• 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!

Isaiah 43:11

wmam

Active Member
Buttercup said:
Interesting.....please tell me where you derived this particular interpretation?

The Scriptures.

Buttercup said:
Except that you left out the very salient point of Jesus having authority to forgive sin...the same as The Father. They are equal in power and vision.

I see no notable significance to any point here other than ones misinterpretation of fact as it relates to the context in which this information is given. Yahshua Himself said that He does nothing nor says nothing of Himself but that which is given to Him by His Father. It doesn't take much to see that this statement from the Man Himself is the real "salient point".

Buttercup said:
Sorry, I think most of Christianity will disagree with you here.

I can live with that but its not me that anyone will have to worry about. If anyone was to disagree with this fact then it is Yahshua and YAH that they disagree with. I only revealed the truth of His word. Though, again, I have no problem with anyone believing whatever they choose.

Buttercup said:
Jesus is equating himself with God. Simple sentence construction would tell you he is speaking of himself.

Well........ If it is so simple then why is there so many different religions? Why so many different understandings? Why have so many died in the name of Allah, Sweet Jesus, etc. etc. etc. etc.? I am one that disagrees with this misunderstanding. For what you are saying would mean that He lied when He stated that He does nothing of Himself but that of His Father. We cannot have it both ways here. He is either under His Father or He is not. More Scripture than one has the time to post shows that He is under the Father and was not speaking of Himself. You have the right to disagree and I, again, can live with that.

Buttercup said:
What version is that? Mine doesn't say it was added later.

It takes little more than a google search to see the plethora of info on something that is already widely known and accepted as truth by those with more brains than the two of us put together. I shan't cast no more pearls in this direction.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
wmam said:
The Scriptures.

I was hoping for a longer explanation that this. What version of the New Testament did you derive your first scripture from? It is very foreign to me and I am wanting clarification.



I see no notable significance to any point here other than ones misinterpretation of fact as it relates to the context in which this information is given. Yahshua Himself said that He does nothing nor says nothing of Himself but that which is given to Him by His Father. It doesn't take much to see that this statement from the Man Himself is the real "salient point".
Jesus on numerous occasions claims equal authority with God. We can debate this in another thread if you like but you have to be a nice boy....I remember that you have been warned for flaming in the past and I won't debate with a flamer.

Well........ If it is so simple then why is there so many different religions? Why so many different understandings? Why have so many died in the name of Allah, Sweet Jesus, etc. etc. etc. etc.? I am one that disagrees with this misunderstanding. For what you are saying would mean that He lied when He stated that He does nothing of Himself but that of His Father. We cannot have it both ways here. He is either under His Father or He is not. More Scripture than one has the time to post shows that He is under the Father and was not speaking of Himself. You have the right to disagree and I, again, can live with that.
Once again I will say that Jesus is of equal power and authority as God. He is not "under" him in authority...they are equal. And again, we can discuss this in another thread.


It takes little more than a google search to see the plethora of info on something that is already widely known and accepted as truth by those with more brains than the two of us put together. I shan't cast no more pearls in this direction.

I used my own personal bibles to look up said quote. The NIV and American Standard. I notice you don't mention what version you use. Care to name it?
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
Buttercup said:
I was hoping for a longer explanation that this. What version of the New Testament did you derive your first scripture from? It is very foreign to me and I am wanting clarification.
I could be way of the mark here, wouldn't be the first time.

But the way our friend uses Yahshua and YAH for Jesus and God respectively suggests to me that he is a member of one of the Sacred Name movements. Possibly the Assembilies of Yahwah, but the fact he uses YAH instead of Yahwah may suggest he belongs to a different group.
The Assembilies group uses their own version of the NT, maybe wmam uses his own version too?
 
Halcyon said:
...But first you need to loose that blind faith of yours.
Wow, I believe differently than you so that must mean my faith is blind:rolleyes: . How exactly is the Church against Christ's teachings?

Erm, no there aren't. There is one interpretation of Christs teachings and his nature that has spread across the globe...the underlying beliefs are identical.
What underlying beliefs? Some believe in the Trinity, some don't. Some believe Jesus is God, some don't. Some believe that faith alone is necesary for salvation, some don't. Some believe that only Scripture is the authoritative Word of God, some don't. Some believe baptism is necesary for salvation, some don't. Some believe you can lose your salvation, some don't. How much more diverse could a set of people all claiming the same title, "Christian", possibly get?
...i just read what's there.
Yes, you read it, and then you interpreted it, whether you realize it or not. Everyone has bias and presuppositions when they read Scripture, I certainly admit that I do. How do you know that your interpretation and understanding of what you read is true?

Gnosis...is more akin to insight or enlightenment.
Great, that still doesn't mean that such Gnosis is a prerequisite to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit GIVES us enlightenment and insight.
...you need Gnosis to be able to recognise the difference between understanding from God and your own ignorant mental concoctions.
Sure, and that Gnosis is given by God, it is not a prerequisite that just comes from ourselves.

...The Holy Spirit wasn't involved.
How do you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't involved?

You keep talking about "the Chuch", yet you don't specify which one.
Sure I did...The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
30,000 different versions of Catholic teaching, which is the true Church.
The true Church is the original Church, with unbroken lineage and succession back to Apostles...only the Catholic Church has that.
And if there is only one, how can the whole Christian global population be a member of it?
All "Christians" are not part of it, as many people who claim to be Christian aren't at all. Catholics believe that all Trinitarian, baptized Christians are a part of the Body of Christ, although those out of unity with Rome have an imperfect union.

...Just because something is traditional doesn't make it Holy or sacred or correct.
Nor did I claim such a thing. However, some Traditions have been preserved and are authoritative, because they derive from the teachings of the Apostles and Early Church Fathers.

"Now I praise you, brethren, that you remember me in all things and keep the traditions just as I delivered them to you," 1 Corinthians 11:2
"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." 2 Thessalonians 2:15
"But we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw from every brother who walks disorderly and not according to the tradition which he received from us." 2 Thessalonians 3:6

Obvious, how?
It was obvious because the second generation Christians knew the Apostles and knew their disciples. It would have been obvious that, "Oh, yeah, that guy was Paul's disciple, he's taking over." etc. If some random guy that they had never seen before had stood up and tried to take power, it simply wouldn't have worked.
They did so for political reasons as well as spiritual, remember Meister Eckhart?
Meister Eckhart lived in the 13th century; we're talking about second generation Christianity (late first/early second century).

No, the proto-orthodox, the Gnostics and the Ebionites all coexisted - there was no spliting.
Whether you choose to believe it or not, there was a split:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us;..." 1 John 2:16
"And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some." 2 Timothy 2:17-18

Proto-orthodox = the members of the Christian sect which placed emphasis on the death and resurrection of Christ over his actual teachings. Those people that belonged to the group that would become the orthodox Church, people like Irenaeous.
Ah, I see. Why do you call them "proto-orthodox" and not simply "orthodox"?

What was the punishment for heresy in ancient times? Why are there no Gnostics left except the Mandaens?
The punishment for heresy was excommunication. Gnosticism died out because, as the Church grew and became established, heresy was slowly weeded out, through Councils, declarations, etc. Thus, Gnosticism, like many other heresies throughout Church history, died out.

I chose a quote in your sacred scripture that contradicts a basic belief of your religion.
It doesn't contradict at all, I explained exactly what the implication of the passage is when compared to the rest of Scripture: Jesus is God.

How is that petty and childish? If they want no part of God, you're saying God should force Himself onto them anyways? Do you believe in free will?

No, there are advantages - inner peace, love of your fellow man etc. You don't need to believe in God to get these...
You justt contradicted yourself. You said the advantages of being a religious, God-fearing person are inner peace, love, etc, and then said you don't need belief in God to have those things. :confused:

You only get forgiveness if you are worthy of forgiveness, belief has nothing to do with it.
How is someone worthy of salvation if they refuse to recognize the Savior??

You can get spiritual enlightenment without Christ, that's why i mentioned Buddha.
No, you can't. Buddha may have been wise, but he didn't have spiritual enlightenment. He believed in reincarnation, for goodness sake...do you?

...But three persons are three individuals, by definition you are polytheistic.
Incorrect. Again, this is why it is important to understand terms. Three Persons in One God does not mean Three Gods, plain and simple.

So, you are willing to describe the beliefs of other denominations as the work of men, and yet not those of your own church fathers? Do you see the hypocrasy that i do?
No, I don't, because the Catholic beliefs of the Early Church Fathers have been maintained through the guidance and preservation of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years...the innovations of Protestantism are inventions of man that have only been around for 500 or less.

...it means that he had all the understanding he needed to become a Christ...
What does it mean to "become a Christ"?

...like a said the true Church is in the hearts of men and that Christ is also in the hearts of all men,...
If the true Church was in the hearts of men then the Church would never have lost truth or Apostolic authority, but you claim it did...and by the hands of the men who you claim the Church resides in, no less!


Excommunication is no more discipline than execution...
Excommunication and execution are quite different, actually. If you are executed, you don't get a second chance...you're dead, that's it. If a person is excommunicated, it is in the hope that they will renounce their heresy or mortal sin and return to the Church. The two are completely different concepts.

He didn't set up a physical church, men did. He didn't appoint mediaries between men and God, because none are necessary, men did that too.
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 If that's not a Mediator, I don't know what is.

...Just because they are ignorant of it does not mean that it is not there.
Denial and ignorance are two very different things. A person who is ignorant has no knowledge of God, and thus are oblivious to His existence or influence, and doesn't know any better. A person who denies God is one who knows about God, but says, "No, I want no part of that, I don't believe in God." Such people get exactly what they want due to the free will that God has given them: They will have nothing to do with God. They are not a part of His Church.


...Either there is no difference between Jesus and the Father, and they are a single deity. Or there is a difference between them and they are separate deities which makes you polytheistic - which is it?
Or, they are One God, yet there is a difference between them making them two different Persons--two Persons in One God!:eek:

...if learned people who have studied these texts are drawing those conclusions, then i yield to their superior knowledge.
Learned people who study a given subject disagree all the time about exactly the same findings. The fact that one group places this epistle in the second century doesn't mean theirs is the only answer and that there are not other educated views which disagree.



Not from scripture, just from tradition. The Gospel of John, although it is ascribed to him, is anonymously written.
I already explained to you in showing you the passage, that the writer of John refers to himself as the beloved disciple. Thus, the writer is either the Apostle John, as the Gospel's name suggests, or in your view, it could be Lazarus, although I've seen no scholarly evidence for such a thing.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Halcyon said:
That's because you don't understand it.
Perhaps you don't understand orthodox Christianity? :confused:

Communisim does work when those in authority are not corrupt, God is not corrupt.
Communism only works when EVERYONE is not corrupt, the people in power as well as the general population. However, there will always on this earth be people who don't want to work, are lazy, steal, cheat, etc, and thus God has not set us up under a communistic spirituality where everyone gets everything or the same thing...one gets rewarded or punished based on their belief, faithfulness, perseverance, love, etc etc.

What would be unjust is to deny people spiritual experience because they have some common sense. God as depicted by modern Christianity does not make sense
The fact that Christianity doesn't make sense to unsaved people has nothing to do with "modern" Christianity, that has always been the case:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18


FerventGodSeeker
 
bunny1ohio said:
Judge not my friend.... that's God's job. And even men in all their errant wisdom have determined that "all men are created equal"...and unjust for whom? For the sinners?.... aren't we all sinners? So what makes you any better than anyone else? Your own beliefs say that you need only ask to be forgiven...
Despite popular misconception, Christians are also called to judge:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." John 7:24

"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" 1 Corinthians 6:2

No, it would be unjust for those who acted righteously and followed God faithfully. Do you really think it is just for Mother Teresa to get the same reward as Hitler?
As far as all of us being sinners, yes, we are all sinners. However, there are obvious degrees of sin (which separate the level of culpability between, say, a murderer, and a little boy who tells a white lie), and Christians in fellowship with God are being constantly cleansed of their sin. I don't claim to be perfect, and I never have. That doesn't mean I can't recognize obvious injustice when I see it.

FerventGodSeeker
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
FerventGodSeeker said:
As I understand it, Mormonism teaches that each member of the Godhead is in fact a separate god or deity, which Catholicism does not teach. They are all One God, not three Gods or three thirds that together make one whole God. They are each fully God all by themselves, yet they are all the same God. Have I thoroughly confused you yet? :p
Thoroughly confused, and convinced that you guys never learned to count. :D You say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each God. You mention each of them as a distinct person and say that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. And yet you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that they are the same God. Yeah, I'm confused, and furthermore, I suspect that Christ's Apostles would have been equally confused by such an explanation! ;)
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
FerventGodSeeker said:
Wow, I believe differently than you so that must mean my faith is blind:rolleyes: . How exactly is the Church against Christ's teachings?
You're right, i apologise - everyone has a bit of blind faith. I don't know you, i'm in no position yet to judge your sort of faith.
The Church is against Christ's teachings because it does not teach what Christ taught, it teaches belief in blood sacrifice as the be all and end all.

FerventGodSeeker said:
What underlying beliefs? Some believe in the Trinity, some don't. Some believe Jesus is God, some don't. Some believe that faith alone is necesary for salvation, some don't. Some believe that only Scripture is the authoritative Word of God, some don't. Some believe baptism is necesary for salvation, some don't. Some believe you can lose your salvation, some don't. How much more diverse could a set of people all claiming the same title, "Christian", possibly get?
Well, they're all pretty minor differences (except the one about not believing Jesus is God, but do you still count those people as Christian?). The similarity which all share is the belief in Jesus's blood atonement, its slightly different for the Eastern Orthodox, but you still all believe that Jesus was sent here to die.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Yes, you read it, and then you interpreted it, whether you realize it or not. Everyone has bias and presuppositions when they read Scripture, I certainly admit that I do. How do you know that your interpretation and understanding of what you read is true?
Well, what you say is true. The reason i think my interpretation is the most accurate is that there are no contradictions in my beliefs, no interpretations that i cannot give a logical reason for.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Great, that still doesn't mean that such Gnosis is a prerequisite to be guided by the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit GIVES us enlightenment and insight.
I agree, the HS does give us Gnosis, but if you don't have gnosis, how do you know from what source your guidance comes?

FerventGodSeeker said:
How do you know that the Holy Spirit wasn't involved?
Because if she had been then the Church would be Gnostic ;) .

FerventGodSeeker said:
Sure I did...The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
The true Church is the original Church, with unbroken lineage and succession back to Apostles...only the Catholic Church has that.

All "Christians" are not part of it, as many people who claim to be Christian aren't at all. Catholics believe that all Trinitarian, baptized Christians are a part of the Body of Christ, although those out of unity with Rome have an imperfect union.
I'm sorry, you're not making a lot of sense to me, either there is one church which contains all Christians or there isn't???

FerventGodSeeker said:
It was obvious because the second generation Christians knew the Apostles and knew their disciples. It would have been obvious that, "Oh, yeah, that guy was Paul's disciple, he's taking over." etc. If some random guy that they had never seen before had stood up and tried to take power, it simply wouldn't have worked.
Then why so many different beliefs? Why the Gnositcs, why the Ebionites? If it was so obvious who the true Church was?

FerventGodSeeker said:
Meister Eckhart lived in the 13th century; we're talking about second generation Christianity (late first/early second century).
Heresy is heresy, and the punishment for severe heresy until relatively recently was death.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Whether you choose to believe it or not, there was a split:
"They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us;..." 1 John 2:16
"And their message will spread like cancer. Hymenaeus and Philetus are of this sort, who have strayed concerning the truth, saying that the resurrection is already past; and they overthrow the faith of some." 2 Timothy 2:17-18
You never heard of propaganda?

FerventGodSeeker said:
Ah, I see. Why do you call them "proto-orthodox" and not simply "orthodox"?
Because they were the sect that would become the orthodox, their beliefs were still quite flexible and still in the process of being defined.
wiki said:
The word "heresy" comes from the Greek αιρεσις, hairesis (from αιρεομαι, haireomai, "choose"), which means either a choice of beliefs or a faction of dissident believers. It was given wide currency by Irenaeus in his tract Contra Haereses (Against Heresies) to describe and discredit his opponents in the early Christian Church. He described his own position as orthodox (from ortho- "straight" + doxa "thinking") and his position eventually evolved into the position of the early Christian Church.

FerventGodSeeker said:
The punishment for heresy was excommunication. Gnosticism died out because, as the Church grew and became established, heresy was slowly weeded out, through Councils, declarations, etc. Thus, Gnosticism, like many other heresies throughout Church history, died out.
It depends on the type of heresy. In a Christian state (which Rome was after Constantine) the punishment for heresy was death. For an orthodox Christian with certain beliefs that were unusual, they were like you say, probably excommunicated and given the chance to repent and return. Gnostics wouldn't have received such a light sentance.

What do you define heresy as? Why do you think it exists?

FerventGodSeeker said:
It doesn't contradict at all, I explained exactly what the implication of the passage is when compared to the rest of Scripture: Jesus is God.
Ok then, lets try another angle. Explain to me how God can be a single God in three persons? Imagine i know nothing of the Trinity as a concept. Please be detailed, as if you were explaining to a child.

FerventGodSeeker said:
How is that petty and childish? If they want no part of God, you're saying God should force Himself onto them anyways? Do you believe in free will?
Not force, but God would not abandon those who aren't convinced. He stays even if they never realise it.

FerventGodSeeker said:
You just contradicted yourself. You said the advantages of being a religious, God-fearing person are inner peace, love, etc, and then said you don't need belief in God to have those things. :confused:
Thats not a contradiction, a belief in God isn't necessary for a person to be religious.

FerventGodSeeker said:
How is someone worthy of salvation if they refuse to recognize the Savior??
It all depends on what they are taught about the Saviour, if what they are taught does not make sense to them, then it is the fault of those who teach. A person is worthy of salvation if they are a good person.

FerventGodSeeker said:
No, you can't. Buddha may have been wise, but he didn't have spiritual enlightenment.
According to you, i know about 350 million Buddhists who would disagree with you.
I'd stongly suggest that you read up on other religions, especially if you want to live up to that username you have chosen.

FerventGodSeeker said:
He believed in reincarnation, for goodness sake...do you?
Of course i believe it is a possibility. It is one of the basic beliefs of Gnosticism, that the divine spark is reincarnated if it does not gain Gnosis.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Incorrect. Again, this is why it is important to understand terms. Three Persons in One God does not mean Three Gods, plain and simple.
That's just it, it doesn't seem simple to me, hopefully you will explain why it is so simple in my request above.

FerventGodSeeker said:
No, I don't, because the Catholic beliefs of the Early Church Fathers have been maintained through the guidance and preservation of the Holy Spirit for 2,000 years...the innovations of Protestantism are inventions of man that have only been around for 500 or less.
How do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't abandon the Catholic Chuch centuries ago? Faith?

FerventGodSeeker said:
What does it mean to "become a Christ"?
To become annointed by God.

FerventGodSeeker said:
If the true Church was in the hearts of men then the Church would never have lost truth or Apostolic authority, but you claim it did...and by the hands of the men who you claim the Church resides in, no less!
Men are ignorant of the Church "The kingdom of the Father is spread across the Earth, but people are unaware of it."
Jesus's teachings allow us to see the true Church, the Church that is within and without.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Excommunication and execution are quite different, actually. If you are executed, you don't get a second chance...you're dead, that's it. If a person is excommunicated, it is in the hope that they will renounce their heresy or mortal sin and return to the Church. The two are completely different concepts.
Yet they are often shunned by their community, they would only renounce their heresy to rejoin their families, the heresy would most likely remain in their hearts though. Doubts don't normally disappear that easily.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Jesus said, "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father but through Me." John 14:6 If that's not a Mediator, I don't know what is.
I didn't say that Jeses wasn't a mediator (and he's referring to his teachings here). The intermediaries i referred to are the church leaders.
 

Halcyon

Lord of the Badgers
FerventGodSeeker said:
Denial and ignorance are two very different things. A person who is ignorant has no knowledge of God, and thus are oblivious to His existence or influence, and doesn't know any better. A person who denies God is one who knows about God, but says, "No, I want no part of that, I don't believe in God." Such people get exactly what they want due to the free will that God has given them: They will have nothing to do with God. They are not a part of His Church.
It depends on which god they deny really though, doesn't it?
People are born ignorant of the true God, its in our nature. I see nothing wrong in denying a false god, except that denial of him often accompanies an acceptance of strong skepticism of all spiritual matters.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Or, they are One God, yet there is a difference between them making them two different Persons--two Persons in One God!:eek:
Still seeing polytheism, looking forward to your explaination. :)

FerventGodSeeker said:
Learned people who study a given subject disagree all the time about exactly the same findings. The fact that one group places this epistle in the second century doesn't mean theirs is the only answer and that there are not other educated views which disagree.
Very true. However, since these people are most likely not men of the orthodox faith, i find their findings more credible due to a lack of bias towards the orthodox opinion.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Perhaps you don't understand orthodox Christianity? :confused:
I have no doubt that i do not understand it as well as you. But i bet i understand your beliefs better than you understand mine.

FerventGodSeeker said:
Communism only works when EVERYONE is not corrupt, the people in power as well as the general population. However, there will always on this earth be people who don't want to work, are lazy, steal, cheat, etc, and thus God has not set us up under a communistic spirituality where everyone gets everything or the same thing...one gets rewarded or punished based on their belief, faithfulness, perseverance, love, etc etc.
God is not corrupt and is in fact incorruptible. People are rarely corrupt, but they are ignorant. I don't believe in reward or punishment for belief, i only believe in gnosis. If you dont strive for gnosis, you don't get it - its not about punishment, its about overcoming ignorance.

FerventGodSeeker said:
The fact that Christianity doesn't make sense to unsaved people has nothing to do with "modern" Christianity, that has always been the case:

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." 1 Corinthians 1:18
And now we see why some people thought Paul was a Gnostic.
Gnosticism seems like foolishness to you, does it not? And in my eyes you are perishing because of it. If i reach gnosis the power of God will save me from ignorance.

Interpretation isn't a one way street, as you yourself have already pointed out.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Katzpur said:
FerventGodSeeker said:
Thoroughly confused, and convinced that you guys never learned to count. :D You say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each God. You mention each of them as a distinct person and say that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. And yet you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that they are the same God. Yeah, I'm confused, and furthermore, I suspect that Christ's Apostles would have been equally confused by such an explanation! ;)
They weren't, and still aren't! I doubt that any of the apostles at Nicea, or any of the modern bishops could explain the Trinity to any greater extent than has been attempted here. Not every aspect of God has to be thoroughly understood by humanity to make it a valid aspect.

To say that the three Persons are not each other, but that they are the same God is not contradictory.
 
Katzpur said:
FerventGodSeeker said:
Thoroughly confused, and convinced that you guys never learned to count. :D You say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are each God. You mention each of them as a distinct person and say that the Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Holy Ghost, etc. And yet you turn around and contradict yourself by saying that they are the same God. Yeah, I'm confused, and furthermore, I suspect that Christ's Apostles would have been equally confused by such an explanation! ;)
While it may be hard to completely wrap your mind around, when ISN'T God hard to wrap your mind around? That's part what makes Him wonderful, isn't it? yes, they are each distinct Persons, and yet One God. The Bible clearly differentiates between the three of them as Persons, yet is also clearly monotheistic, teaching the existence of only One God. Thus, if they are all God, they must be One and the same God, yet still remain distinct as separate Persons.

FerventGodSeeker
 

bunny1ohio

Active Member
FerventGodSeeker said:
Despite popular misconception, Christians are also called to judge:

"Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment." John 7:24

"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" 1 Corinthians 6:2

No, it would be unjust for those who acted righteously and followed God faithfully. Do you really think it is just for Mother Teresa to get the same reward as Hitler?
As far as all of us being sinners, yes, we are all sinners. However, there are obvious degrees of sin (which separate the level of culpability between, say, a murderer, and a little boy who tells a white lie), and Christians in fellowship with God are being constantly cleansed of their sin. I don't claim to be perfect, and I never have. That doesn't mean I can't recognize obvious injustice when I see it.

Jesus Christ said in his own words "judge not lest ye be judged"... Not one of the desciples... Christ himself according to Scripture... And I wouldn't use a quote from the letter to the Corinthians as he was actually giving them a set-down in that quote... you shouldn't pick your scriptures based on one line... you should read the context as well... He was telling them they w ere stupid and petty for taking each other to court and doling punishment that was meant for the "saints" and God to judge. And the quote from John is when he is retelling a parable to them... he is basically telling them do not judge a book by its cover and do not judge a man by his actions but by his heart...

And it would only be unjust in your eyes. I was a Baptist growing up... I know my scriptures too... and it says

Isaiah 58:2 Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.

This tells you that it is not man's place to judge but God's.

Collosians 1:21-22
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:

Means once you accept Christ and ask forgiveness ALL sins are forgiven... not just the ones that MEN have decided should be.

How bout James 4:11...
Don't speak evil against each other, my dear brothers and sisters. If you criticize each other and condemn each other, then you are criticizing and condemning God's law. But you are not a judge who can decide whether the law is right or wrong. Your job is to obey it.

So God is "unjust" because he would forgive a murderer and not a liar if one asked for it and the other didn't?... That is all that is required... like it or don't... it's your chosen religion.
 

wmam

Active Member
Buttercup said:
I was hoping for a longer explanation that this. What version of the New Testament did you derive your first scripture from? It is very foreign to me and I am wanting clarification.

I really shouldn't have put forth such pearls. There is no need to look to a version when looking for truth. It is in all versions. One would need to understand the Old to even come close to getting the New. I look at it this way........If you really are of pure heart and are searching truth then you will find it. May YAH enlighten your path.

Buttercup said:
Jesus on numerous occasions claims equal authority with God. We can debate this in another thread if you like but you have to be a nice boy....I remember that you have been warned for flaming in the past and I won't debate with a flamer.

No need to debate. I know you are wrong and you believe that I am. What is there to debate in this? Waste of time. Oh..... and it isn't my flaming that you have to worry about. ;)

Buttercup said:
Once again I will say that Jesus is of equal power and authority as God. He is not "under" him in authority...they are equal. And again, we can discuss this in another thread.

Again......... no need. Total waste of my time.

Buttercup said:
I used my own personal bibles to look up said quote. The NIV and American Standard. I notice you don't mention what version you use. Care to name it?

I use a number of different sources to decipher through all the human errors of translations. But I favor the KJV just for day to day reading. I do however like the NIV interlinear English/Hebrew as well as the JPS/English Tanakh and of course a few good different versions of the Pe****ta. Again though.......... It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to find much info on the added verse in question.

You have your misunderstandings of what is written and I have what I know to be true. There is no debate here. You posted what I know to be wrong info as to the context and understandings of what you was debating and I showed truth. Accept it or not. It makes no utter difference to me.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Halcyon said:
Surely this is God himself denying the trinity?

There is God, and beside him is no saviour, no Jesus?

The Trinity is the Christian attempt to be true to the Shema. The Trinity does not deny that God alone is One and is Savior. Trinitarians are monotheists.
 

Buttercup

Veteran Member
wmam said:
I really shouldn't have put forth such pearls. There is no need to look to a version when looking for truth. It is in all versions. One would need to understand the Old to even come close to getting the New. I look at it this way........If you really are of pure heart and are searching truth then you will find it. May YAH enlighten your path



No need to debate. I know you are wrong and you believe that I am. What is there to debate in this? Waste of time. Oh..... and it isn't my flaming that you have to worry about. ;)



Again......... no need. Total waste of my time.



I use a number of different sources to decipher through all the human errors of translations. But I favor the KJV just for day to day reading. I do however like the NIV interlinear English/Hebrew as well as the JPS/English Tanakh and of course a few good different versions of the Pe****ta. Again though.......... It doesn't take a Rocket Scientist to find much info on the added verse in question.

You have your misunderstandings of what is written and I have what I know to be true. There is no debate here. You posted what I know to be wrong info as to the context and understandings of what you was debating and I showed truth. Accept it or not. It makes no utter difference to me.

Why do you post on this forurm wmam? You think you are right, are never interested in being honest and quoting your sources...and then when someone calls you on it you whine and complain about not wanting to debate. Why are you here? Why are you always so reluctant to claim your sources? The reason I ask for sources is to further understand where you're coming from....I do it all the time on RF. What on earth is your point then?
 
Halcyon said:
You're right, i apologise...
Thanks, I forgive you.:hug:

...it teaches belief in blood sacrifice as the be all and end all.
The be all and end all of what? If you don't believe that Christ's sacrifice was necesary, I don't see how you can believe in Christ in a religious way at all:
"Then He said to them, “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” And He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures. Then He said to them, “Thus it is written, and thus it was necessary for the Christ to suffer and to rise from the dead the third day," Luke 24:44-46


Well, they're all pretty minor differences...
Pretty minor differences? You mean the entire mode of how one is saved (faith, works, or both) is minor? The belief in or denial of the sacraments is minor? Proper interpretation of Scripture is minor? All these things are not minor at all, they are major, huge differences.

...The reason i think my interpretation is the most accurate is that there are no contradictions in my beliefs, no interpretations that i cannot give a logical reason for.
But again, that is all just based on you. Your knowledge, your insight, your belief of what is right and wrong, your opinion. There's no objectivity to that at all. It's an entirely subjective method that provides no authority for the entire Church other than the personal opinions of each Christian, which obviously vary quite widely.

I agree, the HS does give us Gnosis, but if you don't have gnosis, how do you know from what source your guidance comes?
You know it comes from the Holy Spirit because the Holy Spirit reveals it to you, either personally or authoritatively through the Church.

Because if she had been then the Church would be Gnostic...
Well that's a lovely opinion. It's a pity that the Church vehemently opposed Gnosticism from the get-go; that kinda puts a damper on your theory.

...either there is one church which contains all Christians or there isn't???
You're right, there is One Church which contains all Christians, and I explained what the Catholic understanding of a Christian is. However, the problem is that many people claim to be Christian who are not. "Christian" is a very widely used term is today's world. In America today, Christianity is basically the default religion; many people who have almost no knowledge of religion or Christianity, but believe in God, say, "Oh, yeah, sure I'm Christian", when they have next to know idea what that actually means. So, unfortunately, there is a distinction that must be made between those who truly are orthodox Christians, and those who may claim to be but do not meet the orthodox doctrinal standard. Does that clear it up at all?

Then why so many different beliefs? ...
There were many different beliefs because the Church had just gotten started and it wasn't nearly as organized as it is today. As the Church progressed and developed, doctrinal clarification through increased organization, Councils, etc., weeded out heresy. Then, as new challenges and heresies came along through the centuries, the Church continued to grow and clarify to fight against the heretical teachings.

...the punishment for severe heresy until relatively recently was death.
In the Dark/Middle Ages, yes you're right, it was. However, a proper historical undestanding for WHY the punishment was so serious requires that one understand the Medieval mindframe and the circumstances of the time period. Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong does an excellent job explaining this:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/02/inquisition-its-purpose-and-rationale.html



You never heard of propaganda?
Even if this was propaganda (I really don't know where you get off calling the Bible propaganda but call yourself a Christian, but ok...), it still proves that there was a faction of teachers who split off from them who they were "propagandizing" against. So again, as I said, there was a split.


...their beliefs were still quite flexible and still in the process of being defined.
Sure, but they were still always orthodox (adhering to the accepted universal teaching(s) of the faith). The Gnostics and other groups did not adhere to these teachings, thus they were considered heretical (and still are).

...Gnostics wouldn't have received such a light sentance.
Excommunication is never a light sentence, is the most serious punishment that a Church member can receive. All excommunicants were given the chance to recant their heretical views...the whole reason a person was excommunicated was because they refused to do so.

What do you define heresy as? Why do you think it exists?
This is definition from the American Heritage Dictionary:
"An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, especially dissension from or denial of Roman Catholic dogma by a professed believer or baptized church member; Adherence to such dissenting opinion or doctrine."

This seems like a pretty good definition to me. When the Church authoritatively delcares a teaching, and then someone starts preaching beliefs against that, such beliefs are heretical.
I believe heresy exists because Satan and world system are vehemently opposed to Christ and His Church, and unfortunately fabricate lies in order to oppose established truths of God. In other cases, I believe that certain heresies are man-made, out of personal pride, selfishness, greed, etc.

FerventGodSeeker
 
...Explain to me how God can be a single God in three persons? Imagine i know nothing of the Trinity as a concept. Please be detailed, as if you were explaining to a child.
If I were explaining to a child, I woudn't be detailed or techinical at all, obviously. I would explain it in basic, plain terms. If I were explaining it to a child, I would probably use real world examples to show a three-in-one concept. For example, water can exist as a liquid, a solid, or a gas. Yet it is still the same substance, it is water (although it is called ice when solid, vapor when gas, etc). Another example would be time, composed of past, present, and future. A simplistic example which St. Patrick used to describe the Trinity was the three-leaf clover.
Not force, but God would not abandon those who aren't convinced. He stays even if they never realise it.
So again, if they want no part of God, they thoroughly reject the thought that He even exists, and yet you're saying that God should compromise the free will He gave them, and save them anyways? That simply makes no sense, and turns us all into robots.
...a belief in God isn't necessary for a person to be religious.
So a Godless religion can provide you with all the things that a God-fearing religion can provide you...again, I'm not seeing the point to being Gnostic. If Gnosticism is true, I can completely reject God, live my life completely apart from Him without ever acknowledging Him or thanking Him, still get all the spiritual insight I need to live a wonderful fulfilled life, and in the end when I die God will accept me and save me anyways, even though I never wanted anything to do with Him or from Him.
...if what they are taught does not make sense to them, then it is the fault of those who teach. A person is worthy of salvation if they are a good person.
If a person is spiritually blind, then the best teaching in the world will not make sense to them, as I already showed you with that verse from Scripture. If anyone knows even remotely anything about Christianity, they know that it teaches a Savior which is necesary to atone for sin. Obviously a person must accept such a gift for it to be effective in one's own life (although apparently in your view no such acknowledgement is necesary, so let's just all spit in God's face while we're at it). The "goodness" of a person is judged by the Savior, and if you've completely rejected the judge and refuse to acknowledge Him or His power and authority, the prospects of your salvation can't be very good.
...i know about 350 million Buddhists who would disagree with you.
And I know a billion+ Christians who would disagree with you...your point?
I'd stongly suggest that you read up on other religions...
I have, thanks. I choose Christianity (specifically, Roman Catholicism) beause I HAVE looked at other religions and studied what they teach...yet I choose Christ and His Church.
...It is one of the basic beliefs of Gnosticism, that the divine spark is reincarnated if it does not gain Gnosis.
Pity Christ never taught that.
How do you know that the Holy Spirit didn't abandon the Catholic Chuch centuries ago? Faith?
The promises of Christ, actually:
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you." John 14:25-26
"However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come." John 16:13
"and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age." Matthew 28:20
"And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." Matthew 16:18
The Church was promised by Christ that the Gates of Hades would never prevail against it, and that the Holy Spirit would bring them into all truth, and that He would be with them always.
...Jesus's teachings allow us to see the true Church, the Church that is within and without.
Jesus teachings also clearly show us that He left His Apostles in charge, with the keys to the Kingdom and the power to bind and loose, as the authority of the Church. Thus, we are to obey the Church's authoritative commands just as we obey Christ's authoritative commands.
...they would only renounce their heresy to rejoin their families, the heresy would most likely remain in their hearts though...
Sure, that's certainly possible, but what better system could you suggest? They didn't have polygraph tests back then; they couldn't say, "No, you're just saying that get back to your family, you dn't really mean it." What is the other alternative? Simply let heresy run wild? Let Christians believe whatever they want to believe? Provide no form of Church discipline or make any authoritative pronouncements whatsoever? That is nothing short of choas, not the Church Christ established.
...The intermediaries i referred to are the church leaders
First of all, define intermediary and why a clergyman can't be one.

FerventGodSeeker
 
Halcyon said:
It depends on which god they deny really though, doesn't it?
Of course. Obviously I was referring to the One, True God.
People are born ignorant of the true God, its in our nature. I see nothing wrong in denying a false god, except that denial of him often accompanies an acceptance of strong skepticism of all spiritual matters.
Sure, but that's not an excuse. It seems obvious that just because one religion is false, that doesn't mean they all are.

Very true. However, since these people are most likely not men of the orthodox faith, i find their findings more credible due to a lack of bias towards the orthodox opinion.
On the contrary, seeing as they aren't orthodox, it could be easily assumed that they may have bias AGAINST the orthodox opinion, and thus their views are slanted in such a way. That's why it's important to get all sides of the information.

I have no doubt that i do not understand it as well as you. But i bet i understand your beliefs better than you understand mine.
That's quite possible, I won't deny that. Gnosticism has only recently started gaining popularity again, and doesn't have many devout followers, whereas there are millions if not billions of orthodox Christians, and information about orthodox Christianity, both positive and negative, is much more accesible and widespread.

God is not corrupt and is in fact incorruptible. People are rarely corrupt, but they are ignorant. I don't believe in reward or punishment for belief, i only believe in gnosis. If you dont strive for gnosis, you don't get it - its not about punishment, its about overcoming ignorance.
There's a reward for gaining Gnosis, is there not? And there's a punishment for not gaining Gnosis also, even if that simply means having to live another life on earth (i.e. reincarnation), right?

And now we see why some people thought Paul was a Gnostic.
Like who?

Gnosticism seems like foolishness to you, does it not? And in my eyes you are perishing because of it. If i reach gnosis the power of God will save me from ignorance.
I'm not understanding your acceptance/rejection of Scripture. I cite one Scripture which you agree with, and you say, "Sure, that fits with Gnosticism, too" Then when I cite you another verse which disagrees with Gnosticism, even from the same author (such as other epistles of Paul I have cited), you say "Oh, well he was an orthodox Christian, of course he would say that, he's biased." You can't just pick and choose what you want out of a big free-for-all canonical basket. You either accept the whole canon, or you don't. Or at the very least, be consistent with yourself: Which books/authors of the Bible do you accept as authoritative, and which don't you, and why?

Interpretation isn't a one way street, as you yourself have already pointed out
I have never pointed out that any verse in the Bible could be used to positively assert or defend Gnosticism;) .

FerventGodSeeker
 
bunny1ohio said:
Jesus Christ said in his own words "judge not lest ye be judged"... Not one of the desciples... Christ himself according to Scripture...
It's funny that you later tell me I shouldn't take verses out of context, when you take that verse totally out of context as a universal condemnation of any and all judging. If you look at the context there in Matthew 7, it's referring to hypocritical judgment, not all judgment of any kind (see verses 3-5).
And I wouldn't use a quote from the letter to the Corinthians as he was actually giving them a set-down in that quote... you shouldn't pick your scriptures based on one line... you should read the context as well... He was telling them they w ere stupid and petty for taking each other to court and doling punishment that was meant for the "saints" and God to judge.
So then you admit that it is appropriate for the saints to judge in accordance with God at certain times?
And the quote from John is when he is retelling a parable to them... he is basically telling them do not judge a book by its cover and do not judge a man by his actions but by his heart...
So then, again, you're admitting that certain types of judgment are acceptable, and even commanded?

And it would only be unjust in your eyes.
No, I think most of the world (or at least the free world) understands that communism, whether spiritual or political, is totally unjust. Again, do you honestly think it's just for Mother Teresa and Hitler to get the same reward?
I was a Baptist growing up...
Me too! :D

Isaiah 58:2 Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinances of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.

This tells you that it is not man's place to judge but God's.
What? Judgement isn't even at issue in the passage at all. This verse is describing how God's people were seeking Him and did not forsake His ordinances (i.e. laws or commands). It specifically says that they "delight to know" God's ways; later on in the passage it discusses the right and wrong way to fast, but I'm not sure where you're getting that they judged wrongly.



Collosians 1:21-22
And you, that were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now hath he reconciled

In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:


Means once you accept Christ and ask forgiveness ALL sins are forgiven... not just the ones that MEN have decided should be.
What does that have to do with righteous judgment that Christians are called to? Just so you know, the Church was given the power to either retain or forgive sins (John 20:28) Our sins are forgiven as we continually confess them (1 John 1:9).

How bout James 4:11...
Don't speak evil against each other, my dear brothers and sisters. If you criticize each other and condemn each other, then you are criticizing and condemning God's law. But you are not a judge who can decide whether the law is right or wrong. Your job is to obey it.
Great verse. Where does this verse indicate that Christians can never make righteous judgments in accordance with God's law?

So God is "unjust" because he would forgive a murderer and not a liar if one asked for it and the other didn't?
No, when did I say that?
That is all that is required
What is all that is required? Required for what?

FerventGodSeeker
 

wmam

Active Member
Buttercup said:
Why do you post on this forurm wmam?

Because I enjoy it so. ;)

I also enjoy dispelling lies with truth.

Buttercup said:
You think you are right,

I'm happy knowing that YAH is right 100% of the time.

Buttercup said:
are never interested in being honest

Now that was just rude and uncalled for. You having such the bad day to where you stoop to personal attacks such as this to make your point seem true and real? I'll pray for you that you will have peace and love in your life so you won't feel the urge to lash out at others as you have done here.

Buttercup said:
and quoting your sources...

I quoted my source but you didn't like my answer. I won't apologize for the truth I shared. You are free to take or leave what I posted.

Buttercup said:
and then when someone calls you on it you whine and complain about not wanting to debate.

LOL......Further personal attacks...... They make pills for this you know;)

I haven't whined and complained. I have only stated a fact. Its useless to debate with one, as it seems you are, so disturbed or discomforted that you see the need to lash out at what you don't understand.

Buttercup said:
Why are you here?

Again, because I enjoy it. Are you here for any other reason?

Buttercup said:
Why are you always so reluctant to claim your sources?

Why can't you just accept the fact that I am right and you are wrong and let it go? LOL For the 3rd time now....... my source is...... The Scriptures. Ghezzzzzzzz. lol

Buttercup said:
The reason I ask for sources is to further understand where you're coming from....I do it all the time on RF. What on earth is your point then?

If you don't or can't see where I am coming from, and if you don't or can't see the point by now, then either you never will or it just isn't your time as yet.

This post of yours has really went along way in showing me just who you really are. Thanks for the reply.
 
Top