I Believe in One God

[mercytruth]

Rinnie,

Today we do not agree. Some day, I trust that the Holy Spirit will give one of us, or both of us the understanding to be in agreement.

God would not have sent angels to minister to Jesus Christ our Lord in the wilderness, nor in the garden of Gethsemane if our blessed Savior did not need their assistance.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,

Today we do not agree. Some day, I trust that the Holy Spirit will give one of us, or both of us the understanding to be in agreement.

God would not have sent angels to minister to Jesus Christ our Lord in the wilderness, nor in the garden of Gethsemane if our blessed Savior did not need their assistance.

You are correct my dear.

I have one more scripture that might just put us on the same page.

Okay go to Matt 4:11

Now check this out Then the devil LEFT him, and suddenly the angels appreared and looked after him.

Don’t get me wrong, I agree that the angels always attended or took care of. or whatever way you want to put it of Christ.

Even the devil tempted Christ to send them to his aid, Why? Because scripture tells us thats what they do. Angels will do whatever God commands them to do.

Now with that in mind go back and re-read Luke When did the angel appear before or after the suffereing of Christ? Its always after. Jesus said Father make it your will not mine. The answer is given. Then the angels come again to his aid.

But if we disagree thats okay I still love ya!

 

[mercytruth]

St.Faustina describes in her diary what can be understood as the dark night of the soul. St.Faustina thanks Jesus for allowing her to suffer some of the interior sufferings that Jesus suffered, but in a much milder form.

Hans Balthazar in his **Mysterium Paschale **writes that the suffering of Jesus Christ began in the garden of Gethsemane and continued in Sheol. He maintains that the sufferings of the OT prophets and the sufferings of the blessed saints who have gone through the dark night of the soul can not be understood without Jesus Christ having experienced suffering much greater than theirs.

Peter on the day of Pentecost says, "God raised him up, having loosed him from the sorrows of Sheol for it was not possible for him to be held by it."

Ps.116 is recited on the day of Pentecost, (Shavuot) by the Jewish community. Here is one verse that is found in this Psalm 116: "The sorrows of death compassed me and the pains of Sheol got hold upon me."

This verse most closely resembles what Peter said on the day of Pentecost, and it would have been recited in the Temple that Pentecost morning.

In addition, St. John of the Cross quotes this scripture as one that describes the dark night of the soul.

Rinnie, I firmly believe that our Lord Jesus Christ needed the assistance of the angel because he had entered into the dark night of the soul. More grievous than any blessed saint (including St.Faustina) had ever suffered.

God’s peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

Does this make Tertullian, Lactantius, Ireneaus, Justin Martyr, and the writer of Hebrews heretics?

“We have a high priest who is able to empathize with our infirmities, for he was tempted in every way as us, yet without sin”. (Hebrews 4:15)

If we are tempted internally (whatever that means), then in every way, so to was our Lord Jesus Christ.

First, Tertulilian was a heretic.

Second, temptation means that Satan tries to get you to sin- Only in that sense was Christ tempted in every way like we are. Satan tried in every way to get Christ to sin in every way that God and the person getting tempted give him room to do the tempting. What we are referring to as “temptations from within” are not really temptations perse but rather disordered human nature resulting from original sin. It’s concupiscence, the rebellion of the lower natures against the order of right reason. Satan who tries to get us to sin will take advantage of this disorder in us in his temptations. Christ suffered from no such disorder in his humanity. He took up our nature but not our disorders.

Otherwise, we’ll be forced to say that the Savior was in need of salvation himself! That his nature was like the rest of us, in need of sanctification, of perfecting, of theosis! That Jesus was not perfect! That he was not himself already what we are all going to be when his grace that he got for us sanctifies and perfects us! That he himself needed to undergo a process of being perfected! No, my friend. Our saviour is the very source of the grace that perfects and divinizes us! He was not at ANY point in need in any way, shape or form to any degree of any kind of grace, sanctification, perfection- he himself is our perfection, our life and our food!

Peace!

 

[mercytruth]

Marybeloved,

I prefer to let God be the judge of Tertullian’s soul.

My Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ was the Messiah. Anointed and sent by God his Father to come into this world. As God-man he was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, in order for the righteousness of God to be fulfilled in us who no longer walk after the flesh, but after the Spirit of Christ.

I truly believe that our High Priest is able to empathize with our weaknesses because he was sent in the likeness of our sinful flesh nature, and because he was tempted in every way as us without sinning, he is now saving us from our sinful inclinations. And I say, thanks be to God our Father, and thanks be to our Lord Jesus Christ!

I respect your convictions, as we disagree.

God’s peace to you!.

 

[Pythons]

Like I said previously, Christ was NEVER & I repeat EVER tempted within Himself to sin…
…He was tempted as we are tempted yet WITHOUT or OUTSIDE of sin.
…Consider the following example.

All of us in our lives have had a person try to convice us to do somthing classified as sin…
…In which we didn’t have the interest or yearning to do - in that case we were tempted OUTSIDE of sin.
…Say someone came up to you that you and suggested you rape a young woman in the park.
…You were repulsed by that and didn’t have to resist - because you didn’t yearn for it in the first place.

Now, that’s an extreme example but anyone should be able to understand the rubric…
…We all have been offered to participate in active sin in which we find ourselves either resisting OR “doing it”.
…With Christ every temptation for Him was like it is for us when whatever sin we are not interested in we reject.
…Each and every time.

James 1,13
Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God CANNOT **be tempted with evil **and he himself tempts no one; but EACH person is tempted when HE is lured and enticed by HIS OWN desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brethren

#1,
God CANNOT be tempted with evil - this means that there is nothing in God that could or would respond to the draw of evil…
…This is absolutely explicit AND in fact is part of the Creed AND the Catechism.

#2,
Every person IS tempted WHEN they are lured and enticed by their OWN DESIRES for evil…
…It is flat out maggoty and disgusting to suggest Christ yearned or lusted for any sin.
…And His whole life had to fight His own foul desires to follow through on the sins He wanted to perform!
…This is about as bad as it get folks!

So, indeed Christ was tempted ( outside of sin ) exactly as all of us are tempted outside of sin…
…But unlike us, in each and every case throughout Jesus’ life.
…He was repulsed by every sin - He didn’t year or lust for it like all of us do.

 

[mercytruth]

It is my conviction from scriptures, and from early church Fathers that the Son of God though God, is not equal to G-d the Father. Therefore, G-d the Father can not be tempted with evil, but Jesus Christ the Son of G-d was tempted to sin internally, but never sinned.

G-d the Father is invisible, The only-begotten Son of God became visible to Moses who saw his similitude, or the glory of God. (Numbers 12:8, and 2 Corinth. 3,4). There are two who are called by the sacred name. The pre-existent Messiah, the sacred name who was revealed on earth, who rained fire and brimstone from the sacred name out of heaven, (Gen.19:31)

G-d the Father is immortal. The only-begotten Son of G-d was given over to death by G-d the Father. (John 3:16). "G-d raised him from the dead, having loosed him from the sorrows of Sheol, for it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:34)

G-d the Father is the cause of His only-begotten Son, and all things were created through the Son of G-d and for him, as it was according to the love of G-d the Father for His only-begotten Son. (Colossians 1, Wisdom 8).

G-d the Father knows all things, the Son of G-d does not know the day or the hour when he returns for his bride, the church. (as a typology of the Jewish wedding tradition). The book of Revelations was given from G-d the Father to his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything the Son of G-d ever spoke as God the Word was according to the will, purpose and revelation from G-d the Father.

If we presume that the only-begotten God is equal to the only-unbegotten G-d, then you are correct in asserting that Jesus Christ can not be tempted with evil. It is my conviction that this presumption is not supported by scripture, nor by the early church fathers.

Therefore, we disagree. I respect your convictions, and some day by the revelation of the Holy Spirit we will be in agreement, and in a much larger picture so will the east and the west some day be in agreement by the conviction and power of the Holy Spirit.

G-d’s peace be with you.

 

[CopticChristian]

It is my conviction from scriptures, and from early church Fathers that the Son of God though God, is not equal to G-d the Father. Therefore, G-d the Father can not be tempted with evil, but Jesus Christ the Son of G-d was tempted to sin internally, but never sinned.

G-d the Father is invisible, The only-begotten Son of God became visible to Moses who saw his similitude, or the glory of God. (Numbers 12:8, and 2 Corinth. 3,4). There are two who are called by the sacred name. The pre-existent Messiah, the sacred name who was revealed on earth, who rained fire and brimstone from the sacred name out of heaven, (Gen.19:31)

G-d the Father is immortal. The only-begotten Son of G-d was given over to death by G-d the Father. (John 3:16). "G-d raised him from the dead, having loosed him from the sorrows of Sheol, for it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:34)

G-d the Father is the cause of His only-begotten Son, and all things were created through the Son of G-d and for him, as it was according to the love of G-d the Father for His only-begotten Son. (Colossians 1, Wisdom 8).

G-d the Father knows all things, the Son of G-d does not know the day or the hour when he returns for his bride, the church. (as a typology of the Jewish wedding tradition). The book of Revelations was given from G-d the Father to his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything the Son of G-d ever spoke as God the Word was according to the will, purpose and revelation from G-d the Father.

If we presume that the only-begotten God is equal to the only-unbegotten G-d, then you are correct in asserting that Jesus Christ can not be tempted with evil. It is my conviction that this presumption is not supported by scripture, nor by the early church fathers.

Therefore, we disagree. I respect your convictions, and some day by the revelation of the Holy Spirit we will be in agreement, and in a much larger picture so will the east and the west some day be in agreement by the conviction and power of the Holy Spirit.

G-d’s peace be with you.

Mercy me,

So how does your view reconcile with the Catechism

249 From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church’s living faith, principally by means of Baptism. It finds its expression in the rule of baptismal faith, formulated in the preaching, catechesis and prayer of the Church. Such formulations are already found in the apostolic writings, such as this salutation taken up in the Eucharistic liturgy: "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."81

250 During the first centuries the Church sought to clarify her Trinitarian faith, both to deepen her own understanding of the faith and to defend it against the errors that were deforming it. This clarification was the work of the early councils, aided by the theological work of the Church Fathers and sustained by the Christian people’s sense of the faith.

251 In order to articulate the dogma of the Trinity, the Church had to develop her own terminology with the help of certain notions of philosophical origin: “substance”, “person” or “hypostasis”, “relation” and so on. In doing this, she did not submit the faith to human wisdom, but gave a new and unprecedented meaning to these terms, which from then on would be used to signify an ineffable mystery, “infinitely beyond all that we can humanly understand”.82

252 The Church uses (I) the term “substance” (rendered also at times by “essence” or “nature”) to designate the divine being in its unity, (II) the term “person” or “hypostasis” to designate the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the real distinction among them, and (III) the term “relation” to designate the fact that their distinction lies in the relationship of each to the others.

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the “consubstantial Trinity”.83 The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God."84 In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."85

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance."89 Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship."90 "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."91

 

[mercytruth]

I like your beginning humor, ‘mercy me’.

As Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one”. As the apostle Paul says, “in him dwells all the fullness of the G-dhead bodily”.

Maybe someday, I will understand the portion of the catechism that you have quoted. You are welcomed to pray that God will give me this understanding.

Thanks. God’s peace.

 

[CopticChristian]

I like your beginning humor, ‘mercy me’.

As Jesus Christ said, “I and the Father are one”. As the apostle Paul says, “in him dwells all the fullness of the G-dhead bodily”.

Maybe someday, I will understand the portion of the catechism that you have quoted. You are welcomed to pray that God will give me this understanding.

Thanks. God’s peace.

Mercy,

Sometimes understanding comes in time. Sometimes not. I do not understand God. I do not understand the Catechism. Sometimes I don’t understand things. Sometimes I don’t like things. Always I believe and love it for in time I will understand and like more. It is like that for me and as you say God will give you understanding.

 

[Marybeloved]

Marybeloved,

I prefer to let God be the judge of Tertullian’s soul.

Who is judging his soul? Certainly not me and most definitely not the Church! The Church judged his teachings and beliefs as she has every right and authority and guidance to do, for the sake of the truth and the faithful- And yes- he taught heresy, great as he was. Had he not done so, his influence would have been greater than if not equal to St. Augustine- he really was that gifted. Again, when the church says that what you teach is heresy, there is nothing there in that judgment about the state of your soul.

I truly believe that our High Priest is able to empathize with our weaknesses because he was sent in the likeness of our sinful flesh nature,

You believe that unless Christ himself was imperfect and in need of restoration like everyone else, that he couldn’t empathize with our weakness? You also believe that he never sinned- So by your logic, how exactly would he be able to empathize with anyone who chose sin seeing as he never did so himself? Do you believe that when he died on the cross, he died for himself as well, like the rest of humanity? Do you believe that he earned grace for himself too so that he could be restored to what God wanted humans to be?

and because he was tempted in every way as us without sinning, he is now saving us from our sinful inclinations.

He was tempted in every way as we are- He did not carry our disorders though, which are in need of restoration. He was what men are supposed to be, what grace tries to make us be, what human perfection is- not a distorted nature in need of restoration!

And I say, thanks be to God our Father, and thanks be to our Lord Jesus Christ!

AMEN!!!

God’s peace to you!.

And to you as well.

 

[mercytruth]

Marybeloved,

Yes, the church says he was in heresy towards the end of his life. Unfortunately, this anathema business, and heresy business has been overused at times in the history of the west and the east.

Sometimes, this sort of denouncement was politically motivated, in the case of Tertullian, probably not. Regardless, we do not throw out everything someone professes in the earlier days, when error enters in towards the end of one’s life.

Empathy can be with the struggle that one has with the temptation to sin, not wanting to sin.This is the sort of empathy that our Lord Jesus Christ feels for us. That is to say, the struggle against the temptation to sin is what I understand our Lord Jesus Christ feels for us when we are tempted to sin…

I love, and respect my brothers and sisters who have orthodox convictions.

God’s peace.

 

[mercytruth]

Mercy,

Sometimes understanding comes in time. Sometimes not. I do not understand God. I do not understand the Catechism. Sometimes I don’t understand things. Sometimes I don’t like things. Always I believe and love it for in time I will understand and like more. It is like that for me and as you say God will give you understanding.

Fair enough.

God’s peace.

 

[Marybeloved]

Mercytruth, if I can put it another way: temptations from within mean a kind of co-operation, rising from our own nature, with sin or with the temptations of the Devil-which is what we call the fallen state of our nature. Do you believe that Christ’s nature ever co-operated with the temptations of the Devil, or rather that it always remained through every temptation, unbending to the sin suggested? Do you believe that his nature tended to God or to the Devil? What do you think was his natural disposition?

 

[mercytruth]

Marybeloved,

My understanding of scripture is that God grants all of us a spotless soul within our fallen Adamic physical nature. From the beginning, our physical nature is selfish, and self-seeking. This fallen Adamic nature opposes the light of our conscience that is implanted in our spotless soul given at conception. This light is dimmed by our choices to be selfish and self-seeking. Eventually, our souls spiritually die when we continue the course of choosing to sin.

I believe that the spotless soul of Jesus Christ was committed **at all times **to the will of God his Father, from birth to death on the cross.

I believe his physical nature tempted his soul to be otherwise, but His spotless soul never gave into temptations from his physical nature. In this manner, he empathizes with the weaknesses of our own physical nature.

Now, some say, that personality is inherited from one’s biological ancestry. Within the human personality there is a wide range of human emotions, dispositions, and inclinations.

Whatever Jesus Christ inherited from his virgin mother Mary, and she from her ancestry, Jesus Christ was so inclined. This is how I understand the humanity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

God’s peace be with you.

 

[Pythons]

It is my conviction from scriptures, and from early church Fathers that the Son of God though God, is not equal to G-d the Father.

That’s not the Catholic Faith - “The Church” directed the E.C.F’s, not the other way around…
…Example: Some E.C.F.'s felt certain Books we have in the Bible should not be in the Bible.
…Connect the dots.

Also, the Catechism is explicit.

Catechism of Trent
It is impossible that what is supreme and most perfect could be comon to many. If a Being lack anything that constitues supreme perfection, it is therfore imperfect and cannot have the nature of God.

&

Catechism of Trent
In the one Substance of the Divinty the Father is the First Person, who with His Only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost is ONE GOD and ONE LORD, NOT in the singularity ofthe one Person but in the Trinity of One Substance. These Three Persons, since it would be impiety to assert that they are unlike or unequal in anything, are understood to be distinct ONLY in their respective properties…Hence, when we say that the Father is the First Person, we are not to be understood to mean that in the Trinity there is anything first or last, greater or less. Let none of the Faithful be guilty of such impiety, for the Christian religion proclaims the same eternity, the same majesty of glory in the Three Persons, But since the Father is the beginning without a beginning we truly and unhesisatingly affirm that He is the First Person, and as He is distince from the Others by His pecular relation of paternity, so of Him alone is it true that He begot the Son from ETERNITY. For when in the Creed we porcounce together the words God and Father, IT MEANS THAT HE WAS ALWAYS BOTH GOD AND FATHER/COLOR].

mercytruth:

Therefore, G-d the Father can not be tempted with evil, but Jesus Christ the Son of G-d was tempted to sin internally, but never sinned.

See above mercytruth.

You almost sound as if you are using Arian arguments? Where did you get these?

 

[mercytruth]

That’s not the Catholic Faith - “The Church” directed the E.C.F’s, not the other way around…
…Example: Some E.C.F.'s felt certain Books we have in the Bible should not be in the Bible.
…Connect the dots.

Also, the Catechism is explicit.

Catechism of Trent
It is impossible that what is supreme and most perfect could be comon to many. If a Being lack anything that constitues supreme perfection, it is therfore imperfect and cannot have the nature of God.

&

Catechism of Trent
In the one Substance of the Divinty the Father is the First Person, who with His Only begotten Son and the Holy Ghost is ONE GOD and ONE LORD, NOT in the singularity ofthe one Person but in the Trinity of One Substance. These Three Persons, since it would be impiety to assert that they are unlike or unequal in anything, are understood to be distinct ONLY in their respective properties…Hence, when we say that the Father is the First Person, we are not to be understood to mean that in the Trinity there is anything first or last, greater or less. Let none of the Faithful be guilty of such impiety, for the Christian religion proclaims the same eternity, the same majesty of glory in the Three Persons, But since the Father is the beginning without a beginning we truly and unhesisatingly affirm that He is the First Person, and as He is distince from the Others by His pecular relation of paternity, so of Him alone is it true that He begot the Son from ETERNITY. For when in the Creed we porcounce together the words God and Father, IT MEANS THAT HE WAS ALWAYS BOTH GOD AND FATHER/COLOR].

See above mercytruth.

You almost sound as if you are using Arian arguments? Where did you get these?

Believe what you may, first the holy scriptures, and then several of the early church fathers as confirmation. I have never been predisposed to anyone’s viewpoints.Seriously,I would not know what exactly Arian believed.

I do know that Eusebius in his Early Church History gives a summation of the person of the only-begotten Son of God, and the various Christophanies in the OT that I found to be similar to my understanding of the holy scriptures.

God’s peace to you.

 

[Pythons]

Believe what you may, first the holy scriptures, and then several of the early church fathers as confirmation.

You have a ‘Catholic’ Faith Icon, no?

I’ve just provided you with explicit statements from the Catechism that shows your premise to be in error…
…I’ve also provided you with holy Scriptures that shows your premise to be in error.
…Perhaps it’s time to provide you with an Ecumenical Council.

Nicaea
WE believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance [ek tes ousias] of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not made, **of the same substance with the Father **[homoousion to patri], through whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men and our salvation descended, was incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And in the Holy Ghost. Those who say: There was a time when He was not, and He was not before He was begotten; and that He was made out of nothing (ex ouk onton); or who maintain that He is of another hypostasis or another substance [than the Father], or that the Son of God is created, OR mutable, OR subject to change, [them] the Catholic Church anathematizes.

mercytruth:

I have never been predisposed to anyone’s viewpoints.Seriously,I would not know what exactly Arian believed.

Certainly not the Magisterium of the Catholic Church - I can agree with you there…
…You should read up on Arius a tad - he walked down the same road you appear to be skipping.

mercytruth:

I do know that Eusebius in his Early Church History gives a summation of the person of the only-begotten Son of God, and the various Christophanies in the OT that I found to be similar to my understanding of the holy scriptures.

God’s peace to you.

I would urge you to garner a better grasp of how the New Testament Church was formulated and by Who…
…Given your love for the OT you could start by confirming that God promulgated His law.
…Via the religious Authority God Himself selected.

An example of what happens when somone comes up with a not so novel ( new ) idea as to how stuff works…
…Can be found simply reading what happened to Korah.
…Korah said he figured stuff out himself as well.

 

[Pythons]

It is my conviction from scriptures, and from early church Fathers that the Son of God though God, is not equal to G-d the Father. Therefore, G-d the Father can not be tempted with evil, but Jesus Christ the Son of G-d was tempted to sin internally, but never sinned.

G-d the Father is invisible, The only-begotten Son of God became visible to Moses who saw his similitude, or the glory of God. (Numbers 12:8, and 2 Corinth. 3,4). There are two who are called by the sacred name. The pre-existent Messiah, the sacred name who was revealed on earth, who rained fire and brimstone from the sacred name out of heaven, (Gen.19:31)

G-d the Father is immortal. The only-begotten Son of G-d was given over to death by G-d the Father. (John 3:16). "G-d raised him from the dead, having loosed him from the sorrows of Sheol, for it was not possible for him to be held by it" (Acts 2:34)

G-d the Father is the cause of His only-begotten Son, and all things were created through the Son of G-d and for him, as it was according to the love of G-d the Father for His only-begotten Son. (Colossians 1, Wisdom 8).

G-d the Father knows all things, the Son of G-d does not know the day or the hour when he returns for his bride, the church. (as a typology of the Jewish wedding tradition). The book of Revelations was given from G-d the Father to his Son, our Lord Jesus Christ. Everything the Son of G-d ever spoke as God the Word was according to the will, purpose and revelation from G-d the Father.

If we presume that the only-begotten God is equal to the only-unbegotten G-d, then you are correct in asserting that Jesus Christ can not be tempted with evil. It is my conviction that this presumption is not supported by scripture, nor by the early church fathers.

Therefore, we disagree. I respect your convictions, and some day by the revelation of the Holy Spirit we will be in agreement, and in a much larger picture so will the east and the west some day be in agreement by the conviction and power of the Holy Spirit.

G-d’s peace be with you.

I’ve only noticed ‘G-d’ spelled that way by practicing Jews, Messianic Jews and offshoot factions of SDA’s…
…How long have you been spelling God as ‘G-d’?
…& what led you to start doing it that way?

 

[mercytruth]

I was once affiliated with a Messianic Congregation whose Pastor and wife are Jewish Christians. This is many years after my scriptural understanding of which we have been discussing, (they understood the Trinity as the mainstream).

The study of the early church fathers came after my departure from this congregation, and before my return to the Catholic Church. I returned to the Catholic Church because I have a dear former Lutheran friend who also was a Messianic congregant, and we prayed for some specific apologies from Pope John Paul II, and they came about shortly thereafter. (Maybe were just in tune to what G-d was going to do through this blessed Pope beforehand). Also, I realized from the early church fathers, that the Holy Eucharist is foundational to the Christian faith.

Actually, I use G-d to differentiate between G-d the Father, and the only-begotten God, that is, the Word who is God. Eventhough, both the G-d the Father, and His only-begotten Son are called by the sacred name of YWYH.

God’s peace.