passage you quote even says that it is when the perfect is come that the in part shall be done away with. Is the period you consider an apostasy "perfect"?

    The same place you'll find a list of which books are scripture.

    Exactly, the splits came later, the Roman Catholic Church, the Alexandrian Catholic Church, and all were just the nomenclature of the one undivided Church of God; in the first days they were "the Church of Ephesus"(Rev), "the Church of God at Corinth", etc. The Roman Catholic Church is the direct continuation of the Church of God at Rome, and all of the bishops can trace their authority directly back to Peter and Paul. We were founded before there was a New Testament, before a single gospel had been written.

    That has nothing to do with what I said, which is about sola scriptura and not the nature of the scriptures themselves. You've again avoided actually engaging me. The Catholic Church teaches that we should follow all of the scriptures. Tell me, please what part of your Church doctrine comes from as Paul commands in scripture, "the traditions we have taught you by word of mouth or by letter"? Give me one teaching of the apostles that the Watchtower holds to that passed by word of mouth and not epistle. Your church and every other sola scriptura congregation doesn't just fail to uphold the dictates of the scriptures, you actively reject it. You say you believe that every part of scripture is God's word? Then you are willfully refuting the word of God by rejecting the direct teachings of the apostles.

    And what of those who came before the Bible spoke of Christ? Did they not know? Of course not. The Church existed before the Bible, if the Bible were removed from everyone's hands the Church would still exist, just the same. What we know of God and his Christ comes from God through His apostles and missionaries.
     
  5. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Do you know how much work that would be now that we are so far into this discussion?
    What was ignored, was every Catholic belief and practice that finds no basis in the teaching of Jesus Christ.
    The readers are free to scan the substance of our discussion if they have a mind to....

    No human life was sinless after Adam, so no life could be offered as a ransom......Jesus' perfect human life was given in exchange for all of us. He had to be 100% sinless human (the exact equivalent of Adam) in order to pay the redemption price.

    Romans 5:18-19...
    "Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19 For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man’s obedience many will be made righteous."

    What a beautiful arrangement....but what did it buy us? Immortal life in heaven, or everlasting mortal life on earth?
    What was God's first purpose?

    This where it gets really silly.....God can split himself into three distinct persons, who can be in different places at the same time. One part (who was the man Jesus on earth) could pray to the other part (who was the Father in heaven) but there is no record of the other parts praying to the son, or the holy spirit praying to either of them.

    Matthew 24:36 said that the son didn't know what the Father knew about the day and the hour of his return.
    If John 1:18 clearly states that "no one has ever seen God" then how could Jesus have been God?...."no one" "ever" does that not mean what it says?

    OK, perhaps I misunderstood the question....
    You said..."Why is the resurrection so important? Lazarus had already come back from death and it didn't herald a new way of things, only when Christ passed through death and came back did we have life renewed. If Christ is not risen, we are still in our sins and our faith is in vain. 1 Cor 15:17."

    I responded in part..."No one who died before Jesus opened the way to heaven, would be taken into the new covenant, inaugurated on the night before Jesus’ death." How did I not answer the question? Only those taken into the New Covenant would join Jesus in heaven as "fellow heirs" with him in his Father's Kingdom.
    What did they inherit?

    Romans 8:15-17...
    "For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him."

    Please explain how one can be an "heir of God and a fellow heir with Christ"....if both are God?

    It was firstly the fulfillment of God's purpose that the Christ would die as a redeemer of mankind, and be resurrected. He would not be left in his tomb to rot. (Acts 2:31)

    Paul says....."For Christ has entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf." (Hebrews 9:24)

    He presented the value of his sacrifice in the heavenly sanctuary so that sin could be cancelled for obedient humankind. The resurrection of Jesus Christ was unique in that he was the "firstborn from the dead" (Colossians 1:18) ....not that he was the first person to be resurrected, (as Jesus and his apostles had performed resurrections).....but that he was the first human to be given a spiritual resurrection. (1 Peter 3:18) No one went to heaven before Jesus opened the way. (John 3:13)

    He is in your church. There are three of him......three separate persons....all called God. According to Jewish belief, God is one, not three. (Deuteronomy 6:4) Jesus called his Father "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3) He said that his Father alone should be worshipped. (Luke 4:5-8)

    God is an immortal...which means that he CANNOT die. Jesus was brought into the world as a mortal and his death was literal, not symbolic. It was God who raised Jesus from the dead.....he did not raise himself.

    Reading "without a predetermined result in mind"???? Really? You cannot find a trinity in any passage of scripture without "a predetermined result in mind". There is not a single statement where Jesus or his Father ever said that the son was God, or that the holy spirit was God, or even equal to him in any way.

    Jesus was a "servant" of his God and remained a servant as he had always been. (Acts 3:13)
    Jesus is also called an "apostle" and "High Priest", (Hebrews 1:3) so how can he be God when he is "one sent forth" (an apostle) and is one who oversees the worship of God (as High Priest). Your trinity is ridiculous.

    LOL...nice try. The trinity is unscriptural, and anti-scriptural because the apostles taught no such thing.
    1 Corinthians 8:5-6...speaking on behalf of fellow believers including the other apostles....
    "For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”— 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist."

    They don't sound at all confused to me.....
     
  6. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Really? Logic is the ability to make sense of what we see and hear.....Its what is argued by philosophy but not invented by it.

    Because blood is what feeds and nourishes every cell in the entire body. I guess that is good enough reason....

    Since Christ offered THE propitiatory sacrifice, we no longer have to make them. The word "propitiatory" in Hebrew is "kap·poʹreth" and it means to cover. So the "propitiatory sacrifice of Christ "covers" our sin. (1 John 2:2)
    If justice was administered without mercy, it would be cold and hard, but propitiation is a dispensation, not holding our sin against us, and giving us what we deserve, but providing a way to cover them over.

    In view of the fact that ‘hearing the word,’ ‘embracing the word heartily’ and ‘repenting’ precede water baptism (Acts 2:22, 38, 41) and that baptism requires the individual to make a solemn decision, it is apparent that one must at least be of age to hear, to believe and to make this decision.

    An infant cannot consent to baptism, which of itself is meaningless unless there is a personal dedication made to God as a disciple of his son. There is no proxy arrangement. No one can become a Christian except by their own choice.

    Like I said....where there is a will, there is a way. We only baptize by full immersion. I've seen it accomplished in some very inventive ways, but full immersion was accomplished. I have seen the disabled and chronically ill carried into the water with faces beaming. Nothing stops a willing heart from their dedication to God.
     
  7. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Baptism is about becoming a Christian and fully embracing all that it means. An infant cannot do that and is not denied baptism because as Paul says, the children are "sanctified" on account of the believing parent(s) faith. That gives great impetus for the parents to keep to the faith, knowing that their children will be judged with them.
    Do you remember how many children were spared in Noah's day? All were taken with their wicked unbelieving parents.

    The Catholic people I have had dealings with over many years did not know how to pray without a rosary, or without the "Our Father" being recited on all occasions.....its like they were never taught to pray. If only someone had explained what Jesus was doing with the model prayer.....

    Still prayers by rote....that is the only reason to use them. Why does your church not teach people to pray from the heart?

    You missed the point.....its not just about the subject matter....a person in a difficult situation when telling a friend about their troubles would not simply repeat the same thing over and over, day in and day out, but they might bring up different aspects of the problem and ask for advice or input about an ongoing problem.....can you see the difference? To repeat the same phrases endlessly is to treat God like a moron....

    Hindus used these kinds of prayer reminders before Christianity came along. Buddhists too use them for repetitious prayers. Jesus taught us to pray, but he did not ever mention repetition....in fact he told us not to. (Matthew 6:7-8)

    In this "time of the end" foretold by Daniel, God said that he would have a people who would purify themselves and be refined....and to the wise he would grant understanding. The wicked, he said would keep right on doing what they have always done, understanding nothing.

    Daniel 12:4, 9-10...
    "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, until the time of the end. Many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase. . . He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for the words are shut up and sealed until the time of the end. 10 Many shall purify themselves, and make themselves white, and be refined; but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand; but those who are wise shall understand.”

    I believe that we are in "the time of the end"....and that there are a people who have purified and refined their worship, and removed the stains of apostasy. They understand more than most, as they should.

    History is not kind to the church....are you saying that the atrocities never happened? When blood was found in the church, Christ left the building. Its the one thing he never sanctioned.

    The Bible speaks clearly about the millennial reign of Christ....this is the rule of God's Kingdom that takes us back to the beginning...to God's first purpose. This is the time when he has cleansed the earth of all who do not qualify for life in his Kingdom, having had due warning like the people of Noah's day, there will be no other warning given. Just as Noah entered the ark at God's command, it was God who closed the door, not Noah. Those people never got another opportunity to hear the message, but I'll wager that they wished that they had listened. Jesus said it would happen again in a world filled with immorality and violence...(Matthew 24:37-39) with exactly the same response.....people never learn.

    Its not the Kingdom that lasts forever, but what it accomplishes, that will. (1 Corinthians 15:20-28) Everything will go back to the way God first intended for humankind to live...right here on earth. (Revelation 21:2-4)

    I am very aware of our limitations.....but I am also aware that God has revealed to his servants what his intentions are, especially at this point in time. The greatest tribulation in the history of the world will come, just as Jesus said. (Matthew 24:21) Are you ready? (Matthew 24:43-44)

    Since the dreams and beasts of Daniel's book have meaning for the future, they mesh with the beasts of Revelation, also for the same time period.....it is very apparent that the increased knowledge that God supplies at this "time of the end" (Daniel 12:4) will furnish increased understanding....but not by those whom he deems to be wicked.

    Symbolism is not allegory. God grants understanding to his anointed ones, so those poking around in the dark, not knowing what is going on, have been given no understanding....these are momentous times......all prophesied in the scriptures.

    On the contrary, we find the opposite is true...the Bible always explains itself. Scripture interprets scripture.

    The Apostles were taught by Jesus, so they did not teach anything that was contrary to what the Master taught.
    What your church accepts as "Christian" teachings, actually never were.
     
    #207 Deeje, Jun 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2021
  8. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    That's the beauty of being on the other side of the world.....we are seldom online at the same time.

    I'll get to the rest tomorrow......time for bed....
     
  9. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    OK...now where were we?.....

    The problem is that "Christos" is not identified as Jehovah at all. Christos is the Messiah, sent by God as Jesus himself declared in prayer to his Father.
    Its not about approaching God with demands that scripture says what we want it to but that what it says agrees with the rest of what is taught. There is not a single scripture that ties Jesus to Jehovah as a single entity. There is only ONE true God....any other god is a fake.

    "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." (John 17:3 RSVCE)
    Did God send himself?
    Can God be his own servant? (Acts 3:13)

    Logic is part of human reasoning....as I said it was used in philosophy to analyse human thinking, but it was not invented by it. It is part of being created in God's image. His actions are never illogical.

    And trying to make one God into three different persons, who can operate, speak and act independently, is not compelling either. You have no scriptural basis for that claim.

    Pagans had their religion influenced by the ruler of this world (1 John 5:19; 2 Corinthians 4:3-4).....the 'sower' of the seeds of false Christianity is one and the same.....the one who copies from the other to legitimize promoting false beliefs.

    Unless you have an issue with the Word's beginning.
    John 1:1 remember?
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
    The Word was "with God" "in the beginning"...so what beginning is this, if God is eternal and had no beginning?
    Why does Revelation 3:14 call Jesus..."the beginning [archē] of God’s creation".
    How can the resurrected Jesus who is now in heaven with his Father still refer to him as "my God"?

    "If you conquer, I will make you a pillar in the temple of my God; you will never go out of it. I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name." (Revelation 3:12)
    In all of scripture, Yahweh has many titles, but only one name. (Psalm 83:18) Jesus has many titles as well as many names, depending upon which role he is fulfilling.

    "Only begotten" in Greek is "monogenes" which is the word used for an only child. It is not a special word for the son of God because it is applied to humans. The pre-human Jesus was "begotten" by his Father in that as his progenitor, he is the one responsible for his existence.
    The word "Father" is translated from the Hebrew word ʼav, translated “father,” is a mimetic (imitative) word taken from the first and simplest sounds of infant lips.
    The Hebrew ʼav and the Greek pa·terʹ are both used in various senses: as begetter, or progenitor, of an individual, the head of a household or ancestral family, an ancestor, a founder of a nation, a protector, the source of something, and a term of respect. It has a wide variety of meanings, but with Yahweh and his son, Yahweh is the progenitor or begetter of his son who came into existence as the very beginning [archē] of God's creations. (Colossians 1:18) Since there is no time reference between the creation of the son, and the creation of everything else, Father and son could have existed for unknown eons prior to the rest of creation.

    This is what the scriptures indicate.....and the only thing that fights with that is the trinity, which did not exist in Christianity until over three hundred years after Jesus' death.

    That is made up nonsense IMO. Where does the Bible ever say anything like that?
    The very fact that he is "begotten" means that he had a beginning.....he was produced by his "Begetter", who existed before him. You have to twist a lot of scripture to suggest otherwise. The familial terminology of "Father and son" make that clear. If they were equals, then why not just refer to themselves by name?

    You are missing some important points I believe....
    Colossians 1:15-17...what does Paul say?...
    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything."

    please analyze Paul's words here...
    He is "the image" of his God, but he is not God. He is the "firstborn of all creation"...how is that an ambiguous statement?
    "All things were created THROUGH him" which is why he is of necessity "before all things".
    "He is the beginning"..again, not an ambiguous statement.
    His resurrection meant that he was rewarded with something he did not have before...."the first place in everything"...How on earth can that statement apply to God, who already has the first place in everything?

    Philippians 2:9-11....
    "Therefore God also highly exalted him and gave him the name that is above every name,
    10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
    11 and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."


    The reward for his earthly mission was that he was "exalted" and given "the name that is above every name"...how is it possible to exalt God, and to have a name above the name of the "Most High"? There is no name that can be above Yahweh himself.

    "Theos" is not a word that is used exclusively for God or gods.....we are repeating ourselves now. It is a word used for those who have divine authority and/or power. Literally a "Mighty One". Jesus and his Father qualify under that terminology.
    When God and Jesus are together in one reference like John 1:1, the definite article defines their separateness.

    No, I'm sorry, he was pointing out that being God's son did not make him "God" since Jehovah himself called the judges in Israel "gods".....having divine authority makes you God's representative. Jesus carried out his Father's will, not his own. (John 5:30)
     
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The apostasy was foretold......the apostles were grappling with it towards the end of the first century and when the last restraining influence (the Apostle John) passed away, there was nothing left to stop it. But the final contributions to Christian scripture were then complete.

    This was Paul's warning....
    2 Thessalonians 2:1-12....
    "As to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we beg you, brothers and sisters, 2 not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as though from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord is already here. 3 Let no one deceive you in any way; for that day will not come unless the rebellion comes first and the lawless one is revealed, the one destined for destruction. . . . And you know what is now restraining him, so that he may be revealed when his time comes. 7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work, but only until the one who now restrains it is removed. . . . .The coming of the lawless one is apparent in the working of Satan, who uses all power, signs, lying wonders, 10 and every kind of wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion, leading them to believe what is false, 12 so that all who have not believed the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness will be condemned."

    We will all see at the end who it is that will be condemned. Those who refuse to love the truth will be allowed to revel in their delusion, believing satan's lies because they want to, taking pleasure in what God condemns.

    The world and all that exists came from the Father "through" the son. Its called agency, perhaps you have heard of it?

    Proverbs 8:22-23, 30-31...
    "22 The Lord created me at the beginning of his work,
    the first of his acts of long ago.
    23 Ages ago I was set up,
    at the first, before the beginning of the earth. . . . .

    30 then I was beside him, like a master worker;
    and I was daily his delight,
    rejoicing before him always,
    31 rejoicing in his inhabited world
    and delighting in the human race." (NRSVCE)


    This is describing the pre-human Jesus in the creation of all things. He was "beside" his Father as a "master worker". He is the "us" and "our" with the Father in Genesis 1:26. God's spirit was the power used, as it states in verse 2.

    Oh please.....God has no personal contact with sinful humans because sin is an affront to him. Nothing sinful can come before him, which is why he appointed Jesus as our Mediator. He is the "go between" the one who intercedes for us with the Father....no one else has that position until the coming of the Kingdom when the King rules with all his assistant priests. (Revelation 20:6)

    There was no earthly priesthood in first century Christianity. The priesthood was something future, when those whom were chosen for positions in the kingdom were resurrected. These 'chosen ones' were to be resurrected "first"....but not until the Lord's return. (1 Thessalonians 4:15-16)

    It was still practiced when the apostles were alive, but once they were no longer alive, the ability to pass on the gifts died with them.

    1 Timothy 5:17...
    "Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in preaching and teaching".
    The elders were leaders, not apostles, nor were they priests......they were preachers and teachers. (Hebrews 13:17)

    What transpired after the death of the apostle John, was a steady decline into apostasy. There was no apostolic succession spoken about in the scriptures....but there was the foretold planting of the "weeds" and the corrupting of the truth of God's word.
     
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    1 Corinthians 13:8-13 is an interesting passage of scripture.....
    "Love never ends. But as for prophecies, they will come to an end; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will come to an end. 9 For we know only in part, and we prophesy only in part; 10 but when the complete comes, the partial will come to an end. 11 When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child; when I became an adult, I put an end to childish ways. 12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then we will see face to face. Now I know only in part; then I will know fully, even as I have been fully known. 13 And now faith, hope, and love abide, these three; and the greatest of these is love." (NRSVCE)

    You can see from this Catholic translation the word is rendered "complete" rather than "perfect". The Greek word is "teleios" which means...
    1. "brought to its end, finished
    2. wanting nothing necessary to completeness."
    This I believe, is speaking about the complete word of God. For Christians it is all we need to follow the teachings of Christ which he said came from his Father. Nothing was to be added or any deviation from what he taught.

    So the "childish" traits of needing to see miracles and such were to give way to a more mature kind of Christian. Ones who had developed the important qualities of "faith hope and love".
    The age of miracles was over. They had accomplished their purpose and now were no longer necessary.
    Those manifesting 'miracles' in later times were attributed to the works of the devil. They were associated with the apostasy. (2 Thessalonians 2:9-10)

    Its right there in the contents of my Bible. The one that God inspired and gave to us so that we could check for ourselves if what we are being taught is from God's word. We are counseled to be like the ancient Beroeans. (Acts 17:10-11) The Catholic church forbade anyone to read the Bible but its priests. They burned at the stake anyone who dared to possess one. How is that imitating Christ?

    Nah....sorry, not even close. "You" were not founded on the teachings of Christ at all.....but on a fusion of weakened 4th century Christianity with pagan Roman sun worship, still very much in evidence in the church to this day. It was ripe for the birth of the counterfeit Christianity, as Jesus and the apostles had predicted.The pagans got to keep their favorite festivals and beliefs, and the Christians accepted what was taught because it had a thin "Christian" label on it. They grafted Jesus Christ over Zeus and Mary over the mother goddesses.

    Really.....what scriptures do you follow? I can give you a long list of what you do not follow. I have been learning over the years from Catholic people themselves just how little knowledge they have of the scriptures. That is sad. Ignorance keeps people in the fold, but a few have escaped....gaining the knowledge that they never knew.

    In our exchange here...how often do you use scripture compared to how often I do?

    What traditions would these be? What was included in the Christian scriptures was all we needed...it was "perfect"...."complete". If it wasn't written down to be included in God's word, and if it can be shown to be a deviation from what the Master taught, it can be dismissed as religious error. I believe that your church is full of them.

    Oh please....would you like a list of what the Catholic church rejects, that Jesus taught as truth? No wonder your church rejects sola scriptura.....it has failed utterly to uphold what Christ taught from its beginnings. The central core of Christendom's doctrines that were promoted by your church can all be traced back to Babylon. We are told to remove ourselves from the 'greater Babylon'. (Revelation 18:4-5)

    Are you serious? Do you understand what you just said? "if the Bible were removed from everyone's hands the Church would still exist, just the same."....yes it would, because nothing it teaches is from God's word. What you "know of God and his Christ" came from the seeds of apostasy sown after the death of Christ. Jesus told us who sowed them....and they spread out into the whole world.
    The conduct of the church thereafter confirms everything Jesus said.

    I cannot for the life of me understand this blindness....or maybe I can....(2 Corinthians 4:3-4) :(
     
  12. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,198
    Ratings:
    +3,156
    Religion:
    Catholic
    Only because you deliberately chose this particular translation for your own purposes. The translation from the Scripture used in all Catholic Churches in the US is the NABR.
    9 For we know partially and we prophesy partially, 10 but when the perfect comes, the partial will pass away.

    Nice try though.
     
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    I didn't say go back and ask, I said going forward. That is if you see something as the discussion continues.

    Was Eve not sinless before she fell with Adam, would that not make two sinless lives? Also, are you making a distinction between the taint of the fall and guilt for sins committed against God here?

    I suppose we'll find out, won't we. I know you all don't believe that when Jesus spoke to the thief on the cross, or when He spoke of the many rooms in His Father's house, that He was talking to all, but the select few.

    Once again, we don't believe in splits or parts.

    Yes, the Father is the source, He generates the Son and the Spirit proceeds from Him.

    When you say it is "silly" you are rejecting it because it is outside the realm of your understanding. You're a 2 dimensional creature arguing that the idea of that two points on the x/y axis can't also be separated by the z. The fact is that we can't understand God's existence, our languages can't express it and our knowledge can't encompass it; why would we be surprised when an aspect of God's existence is revealed that we can't and don't understand?

    For the scriptural portion of your response, we both believe in the humiliation of Christ. Philippians 2:6 Jesus, who is the form of God, did not cling to equality with God, but emptied Himself and took the form of a servant.

    Ok that does explain how the Resurrection was unique and what it did. But according to you, for most of us going to heaven isn't the end result. There are plenty of people who are not dead in their sins, but alive in Christ Jesus, without any hope of attaining the beatific vision. Correct? Given that, how would our faith be in vain and why would we still be under the power of death and sin if Christ had not resurrected?

    To use the type provided by the Bible, the blood of the literal lambs offered in sacrifice to God were effective towards atonement, those lambs did not resurrect. They did not need to resurrect and the Jews were still pardoned of their sins, for what that sacrifice covered. Why did Jesus need to be resurrected for his sacrifice to have any meaning?

    No, He isn't. I do not believe in divine parts, splits, divisions, or any sort of that. There are not three Gods, but one. The three persons do not cumulatively make up the one true God, they are each the fullness of divinity.

    Ok, so you believe God can't do all things. "With God, all things are possible."

    Yes. Just like the earliest Christians who had no preconceived notions of a Trinity, the idea didn't even exist. They read the Bible without any external demand and came to a new conclusion.

    Jesus is a servant (by way of "morphe" or "form") that he is God (by "morphe" or "form") Phil 2:6.

    God uses what is foolish to confound the wise. :)

    Logic is a formal system of evaluation, not just an attempt to make sense of things. The Egyptians thought a jackal-headed man-bodied being guarded the afterlife, that was them making sense of what they saw and heard, but had nothing to do with logic.

    Ha. Possibly, but God didn't tell you why. He just said that it is, and so it was and is.

    Indeed we are no longer required to offer blood sacrifice, but we, humans, were in the past so required, and it was as much about the obedience in giving up what is valuable; as with Abraham, who showed his obedience by offering his begotten son on the altar.
     
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    The translation I used (NRSVCE) is a Catholic translation.
    I didn’t have to try anything. Using a Greek to English Interlinear I gave you the definition of the word “teleios”. See post #211.

    The definition of “perfect” is something that is complete and needs nothing added.
    Perhaps you need to try harder in your own research....?

    Is there anything else you would like to discuss?
     
    #214 Deeje, Jun 21, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2021
  15. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    So you don't have any passages where any of the apostles decry or reject the practice of baptizing children.

    I thought we already agreed it is not about the mental capacity to consent, but the spiritual desire to want to choose God? We agreed it isn't about age, and that the severely mentally retarded can get baptized.

    Like I said, your church is young and has only existed under the auspices of the modern era. The Catholic Church had to find answers to situations you will never face, like how and whether to baptize people who will never in their lifetime have access to the amount of water necessary to immerse one person, much less the whole clan or tribe.

    Wait. You believe that children who die are judged by their parents' status, and if at least one parent is a Christian, they will be saved and if not they will be dead? If that verse means salvific grace is poured out through marriage then why would he write just a few verses later, "how do you know whether you will save your spouse or not"? That is, help bring them to serve the Lord Jesus Christ. Why wouldn't he write, "you know, because I just said it, that you will save your spouse"?

    No, it means the marriage and parenthood are clean and not ritually impure. It's telling us not to abandon our family because they aren't Christian and we are, our presence in their life may be the key God uses to turn them towards Him.

    :shrug We do pray spontaneously, I can't help that you haven't seen it.

    They might, I've seen it and I've been frustrated at times because I'm not perfectly empathetic (and the person who has most done this in my life is in fact a Baptist who doesn't believe in rote prayer). Sometimes people need to express themselves and they can only use a limited set of words and ideas to convey their continuing turmoil.

    Only if I do so because I think God needs to hear it over and over, instead of God wanting to hear my prayers and praise, whether I'm at a point to do so wordlessly, spontaneously, or throwing a quick prayer that is formulated, or using words as a way to drive my unruly mind to stay on God while my heart cries out better than any words I can offer ever would anyways.

    Jesus said not to use "vain repetitions" for the purpose of thinking God will hear you because you speak more "thinking they will be heard for their much speaking." Let's not inject something He didn't say, or take our meaningful context offered.

    You may be right, but there have always been people saying that now is the time. Saying they've been given special dispensation.

    Symbolism is the language of allegory, allegory is what gives meaning to symbolism. A symbol has to stand for something else, that is the allegory. You also didn't answer the question, just sly implications that if I don't understand what you do, I'm unrighteous. So what is the righteous understanding of the coming of the city of New Jerusalem? Floating down physically from the sky, temporal rift, normal building methods but it is holy, or something else?

    On the contrary we find that the more groups lean only on scripture, the wider the array of beliefs we find because scripture doesn't interpret itself. People look at scripture and interpret based on what is right and "logical" to them. There are 10s of thousands of Christian churches that say that they are the ones who have the right interpretation and that scripture clearly agrees with them. All led by fallible men thinking they are guided by the spirit and being given the gift of wisdom that you and the other unrighteous don't have.

    What you say just doesn't reflect reality. The only way to hold on to the fantasy is to proclaim that everyone else are liars who aren't really honestly reaching out to God.

    You're drifting. The quote was about teachers interpreting history to say things like Britain and the U.S. are part of Daniel's prophecy. That's an extraBiblical tradition of man, it's also what we are called to do, look at history and try to determine if prophecy is being fulfilled, so it isn't a bad thing.
     
  16. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, because I have faith in my Go, who loves me.

    The New World Translation literally takes the word christos and identifies Him as Jehova. The translation is based entirely in doctrine with no linguistic merit. We both recognize that the christos who was tempted in the desert is Jehova who was tempted in the desert. You just refuse to accept what that means.

    You keep fluctuating between attacking the Trinity as unreasonable on the grounds that there are more than one and on grounds that the Trinity shows one who plays multiple roles. Those are two different and contradictory ideas, both of which are anathema and neither of which the Trinity analogy proclaims.

    The Father did not send Himself, He sent the Son, who He is not.
    Jesus took upon the form of the a servant when He divested Himself of His heavenly glory.

    Logic is a defined system of analyzing statements, it isn't just reasoning, and there is nothing in scripture that says God is limited to what is logically possible. The mysteries of God's revelation confound our wisdom not conform to it.

    Well, except to the early Christian Church, who found it compelling and adopted it as the official doctrine of the Church.

    You who say it is proper to use logic to confine God say that it is I who copy from the pagans, merely because I use the greek language in describing how greek speaking thinkers understood the majority greek new testament?

    Jesus's name is that name above all names. Is Jesus's name above God's? Or will this be another place the Bible should be interpreted to mean something other than what it clearly says?

    The word monogenes often refers to the unique method of generation. Part of the Arian argument was the introduction of the semantic shift, away from a meaning of begetting, that had occurred between the writing of the Gospels and the Council of Nicea into a meaning of, uniquely special in some way.

    When a man begets they produce a man, because the begotten is of the begetter. When God begets He similarly produces of Himself that which is of His nature.

    There is no reference to a time before the Word, period. If the Word was at the beginning, then there can't be a beginning that existed before Him. In the eternity of God's existence the Son has always been begotten.

    Why would I have an issue with the Word being at the beginning of everything? That's my argument. There is nothing before the Word, nothing, because He is the beginning. Jesus is there at the beginning not shortly after the beginning, not there right after the beginning when He got created. No, there is no time without Jesus because He has always been there, eternal, the alpha and the omega, the beginning and the end. He is the first of all existence, and who would the first of all existence be again, and the last. Eternal, just as His Father is.

    Where does the Bible ever say anything like "only use the Bible, never anything else we said"? That's made up nonsense.

    Where does the Bible suggest that the Father became the Father at some point? Was He the Father before the Son? Who/what was He the Father of? No. God doesn't change, "For I am the Lord, I change not", "the Father of Celestial lights, who does not vary or change". He did not become the Father, He always was, because the begetting of the Son is eternal.

    Meanwhile, the Bible does say that Jesus is the beginning, not the closest other thing to the beginning besides the Father. Jesus is the first, not the second.

    No, you have to ignore direct scriptural statements that say Jesus is the first and Jesus is the beginning to suggest there was ever a time without Him. I don't pretend I can take some scripture to say other scripture doesn't mean what it precisely says, just because I don't like the implications.

    They are equal in nature, sharing the one nature of the one true God; their relationship, as much as it can be understood, can be understood by the Father/Son dynamic. The Father is the Father, the progenitor, the source. The Son is a son, a generation, an expression of the nature of the Father

    How is THAT not an ambiguous statement? Jesus is not a thing that was created, because all things that were created were created through Him. Jesus is not a thing about which there is a before, because He is before all things. You post things that argue the direct opposite of what you are suggesting.

    Exactly. How can Jesus have a name that is above every name? He can't, unless that name is Yahweh, otherwise His name is not above every name.

    BTW, Deeje, I've been using Jehova for the tetragrammaton because I respect that the Jehova's Witnesses use it as the holy name, I see you've used Yahweh here and I think another time or two elsewhere. Other understandings of the tetragrammaton are acceptable or proper?

    We agree while disagreeing about what that means.

    An apostasy was foretold in Thessalonians, with no suggestion of when it would take place, other than before the son of perdition comes, or how it would unfold. Nothing like what you are suggesting happened is discussed in the Bible. At no point did any of the writers of the New Testament say "real soon now the Church is going to preach heresy". You can't show any NT writings or the late first century Christians talking about a great apostasy that is going to happen as soon as they pass. That's rehashed 16th century man made tradition.
     
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    So what the apostles didn't say, forms the basis of your religion? I can see that actually....:D

    The requirements for baptism rule out immersing infants who cannot choose to become disciples for themselves, and there is no proxy arrangement.......today that would be viewed as child abuse.

    You see this is what I mean about what you ignore. You picked out that one point but ignored the reasons given which are all substantiated in scripture. No cherry picking.

    An infant cannot make that choice. Its about the heart commitment, not the actual act of baptism. Full immersion is symbolic as it represents a "death" to one's former life and a "rising" to do the will of God......like Jesus' baptism, it was the start of his service to God. He had no sin to be forgiven.

    And like the Israelites in the wilderness who could not celebrate the Passover....

    The keeping of the Passover during the wilderness journey likely was limited, for two reasons:
    (1) Jehovah’s original instructions were that it must be kept when they reached the Promised Land. (Exodus 12:25; Exodus 13:5)
    (2) Those born in the wilderness had not been circumcised (Joshua 55) whereas all male partakers of Passover had to be circumcised. (Exodus 12:45-49)
    So from that perspective, as long as the person has the will in their heart, or has been judged worthy by God to be admitted into his Kingdom arrangement, the physical 'dunking' can come later, when circumstances might be more amenable.

    My "church" is not young at all...it is as promised by Daniel, a restoration after a thorough cleansing, and purification. (Daniel 12:9-10) We have gone back to the first century with a clean slate.....no input from Christendom was allowed to remain, and we started fresh from Genesis to Revelation, eliminating all beliefs that did not originate with God through his mediator, Moses.....or the teachings of "a prophet like Moses" who was to come....Jesus Christ. All of our beliefs are soundly Bible based. The Catholic church cannot claim that.

    I think you misunderstand Paul's words.....
    The 'sanctification' lasts as long as the person is in a relationship with a believer. Sanctification is not salvation. It is a temporary dispensation in order for the children to not be viewed as "unclean" in God's sight.
    For the believing mate, the hope is always to have their spouse by their side in serving God as a disciple of Christ, so as Paul said..."how do you know whether you will save your spouse or not"?.....when the judgment comes, those who are of age will account to God for their decisions. The sanctification ends at the judgment, when those who are of age, do not obey the Christ.
    1 Thessalonians 1:6-9...
    " For it is indeed just of God to repay with affliction those who afflict you, 7 and to give relief to the afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels 8 in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might".

    Only two types of people will perish at the judgment....those who do not know God, because they don't want to....and those who know what he requires but do not obey Christ's teachings.

    If that is the spin you wish to put on the scriptures...that is up to you. I see God's wisdom in this approach. The children are sanctified with relation to the believing parent, and their conduct might well win their spouses over to Christ....it has happened a lot in my brotherhood. The minor children are covered until they are of an age to account for themselves.

    It has been the case with all of the Catholic people I have dealt with. They don't know how to pray spontaneously because the church is so full of ritual, that is all they ever see. Rehearsed repetition is all they know....how sad is that?

    You are talking about repeating mention of a problem....not the way it is expressed. No person in a sound state of mind would keep repeating the same words over and over, for years on end, and expect to keep the friendship. God is not a moron.

    Romans 8:26...
    "Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words."
    What is this telling us? That the heart speaks to God when we do not have the words. Do Catholic people ever hear this? Or is the ritual just too hard to break? God doesn't need all that mindless repetition.
     
  18. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    What is a vain repetition?
    According to Strongs, "vain repetition" is translated "thoughtless repetition" and it means to..."to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble"...this is prayer by rote, thoughtless babble when none of that is actually 'prayer' the way Jesus taught it.

    The devil knows that his time is short...(Revelation 12:10-12) what better way to take God's worshippers down with him than to deceive them into practicing a form of worship that is unacceptable to him? He sowed the weeds remember? And those at the judgment who have swallowed his lies will go down with him....why? Because they did not love the truth when they heard it and acted against it. (2 Thessalonians 2:11-12)

    God allows his servants in this "time of the end" to see things in a very clear fashion. Only the wicked will understand nothing. (Daniel 12:9-10)

    And in that pile of broken glass are the diamonds. Jesus said that the 'wheat and the weeds' would 'grow together' in the world until the harvest time.....and we would know one from the other by their "fruits".....or the kind of people they produce. Are these dedicated worshippers of God in their daily lives, or are they mere performers in a religious circus?

    There are only 'wheat and weeds'....'sheep and goats'......all of us are either one or the other.....only those "doing the will of the Father" will make the cut. (Matthew 7:21:32) How happy is Jesus with those who claim him as their Lord, but then do exactly what he tells them not to do?
     
  19. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,649
    Ratings:
    +8,295
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    I will deal with this question separately because I believe that it is very important to identify the times in which we are are living right now.....
    The march of world powers shown to King Nebuchadnezzar are attested to by history.....this is how we see it.....

    "Under Nebuchadnezzar’s capable leadership Babylon rose to the position of an undisputed world power. He was also the first one to overthrow God’s chosen nation of Israel. Therefore it was appropriate that Almighty God would give to him the dream that foretells the march of world powers from his day down to the present time.

    Upon awakening from sleep Nebuchadnezzar could not remember his most unusual dream and it disturbed him a great deal. Finally Daniel, a God-fearing Israelite captive, came forward and gave Nebuchadnezzar not only the dream but also its interpretation. Daniel said: “You, O king, happened to be beholding, and, look! a certain immense image.” According to Daniel’s description, the image’s “head was of good gold, its breasts and its arms were of silver, its belly and its thighs were of copper, its legs were of iron, its feet were partly of iron and partly of molded clay.”—Daniel 2:31-33.

    What could be the meaning of such a strange dream? Daniel interpreted: “You, O king, the king of kings, . . . you yourself are the head of gold.” (Daniel 2:37, 38) So the gold head represented Nebuchadnezzar, or, more exactly, the dynasty of Babylonian rulers beginning with Nebuchadnezzar as Jerusalem’s conqueror and ending with Belshazzar’s death sixty-eight years later. Nebuchadnezzar being the first world ruler to conquer God’s own nation of Israel, it was proper that Babylon would have the place at the head of the image.

    What of the breasts and arms of silver? Daniel under the guidance of God’s spirit revealed to Nebuchadnezzar, “And after you there will rise another kingdom inferior to you.” (Daniel 2:39) This makes clear that each metal represents a kingdom or dynasty and is in reality a prophecy concerning the march of these kingdoms or world powers. The breasts and arms of silver therefore represent the Medo-Persian world power, which toppled Babylon from its superior position in 539 B.C.

    The prophetic march continues. Identifying the third world power in this prophecy, Daniel says: “And another kingdom, a third one, of copper, that will rule over the whole earth.” (Daniel 2:39) Counting Babylon as the first, the third world power was that of Greece. Thus the belly and thighs of copper represent the Macedonian or Grecian world power.

    “And as for the fourth kingdom,” that is, the fourth from Babylon, it is symbolized by the ‘legs of iron.’ (Daniel 2:40) Iron is stronger than gold, silver and copper. Likewise Rome, the next world power to come upon the scene, was stronger and more ironlike in its ability to crush than any of its predecessors. However, more was symbolized by the legs of iron than just Rome. The greatest and most ironlike of all world powers was the one succeeding, namely, the British Empire, later joined by America, forming the Anglo-American world power.

    What about the final part of the image, the feet and ten toes of iron and clay? In the Bible the number ten is used to indicate earthly completeness. Thus the ten toes picture all the coexisting political powers and governments during the time of the end of this symbolic image."

    Starting with Babylon as Daniel said, all those that followed were world powers over the land of God's people.

    Luke 21:24 speaks prophetically about the "the times of the Gentiles", saying that the prophesy would apply when those "times" were fulfilled. If you are familiar with Daniel's prophesies, that march of world powers were the gentile nations who ruled over God's people.....in the fulfillment, it is in the days of the final kings that God brings in the rule of his Kingdom.....ready or not. The final kings are the Anglo-American dual world power. (Daniel 2:44) The Kingdom that we have been praying for will "come" (Matthew 6:9-10) but not in a way that most people expect.

    It will mean that the crushing of all corrupt world powers under satan's control (1 John 5:19) and all who support them, and it will take place sooner rather than later.....only God knows the time he has set for its conclusion. (Matthew 24:36) It coincides with the long awaited return of Christ. (Matthew 24:43-44)
     
    #219 Deeje, Jun 21, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2021
  20. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,799
    Ratings:
    +2,037
    Religion:
    Christian
    We are blameless in Christ and all of our sins are forgotten in His great sacrifice. God has personal contact with us and it is glorious. I guess I'm blasphemous and you think the God who has loved me is the deceiver.

    1 Peter 2:9 Every believer is a priest of God, we are a "royal priesthood". The apostles were ministerial priests as well, with the authority to forgive or retain sins.

    And where in the Bible does it say that?

    And healers, by the laying of hands (James 5:14) and the conferrers of authority for the next generation (Titus 1:5)

    Titus and Timothy are both told to continue selecting people to lead the Church. That's apostolic succession. The passing of authority from the Apostles to the next generation (Mark, Timothy, Titus, Papias, Polycarp, etc.) and so on. We also know that the earliest Christians, directly from the apostolic age believed they had been given authority by the apostles and the ability to pass it on.
    "For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
    they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
    continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
    should succeed to their ministration." Clement's epistle to Corinth (c. 96 AD).

    Where in the Bible does it say that when John passed Timothy no longer had access to the gifts of the spirit, that Timothy who had been instructed to lay hands to confer the spirit and authority could no longer do so? Such a thing is never once implied, much less said. It's entirely an invention to handle the fact that someone doesn't have authority that traces back to the apostles, and embarrassed by their lack of legitimacy they declare that there is no such thing as legitimacy at all.

    And that is an interpretive interpolation. It isn't said by the text which is open to lots of interpretations, the completeness could in fact be the end of days. You acknowledge this, yes?

    Where? None of the New Testament scriptures ever say what writings should be in the New Testament. For each Gospel, Revelations, and several epistles the only authority to declare their authenticity is the Church you say was in deep apostasy.

    How do you know that the New Testament is authentic? Do you appeal to special revelation from God, that you know because He told you those were the scriptures, but no, you don't think God believes humans are worth the time of contacting them... Do you appeal to special privilege for your congregation that would prevent them from picking the right books? You can't appeal to the apostolic authority of the Church, because you claim that it doesn't exist and even if it did, the Church was in the great apostasy by the time they hammered the canon out.

    Yeah, it's a matter of the historical record. The Church of God at Rome was founded by the apostles, the leaders were ordained by them. There is an unbroken chain of succession and every bishop ordain in the Roman Catholic Church can directly trace his authority back to Peter.

    Definitely the scripture that says to follow all of the teachings of the Apostles that were given by word of mouth instead of epistle. Which you reject wholesale.

    I didn't realize it was a contest. I have used scripture plenty to support my beliefs in this discussion.

    One of them is the New Testament canon, which we both agree to, but you refuse to acknowledge as an apostolic oral tradition. Other than that, the question was for you, what traditions taught by word of mouth by the apostles would exist for you? It's right there explicitly in the scriptures that you are to follow those traditions, I was wondering if you had any that you acknowledged, in keeping with following every scripture.

    It is no wonder. Sola scriptura is a man made invention of the 16th century. Never once did any apostle preach it, never once did Jesus preach it, never once did any scriptural author write it. You cannot source your core belief in the object of your core belief.

    The Bible says that the teachings of Jesus are not all contained in the Bible. The Bible says that the teachings of the apostles are not all contained in the Bible. You refuse those teachings because to accept them is to accept the authority of the Church, which is the pillar and ground of the truth, which preserved them.

    Do you understand what you're saying? You think the Church of God wouldn't exist without writings? Christians existed before the New Testament, and surprise for you, they were better informed than modern man. They didn't need texts because they had teachers, and if the writers had never written, the Church would still be here. Christianity doesn't exist for the Bible or because of the Bible, the Bible exists for Christianity and because of Christianity.

    I saved these for last, because they aren't theological disagreements, but flat out historical falsehoods. Anyone who looks up these claims will be able to tell they are consummately incorrect. Theophilus wrote specifically of the Trinity and he died c. 183. You'll note that you were off, at the latest possible date, by 150 of your 300 years.

    The Catholic Church also never banned having or reading the Bible. English translation of the Bible by Catholics goes back to the Venerable Bede, the Latin Vulgate is literally the Bible in the common tongue. As you have written, the history of the Catholic Church has enough bad things that you don't have to make stuff up
     
Loading...