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
. 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
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.
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!
...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