How would YOU respond to this statement?

[PJM]

Well, the statement the OP asked us to consider isn’t which ecclesial bodies are Christian and which aren’t, so that’s not even a consideration. However, I will address your points.

Firstly, I doesn’t matter what any of us think about who is right and who is wrong. The very definition of indifferentism is that what we think about it is the same thing as what is right. No one thinks they are wrong, after all.

Secondly, different beliefs do not define who is Christian and who isn’t according to the Catholic Church. It is baptism that determines that. Those ecclesial bodies that have a valid baptism are fellow Christians imperfectly joined to the Catholic Church by reason of their baptism. There are bodies the Church does not consider Christian who don’t have a valid baptism. This doesn’t mean the Church negates their faith, but it does mean they are not in union with the Church. The Church makes no pronouncements about anyone’s salvation based on their beliefs.

My friend your point is valid BUT also VERY misleading IMO

Certainly a correct Christian Baptism [John 3:5 & Mt.28:19-20] DOES connect every Christian to the CATHOLIC Church as the ONLY Church and Faith desired, founded, and protected by Christ, and hence makes the Catholic Church [even in it’s mysterious necessity] NECESSARY for Salvation as ALL salvation must flow through Her [which is NOT saying that everyone MUST be a Catholic to attain heaven, rather that ONLY those who do NOT know of this necessity [DOES NOT KNOW DOES NOT MEAN, KNOWS & REJECTS IT]

Our Catechism http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

I suggest you search #'s 1260 & 847

Here is #847
847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation"

The REAL issue it would seem is not the FIRST step to salvation, a Christian Baptism, BUT what happens AFTER that necessary fact.

What does it MEAN to actually BE a “follower of Christ?” THAT is the essential question that must be answered fully and completely. Two words come to my mind: Humble-Obedience.

Which is why the Church has held various Councils, starting with the First Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts 15. Such questions came up and will come up as time passes. God knows perfectly well that human beings will come up with their own ideas. It’s why he founded the Church to sort out all such opinions and rule on them, so we can know what is the truth and what isn’t.

This is a GREAT summation, Thank you.

And thanks for allowing me to interject to make a few necessary points as well

 

[PJM]

Well PJM -

What do YOU think truth is?
It would be interesting to know…

And, would you be willing to list a few of those defined issues you keep talking about??
I don’t really know what you mean.

GG

Simply put [and I challenge you to disprove it with facts]

There is BUT 1 True God [Triune]

That God as evidenced in the Bible by both Yawehn and Jesus, had ONLY 1 acceptable set of faith beliefs.

Show me just 1 example were GOD even 1 time approved of, accepted, tolerated, permitted, or was otherwise “OK” with any competing sets of Faith beliefs.

And just as Yahweh had jist 1 chosen people [Exo. 6:7], Jesus followed that tradition by desiring and establishing JUST 1 Church [Faith]

For starters check out the following

Mt 10:1-8
Mt 16:15-19
John 17:17-20
John 6: 46-57
Mt.28: 19-20
John 17:17-20

Here’s a site to make it easy for you

http://drbo.org/

Welcome to CAF my friend:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Sin. In the OT sacrifices were offered for various things. The most important was the sin offering. St. Paul tells us that such offerings were the foreshadowing of the one sacrifice of Christ who paid for our sins with his blood, instead of the blood of bulls and goats. Having made that purchase we belong to Christ in baptism, but we are not saved. That is something we determine by our cooperation with God’s grace throughout our lives.

THANKS, Excellent reply:thumbsup:

 

[PJM]

Well PJM -

What do YOU think truth is?
It would be interesting to know…

And, would you be willing to list a few of those defined issues you keep talking about??
I don’t really know what you mean.

GG

PART 2 of my reply,

SURE, I will if you can be a bit more specific by exactly what YOU mean by “issues”

I will gladly do so for you

Easter Blessings my friend,

Patrick

 

[PJM]

There is another option:

It could be that there is A TRUTH, but we do not know it yet.

If there was an undeniable “truth” that was strong enough and obviously stood above all the other claims…everyone would believe it.

.

OK

BUT HOW does that change what we know FACTUALLY to be THEE truth:shrug:

God Bless you

Patrick

 

[TonyBS]

OK

BUT HOW does that change what we know FACTUALLY to be THEE truth:shrug:

God Bless you

Patrick

Facts

Prophets - Word - Book
Jesus - Word - Book
Muhammad - Word - Book
Bab - Word - Book
Baha’u’llah - Word - Books

These are the people that Claimed to Give a Message from God and have Followers. The fact can be usually be proven in the end by the Book only to those that even accept this level of scrutiny.

From this we have no way to know what is Truth, but by our Faith. One persons Truth is not another persons as to which this thread notes the obvious.

All the quotes one can produce can not Prove you have the right Faith or Truth but an understanding you have chosen for your Truth and Faith.

In the end to me it is the Heart that is the source of Truth when used in conjunction to the One eternal law that shines from each of these sources. “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

By their Fruits you will know them.

Regards Tony

 

[PJM]

I was working with the dictionary of “indifferentism”, which says: the belief that differences of religious belief are of no importance.

Is there a different definition than that?

**FROM FATHER JOHN A. HARDON’S CATHOLIC DICTIONARY

INDIFFERENTISM. Denial that the worship of God or the practice of religion is a grave duty of human beings as creatures who are totally dependent on God. It is practical indifferentism when a person acts in this way without necessarily denying that God deserves to be honored and served. Agnostic indifferentism is the attitude that one religion is as good as another, because it is claimed that there is no way of telling the difference.**

But…you just made one claim, and then opposed it.
If different beliefs don’t define who is Christian and who isn’t…then the belief that baptism determines who is Christian would not be correct.

Christian Baptism [John 3:5 & Mt 28:19-20] is the necessary requirement to be CALLED a Christian.

Such an action by ITSELF is only the starting point to ACTUALLY BEING a Christian in beliefs and practice, unless one dies immediately after being Baptized without having committed ANY sins.

There might be people who follow all that Jesus taught, but have never had the ritual with the water…and they call themselves “Christian.” There may be people who are baptized, who never follow what Jesus taught–and they say they are not Christian.
Comparing those two scenarios, I would say that the unbaptized person is the Christian and that it takes much more than a ritual to make a person so.
If that were the case, then people on this forum would have to stop arguing that Hitler–who was baptized and was an altar boy–is not only Christian, but also Catholic

But that is ONLY your opinion, neither supported by the Bible or fact, or Tradition. GOD, who inspired the Bible 2nd. Tim. 3:16-17:shrug:
.

You also defined “Christian” according to what one church believes, which is not what the others believe.

2 Tim 3: 16-17
16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work

John 3: 5
[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee,** unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.**

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU! [MY CATHOLIC CHURCH] all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded [HERE COMMANDED MEANS BOTH COMMANDED & TAUGHT TO YOU] YOU and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world".

[GREAT]Yes, but as we have shown time and time again…humans make mistakes. Many people on this forum think the pope is making mistakes in his words and teachings. So then, is it not possible that people on those councils have made mistakes, too?

NO, NOT if the Church Magisterium [teaching authority] is teaching on the 2 God-protected topics of Faith-beliefs and or Morals]

Mt 10: 1-2
[1] And having called his twelve disciples together,** he gave them power over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of diseases, and all manner of infirmities**. [2] And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother,

Mt 16:18-19
[18] And I[GOD] say to YOU: That thou art Peter; and upon [YOU-PETER] this rock I will build my church,[SINGULAR] and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to YOU [PETER] the keys of the kingdom [ALL OF THEM] of heaven. And whatsoever YOU shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever YOU shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

John 17:17-20
[17] Sanctify them in truth. Thy word is truth. [GOD CANNOT DENY HIMSELF][18] As thou hast sent me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. SEE MT 10; ABOVE. GOD IS HERE GRANTRING HIS CHURCH A LIMITED AMOUNT OF HOS GODLY POWERS AND AUTHORITY[19]** And for them do I sanctify myself, that they also may be sanctified in truth**.HERE JESUS GIVES HIMSELF AS THE PERMANENT WARRANTY ON HIS CHURCH ONLY BEING ABLE TO TEACH HIS TRUTH, AND CAN NOT FAIL IN DOING SO [20]** And not for them only do I pray, but for them also who through their word shall believe in me;**

no other faith, no other church anywhere, at any time has this warranty of Jesus

John 14:26
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you

Mt 28: 19-20
[19] Going therefore, teach YOU all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded YOU:** and behold I am with YOU all days, even to the consummation of the world.**

NOTE:
I HAD TO MOVE YOUR FINAL POINT TO THE NEXT POST DUE TO SPACE LIMITS

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by DaddyGirl [PART 2 OF 2]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I think the Church once “ruled” that those who were not Catholic could not reach salvation/heaven. That is one of many opinions/rules–and it’s a whopper–that have changed in time because the earlier decision or teaching needed amending… …There may be more to come.

EXCELLENT POINT

Here is WHY that definition HAD to be expanded [by absolute need.
THIS WAS THE POSITION OF THE RCC PRIOR TO THE PROTESTANT REVOLUTION/ REFORMATION. Neither foreseen or desired by EITHER God or HIS RCC.

1st. Tim. 2:3-4
[3] For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour, [4**] Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth. [5] For there is one God, and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus:

God is the Creator and the sustainer of ALL, therefore God desires [but does not force] all humanity to accept His highly conditional Salvation. He died for ALL so that ALL MIGHT be saved.

This God-imposed condition, unknown , & unexpected by the Early CC Fathers, permitted a teaching that still holds true today, THAT ALL salvation MUST and DOES by absolute necessity [although some of it mysteriously] flows through the CC.

WHAT HAD to be ADDED W/O changing the foundational teaching is that it ***MIGHT. *** conditionally be possible for others [to include God’s desire to make salvation a possibility] for “All” to be saved by the good-merits of the CC.

From Our Catholic Catechism:

1260 “Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery.” Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation"

So my friend, the TEACHING was not “changed” [meaning its meaning remained], but it was EXPANDED by necessity, to accommodate our Lords desire that ALL MEN be saved. AMEN!

God Bless you!
PJM

 

[PJM]

Yes. I know. That’s why I told you in my other post that it did not say what you might have thought it did from your reply.

I do want to take issue with something you said that I think is very important but I don’t intend to debate back and forth.

You say doctrine has not changed regarding D & R and that it is only disciplinary. I really don’t understand how you could believe this. I have a friend who calls me every day because she’s so upset over this last encyclical (book!).

1st my freind it is not a Magisterium TEACHING, rather only his PERSONAL opinion.

AND NO THAT IS NOT JUST MY OPINION, IT IS THE TEACHING OF RAYMOND LEO CARDINAL BURKE WHO SERVED BOTH ST. John Paul II & Pope Benedict XVI AS THE PREFECT{the head of} OF THE APOSTOLIC SIGNATURA [THE HIGH COUNT OF THE RCC] for nearly 9 years before being replaced by Pope Francis.

In ordert o gain a full and RIGHT understanding, please take the time to read this carefully worded article by Cardinal Burke.

Cardinal Burke’s puzzling response to the pope’s exhortation…makes perfect sense | Blogs | LifeSite

His Eminence, Cardinal Burke is among the WORLDS most respected Canon Lawyers!

How is it only disciplinary? If Jesus, and the church, declared that divorce is wrong, then someone gets divorced and then they get remarried - isn’t that breaking a doctrine?

YES IT IS WHICH IS PRECISELY WHY THE OFFICIASL TEACHING OF THE RCC REMAINS UNCHANGED AND THEY CANNOT LICITY RECEIVE THE SACRAMENTS OF SACRAMENTAL CONNFESSION OR HOLY COMMUNIUON.

here’s no such thing as divorce in Christianity. You still would be married to your first spouse. So now when getting remarried you’d be living in an adulterous affair. So how could it be that now some could receive communion??QUOTE]

That’s CLOSE but NOT complete

It is NOT the divorce that becomes the ISSUE; NO its the 2nd marriage that is Adultery. A divorced SINGLE person retain ALL rights so long as they neither remarry or cohabitate. [a Mortal sin; 1 Jn 5:16-17]

Here is the Catholic Doctrine on Divorce:

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VIII. More precisely, what is the Catholic Doctrine on the Indissolubility of Marriage?

"The indissolubility of the marriage contract is emphatically declared by Christ Himself when He says, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (Matth. XIX. 6) and 'Every man that putteth away his wife and marrieth another committeth adultery; and he that marrieth her that is put away committeth adultery' (Luke XVI. 18).

And this attribute of marriage is assigned by St. Augustine to the blessing called Sacrament in the following passage: 'Sacrament signifies that the bond of wedlock shall never be broken, and that neither party, if separated, shall form a union with another, even for the sake of offspring' (St. Augustine: De Gen. ad Litt., L IX; ch VII; n 12.).  But this inviolable stability, though not always in equal measure nor always with the same degree of perfection, is the attribute of every true matrimonial bond; for the words of the Lord, 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder', were spoken concerning the nuptial union of our first parents, the prototype of all future marriages, and are consequently applicable to every true marriage.  It is true that before the coming of Christ, the perfection and strictness of the original law were modified to the extent that Moses, because of the hardness of their hearts, allowed even the members of God's people to give a bill of divorce for certain reasons.  But Christ, in virtue of His power as supreme Lawgiver, revoked this concession and restored the law to its original perfection by those words which must never be forgotten: 'What God hath joined together let no man put asunder' (Matth. XIX. 6.)."  (Pius XI: Encyclical Casti Connubii, 31 December, 1930, M. 294-295.)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is absolutely a change in doctrine. My friend accepts this and is trying to work it out. It won’t be an easy task.

Actually its NOT, Do yourself a huge favor and read the article that I posted.

Then I speak to persons such as yourself who speak of this disciplinary idea. i think it goes far beyond discipline… It’s doctrine and doctrine has been changed.

GG

P.S. The above is from this site:
catholicapologetics.info/morality/family/divorce.htm#VIII

.

Thank you, Della and I are BOTH very much aware of the teachings of the RCC

THAT SAID,

I do NOT disagree that that 'AL" has done the RCC a huge disservice in NOT being more explicit, more precise in the language chosen. I [ME] have no desire to second guess our Pope, very much of AL is excellent. Like many others I had greater hopes and expectations for a more precisely worded chapter 8.

BUT my friend your wrong about a change in Doctrine, which is a literal impossibility. Even the Pope cannot change Doctrine or dogma

God Bless you,
PJM

 

[GodsGrace154]

Muslims serve the one God, not the Prophet Mohammed, just as Jews serve the one God, not the Prophet Moses, just as Christians serve the same one God.

Sweet.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

1st my freind it is not a Magisterium TEACHING, rather only his PERSONAL opinion.

BUT my friend your wrong about a change in Doctrine, which is a literal impossibility. Even the Pope cannot change Doctrine or dogma

God Bless you,
PJM

OOPS. I erased re Cardinal Burke.

WHO NEEDS CARDINAL BURKE???

I HAVE THE POPE WHO IS SPEAKING TO ME!!

THIS IS NOT A MAGESTERIUM TEACHING???
BUT THE POPE’S PERSONAL OPINION?

ARE YOU SERIOUS???

Who makes up the Magsterium?
Is the POPE in there somewhere ?

If I’m not mistaken,
It’s the magesterium that makes up doctrine and dogman

And it’s the magesterium who has CHANGED IT.

One morning you’ll wake up and find that this is true.
Time will prove it - I don’t have to.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

Thank you, Della and I are BOTH very much aware of the teachings of the RCC

THAT SAID,

I do NOT disagree that that 'AL" has done the RCC a huge disservice in NOT being more explicit, more precise in the language chosen. I [ME] have no desire to second guess our Pope, very much of AL is excellent. Like many others I had greater hopes and expectations for a more precisely worded chapter 8.

BUT my friend your wrong about a change in Doctrine, which is a literal impossibility. Even the Pope cannot change Doctrine or dogma

God Bless you,
PJM

This is just too much.

It’s Della who was calling the doctrine taught by the Catholic Church “a disciplinary act”.
Here is what she said in post no. 76:
"I’m afraid you are confusing disciplinary matters with doctrinal ones. "

If YOU READ what I posted you’ll find that it’s a DOCTRINE. (that divorce and remarriage is NOT allowed).

Yes. It IS surprising that I know more about your doctrines than you do!!

Chapter 8 cannot be more precisely worded because of persons such as yourself who cannot accept change. So I believe the Pope is trying his best to be nice to you while still MAKING THE CHANGE. Soon you will notice it. And for some, it’s ALREADY HERE.

You see, reality is reality. It’s not what YOU think is reality.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

Oh. And by the way.

You’re supposed to read Card. Schonbrun for any comments on AL.
He’s the one the Pope picked to explain AL.

NOT WHO YOU AGREE WITH.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

**
PJM**

As you might imagine, I don’t read your posts.
Too long.
Too colorful.

I like SERIOUS discussion.

But I did catch a phrase as I scrolled through to get to the bottom.

It said "YOU N-CATHOLICS " or maybe “YOU NON CATHOLICS”

What is it with this “you non-catholics?”

When you’re speaking to a black person, do you say:

“YOU BLACK PEOPLE”.

Gosh. I certainly hope not!!!

It would be nice if you gave other Christians the same courtesy.

It would seem the Christianly thing to do.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

FOR PJM

And I see YOU also don’t read my posts.
OR
Maybe you just don’t UNDERSTAND them.

I SAY.

here’s no such thing as divorce in Christianity. You still would be married to your first spouse. So now when getting remarried you’d be living in an adulterous affair. So how could it be that now some could receive communion??QUOTE]

YOU reply:

That’s CLOSE but NOT complete

It is NOT the divorce that becomes the ISSUE; **NO its the 2nd marriage that is Adultery. **A divorced SINGLE person retain ALL rights so long as they neither remarry or cohabitate. [a Mortal sin; 1 Jn 5:16-17]

Ummmm. Isn’t THAT what I said???

See, it would be good for you to also know what I’M saying instead of THINKING you know what I’m saying.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

A complex question that would lead off topic. I can say I personally can see how this is so from my research.

Basically be Following the Koran is also submitting to the Word and Purpose of Jesus the Christ.

May we all give our lives to service in this Love to all humanity.

Regards Tony

You could have answered. We’re here to talk.

The moderator will let us know when we’re off topic.

GG

This was my post in case you care to respond:

Hello Tony,
I understand how a person of the Baha’i faith could be more true to the Word of Christ than a Christian but how can you say this of a Muslim? They think Jesus was a prophet and dislike Christians for believing He was God or Divine - and some even hate, we see to what point. Christians are the “cross wearers”. Do they dislike/hate because they feel we will never give in to demands of converting to Islam? Is it because they see Westerners as being very immoral? (and they may even be right). They serve Muhammad and not Jesus. So how could you say that they are more true to the Word of Christ?

Shalom
GG

 

[TonyBS]

You could have answered. We’re here to talk.

The moderator will let us know when we’re off topic.

GG

This was my post in case you care to respond:

Hello Tony,
I understand how a person of the Baha’i faith could be more true to the Word of Christ than a Christian but how can you say this of a Muslim? They think Jesus was a prophet and dislike Christians for believing He was God or Divine - and some even hate, we see to what point. Christians are the “cross wearers”. Do they dislike/hate because they feel we will never give in to demands of converting to Islam? Is it because they see Westerners as being very immoral? (and they may even be right). They serve Muhammad and not Jesus. So how could you say that they are more true to the Word of Christ?

Shalom
GG

I see that a Faithful Muslim serves God by the Word of Muhammad as now recorded in the Koran. I see that a Christain does the same through Christ and the Bible.

I do not judge each of these by those that do not follow the Word even though they say they do.

The Koran is a Gift from God to all of humanity and was blessing to Christianity. It is a neccessary link in accepting the full love of Jesus Christ and His World embracing Revelation.

Regards Tony

 

[GodsGrace154]

I see that a Faithful Muslim serves God by the Word of Muhammad as now recorded in the Koran. I see that a Christain does the same through Christ and the Bible.

I do not judge each of these by those that do not follow the Word even though they say they do.

The Koran is a Gift from God to all of humanity and was blessing to Christianity. It is a neccessary link in accepting the full love of Jesus Christ and His World embracing Revelation.

Regards Tony

I don’t believe the bible needs any links. The Quran was written about 700 years after Jesus died. I’m sure you’re familiar with Revelation 22:18

There is no further need of revelation. The Quran was written by a human being. All I will say is that some Christians do not follow their religion and we see the results. Some Muslims do not follow their religion and we see the results. Or are they following their religion? That is the big question. That’s all I’ll say.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

PART 2 of my reply,

SURE, I will if you can be a bit more specific by exactly what YOU mean by “issues”

I will gladly do so for you

Easter Blessings my friend,

Patrick

Patrick
What gives?
YOU are the one who keeps speaking of issues.

I asked you what you mean by this.

And you’re reply is that you want to know WHAT I MEAN BY THIS?

It’s YOUR topic, not MINE.

Are you okay?

GG

 

[TonyBS]

I don’t believe the bible needs any links. The Quran was written about 700 years after Jesus died. I’m sure you’re familiar with Revelation 22:18

There is no further need of revelation. The Quran was written by a human being. All I will say is that some Christians do not follow their religion and we see the results. Some Muslims do not follow their religion and we see the results. Or are they following their religion? That is the big question. That’s all I’ll say.

GG

Thats just the example we were after as you get from Revelation 22:8 a meaning that can be explained in other ways.

We must also consider the next passage;

19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

In chapters 11, 12 &13 Muhammad is forerold as is the end of the age Message. Thus to have not accepted is to have taken away.

What was added is not from Muhammad, but man and His understanding.

Yes we will leave it there as both points have been made known.

Regards Tony