False Prophets the most used comeback!

[Vouthon]

Dear Servant,

We do not believe that circumcision is “bad”. It is simply unnecessary for anything other than health reasons now that the Jewish ceremonial and ritual laws of the Torah are not binding on Christians. Since Jesus was himself circumcised and many American men still are, it would surely be strange for us to see it as inherently “bad”. The only “bad” thing about circumcising would be if it is conducted under the belief that it is somehow necessary for one’s soul or salvation. In and of itself, it is a morally neutral surgical operation to remove a foreskin

It was a command binding only on the children of Israel, as a sign of their covenant with God. Gentiles were never required to be circumcised. We Catholics view it as a symbol foreshadowing holy baptism and an anticipation of faith in Christ.

St. Thomas Aquinas discusses circumcision in his 13th century Summa:

As stated above (Article 1) circumcision was a preparation for Baptism, inasmuch as it was a profession of faith in Christ, which we also profess in Baptism. Now among the Fathers of old, Abraham was the first to receive the promise of the future birth of Christ, when it was said to him: “In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed” (Genesis 22:18). Moreover, he was the first to cut himself off from the society of unbelievers, in accordance with the commandment of the Lord, Who said to him (Genesis 13:1): “Go forth out of thy country and from thy kindred.” Therefore circumcision was fittingly instituted in the person of Abraham…

As stated above (Article 2), circumcision was established, as a sign of faith, by God “of” Whose “wisdom there is no number” (Psalm 146:5). Now to determine suitable signs is a work of wisdom. Consequently, it must be allowed that the rite of circumcision was fitting…

All are agreed in saying that original sin was remitted in circumcision…We must say, therefore, that grace was bestowed in circumcision as to all the effects of grace…Original sin was taken away in circumcision, in regard to the person

newadvent.org/summa/4070.htm

Does this sound negative to you my friend?

 

[PRmerger]

Every one of your circumcised family members are clearly hoped by Paul to have been castrated.

This is a horrifically vile and wicked thing to say.

How dare you use the holy words of St. Paul to state this.

 

[Servant19]

Why don’t you cite the specific verse you are referring to? (The correct one this time, please.)

1 John 4:1

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.

.

 

[Vouthon]

No I am not, PR…

Every one of your circumcised family members are clearly hoped by Paul to have been castrated. It’s in black and white, such is the “deathly” clutches of the Law in Paul’s eyes, and therefore in Jesus’ eyes.

Why do you read the Bible without precision, dear sister?

.

Friend, Paul was being hyperbolic and deliberately humorous

He wanted to make sure that Gentiles didn’t fall into the clutches of “Judaizers”. His purpose was to explain that salvation was through the blood of the New Covenant of Jesus rather than the rules and regulations of the old one. “The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life” as he once said.

Florentine Bechtel (1910) noted in old The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers: “**Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem **(Acts 21:26).”

Hebrew Catholics still follow some of the Mosaic laws - such as circumcision, ritual purity, kosher laws - due to cultural reasons. As long as they don’t see them as necessary for salvation and obligatory but out of their own free choice, the Church has no issues with them.

 

[Servant19]

This is a horrifically vile and wicked thing to say.

How dare you use the holy words of St. Paul to state this.

I am using Biblical quotes PR. This is not my personal twisting of words. I do not mean offence at you.

Paul clearly says also in Phillipians that those who mutilate the flesh are “dogs” and “evil doers”

“3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.”

Please tell me if my reading skills are receiving me …

.

 

[Vouthon]

No I am not, PR…

Every one of your circumcised family members are clearly hoped by Paul to have been castrated. It’s in black and white, such is the “deathly” clutches of the Law in Paul’s eyes, and therefore in Jesus’ eyes.

Why do you read the Bible without precision, dear sister?

.

No, Paul actually says that those already circumcised should be content to remain so:

**1 Corinthians 7:18 **

Was anyone at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was anyone at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision

He was simply calling for freedom of choice in this matter! Not forcing anyone!

Ultimately his point was that circumcision is morally neutral and doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things:

**1 Corinthians 7:19 **

For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God.

He was addressing not circumcised men but those who forcibly command Gentiles to circumcise out of adherence to the Torah. He humorously quips that he would rather they castrate themselves than force men against their free choice into lopping off a part of their penis.

This “force” aspect is made overt by this verse:

Not Helpful

**Galatians 2:3 **

But even Titus, who was with me, was not forced to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.

St. Paul was witty, that is all

 

[Vouthon]

I am using Biblical quotes PR. This is not my personal twisting of words. I do not mean offence at you.

Paul clearly says also in Phillipians that those who mutilate the flesh are “dogs” and “evil doers”

“3 Further, my brothers and sisters, rejoice in the Lord! It is no trouble for me to write the same things to you again, and it is a safeguard for you. 2 Watch out for those dogs, those evildoers, those mutilators of the flesh. 3 For it is we who are the circumcision, we who serve God by his Spirit, who boast in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh— 4 though I myself have reasons for such confidence.”

Please tell me if my reading skills are receiving me …

.

Yes, he is referring to the Judaizers who force non-Jews to undertake circumcision out of a false belief that is a religious obligation binding on all men. They are the evildoers and mutilators of the flesh.

 

[Servant19]

Friend, Paul was being hyperbolic and deliberately humorous

He wanted to make sure that Gentiles didn’t fall into the clutches of “Judaizers”. His purpose was to explain that salvation was through the blood of the New Covenant of Jesus rather than the rules and regulations of the old one. “The letter killeth, the spirit giveth life” as he once said.

Florentine Bechtel (1910) noted in old The Catholic Encyclopedia article on Judaizers: “**Paul, on the other hand, not only did not object to the observance of the Mosaic Law, as long as it did not interfere with the liberty of the Gentiles, but he conformed to its prescriptions when occasion required (1 Corinthians 9:20). Thus he shortly after circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:1-3), and he was in the very act of observing the Mosaic ritual when he was arrested at Jerusalem **(Acts 21:26).”

Hebrew Catholics still follow some of the Mosaic laws - such as circumcision, ritual purity, kosher laws - due to cultural reasons. As long as they don’t see them as necessary for salvation and obligatory but out of their own free choice, the Church has no issues with them.

In like manner brother Vouthon, Baha’u’llah does not mind if you continue to believe in a physical resurrection as long as you assist in building His New World Order, the new Jerusalem.

PR clearly wants to throw rotten tomatoes at Baha’u’llah for the sake of throwing tomatoes, whereas just as the SPIRIT is critical for Jesus ministry, the collective unification of humanity is critical for Baha’u’llahs ministry.

She wants to call Baha’u’llah a false prophet by focussing on a passage that clarifies some ancient history, then it can just as easily be done through the circumcision route for Jesus.

All I’m asking for is fairness and justice in our judgement. This in turn puts us in right relationship with God

.

 

[Servant19]

No, Paul actually says that those already circumcised should be content to remain so:

He was simply calling for freedom of choice in this matter! Not forcing anyone!

Ultimately his point was that circumcision is morally neutral and doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things:

He was addressing not circumcised men but those who forcibly command Gentiles to circumcise out of adherence to the Torah. He humorously quips that he would rather they castrate themselves than force men against their free choice into lopping off a part of their penis.

This “force” aspect is made overt by this verse:

Not Helpful

St. Paul was witty, that is all

Hi brother

I don’t read Phillipians and Galatians as humour and neither does my lecturer, Benedictine monk Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson.

Paul drew a line in the sand between what was the Mosaic Law and what was Christianity.

Obviously those who were already circumcised when he drew this line in the sand could not REVERSE the process, but nevertheless the line was drawn. The Law was the “ministry of death” and Jesus was life.

If we are to be accurate with our reading, and true to Jesus’ revelation, any form of Mosaic observance after that statement by Paul is as he said, an “evil doing”

.

 

[Vouthon]

Hi brother

I don’t read Phillipians and Galatians as humour and neither does my lecturer, Benedictine monk Prof. Luke Timothy Johnson.

Paul drew a line in the sand between what was the Mosaic Law and what was Christianity.

Obviously those who were already circumcised when he drew this line in the sand could not REVERSE the process, but nevertheless the line was drawn. The Law was the “ministry of death” and Jesus was life.

If we are to be accurate with our reading, and true to Jesus’ revelation, any form of Mosaic observance after that statement by Paul is as he said, an “evil doing”

.

Dear brother Servant

An informative post, thank you!

As you will know, there is great debate about Paul’s relationship with Judaism in the academic community and no clear consensus has emerged.

The New Perspective on Paul would certainly not agree with your assessment above. As is known from Acts, he did perform circumcision and even something close to a Nazirite vow while in Jerusalem, long after his “conversion” experience.

I see no evidence that Paul commanded Jews to cease from following the Mosaic Law. His Epistles addressed mainly to Gentiles were rather concerned with warning them against falling into the hands of Judaizers, who taught that the Mosaic Law was necessary for their relationship with God and for sanctifying grace.

He himself still adhered to the Torah. He simply wanted to re-orient the focus: Christ is what is important, not circumcision or dietary requirements.

Nonetheless, we are each entitled to our own opinions on this matter. The Church’s position is fairly straightforward.

Academics have spent 30 years trying to convince each other about things such as these, so I think we should probably quite while we are ahead

 

[Servant19]

Dear brother Servant

An informative post, thank you!

As you will know, there is great debate about Paul’s relationship with Judaism in the academic community and no clear consensus has emerged.

The New Perspective on Paul would certainly not agree with your assessment above. As is known from Acts, he did perform circumcision and even something close to a Nazirite vow while in Jerusalem, long after his “conversion” experience.

I see no evidence that Paul commanded Jews to cease from following the Mosaic Law. His Epistles addressed mainly to Gentiles were rather concerned with warning them against falling into the hands of Judaizers, who taught that the Mosaic Law was necessary for their relationship with God and for sanctifying grace.

He himself still adhered to the Torah.

Nonetheless, we are each entitled to our own opinions on this matter. The Church’s position is fairly straightforward.

Academics have spent 30 years trying to convince each other about things such as these, so I think we should probably quite while we are ahead

Thank you brother

I agree, there is a lot to learn and as far as I can see there is nothing absolute that can be stated when it comes to religious truth, and that includes labelling Beings such as Baha’u’llah as false prophets, seeing the tremendous amount of LIFE He is bringing to souls that are as dead, and to communities, villages, cities and countries that are as dead.

I WISH TO PUT IT ON RECORD THAT I IN NO WAY WISHED TO OFFEND PR OR ANY OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS WITH THIS PART OF THE THREAD.

I love PR with all my heart and soul, and although she repetitively calls my Beloved and Hearts Desire a falsehood, I am truly ashamed if I have in any way, shape or form hurt her heart, and for that I apologize profusely

.

 

[Vouthon]

Thank you brother

I agree, there is a lot to learn and as far as I can see there is nothing absolute that can be stated when it comes to religious truth, and that includes labelling Beings such as Baha’u’llah as false prophets, seeing the tremendous amount of LIFE He is bringing to souls that are as dead, and to communities, villages, cities and countries that are as dead.

I WISH TO PUT IT ON RECORD THAT I IN NO WAY WISHED TO OFFEND PR OR ANY OF HER FAMILY MEMBERS WITH THIS PART OF THE THREAD.

I love PR with all my heart and soul, and although she repetitively calls my Beloved and Hearts Desire a falsehood, I am truly ashamed if I have in any way, shape or form hurt her heart, and for that I apologize profusely

.

I am sure that PR will accept your apology wholeheartedly if she felt in any way offended by your words. Do not fret :console:

 

[eddie_too]

there seems to be confusion in this discussion.

in the first epistle of john, the evangelist, when he speaks of false prophets, is referring to anyone who preaches teachings that are contrary to those of the twelve.

that is what makes a person a false prophet according to the new testament. anyone who teaches contrary to the apostles is a false prophet.

 

[eddie_too]

in an earlier post from a bahai, the concept of “spiritual evolution” was discussed.

for a RCC, this is a completely nonsensical concept BECAUSE, Jesus of Nazareth is a perfect human being. mankind cannot evolve further than that. since, mankind has already produced the Perfect Human Being, now further evolution is even possible, much less necessary.

 

[eddie_too]

in a previous post, a bahai declared that the RCC cannot be (or at the least no longer be)the instrument of God because it had not, in the past 2,000 years, served to unite the world in service and adoration to the One God.

this exposes another, quite significant error in bahaullah’s teachings.

as i stated earlier, mankind has been perfected through the Incarnation. there is nothing further necessary beyond the Incarnation and its consequences, in an ontological sense-not a social sense, for each and every human being born since the first Pentecost Sunday to be saved and to reach perfection.

the bahai teachings express either a naive utopianism or a determination to use force against the rest of mankind to behave in a manner determined by bahaullah, i.e. to establish a one world government.

for the RC, the free will of every human being is to be respected as an absolute.

God gave each human being the gift of free will. it is a fundamental teaching of the RCC that God chose not to circumvent each person’s free will. that is why He chose to become one of us. it served His will best that He provide the most information and motivation possible to persuade each of us that His love for us exceeds anything we can imagine. His love extends to Him lowering Himself to live as one of us among us. His love extends to His accepting humiliation, degradation, torture and even death at the hands of His creatures.

He accepted this, even death, because He wanted us to return His love without using any kind of force and totally accepting that we are free to choose. His hope was and still is that the love that led Him to the cross will inspire us to give our love to Him in return.

this why the very concept of a one world government using force to impose its vision on the rest of us is anathema to a RC. it would violate the very gift of free will that almighty God Himself became man to preserve.

also, since we know that human beings can be perfected through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the RC also knows that utopianism is a false doctrine. this world has been infected by sin. this world will come to an end before sin is eliminated from its face. consequently, whatever good and loving society exists will exist to the extent that the number of human beings believing in Jesus Christ and being baptized increases.

the more RCs in the world, the better the world will be for all.

i recognize this is a complicated concept, the one of sin, its consequences and how it is removed from the world. however, for the RC, sin is overcome one person at a time and the world is made better each time a human being rejects in and embraces God’s grace.

 

[PRmerger]

PR clearly wants to throw rotten tomatoes at Baha’u’llah for the sake of throwing tomatoes, whereas just as the SPIRIT is critical for Jesus ministry, the collective unification of humanity is critical for Baha’u’llahs ministry.

She wants to call Baha’u’llah a false prophet by focussing on a passage that clarifies some ancient history, then it can just as easily be done through the circumcision route for Jesus.

 

[eddie_too]

if humanity cannot unite at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, the site of the act of Perfect Love, i fail to see any reason to believe that it will unite around the tens of thousands of pages writtten by bahaullah.

 

[tonyfish58]

God Bless you PRmerger

We do know you are defending your Faith with all your Heart and all your Soul in the Love of Christ

Please do not be angry, always be Happy and full of Joy

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[tonyfish58]

if humanity cannot unite at the foot of the cross of Jesus Christ, the site of the act of Perfect Love, i fail to see any reason to believe that it will unite around the tens of thousands of pages writtten by bahaullah.

Eddie - The difference is that it was not the Time for the unification of the World back then, that was not Gods Plan.

But now we are Living in the Time of Promise that this will happen. Dear eddie it will happen and you and I can do not a thing to stop it or promote it

God and God alone directs mankind as He Willeth!

God Bless and Regards Tony

 

[eddie_too]

tony wrote: "Eddie - The difference is that it was not the Time for the unification of the World back then, that was not Gods Plan.

But now we are Living in the Time of Promise that this will happen. Dear eddie it will happen and you and I can do not a thing to stop it or promote it."

i respond:

there is no way to know whether this is the time or even if there ever will be a time.

but, i would point out that through the centuries more and more of mankind is uniting in worship at the foot of the Cross.

also, the Cross of Christ is still present to this generation in an ever more visible and effective manner.

so, really tony, neither of your comments contain much substance.

neither you nor anyone else can know whether this is the time.

really, for me, on this point, it comes down to what i said earlier. it is much more reasonable to believe that the Cross of Christ will unite the world than to believe the tens of thousands of pages written by bahaullah will unite the world. seriously, who is even going to read all of those pages when they have the Cross to remind them of God’s infinite, perfect and eternal love for them.

like i said, if the act of Perfect Love does not convince people to unite, thousands of pages is definitely NOT going to do the trick.