As you re-read what I posted, you will see:
** “these things were obviously not necessary for the “salvation of mankind” **or in any way a significant part of God’s plan for salvation,”
John’s Revelation is not** “necessary” **for a persons salvation.
The Nicea Creed isn’t “necessary” for a person to be saved.
(Or Jesus and the Apostles would have made sure that when they were preaching and teaching - they would have mentioned it)
So, you think Jesus said and did things that were “irrelevant”?
Wow.
I bet the recipients of the letters in the book of Revelation believed differently than you. If they took the letters to heart, they prevented themselves from getting their lampstand removed, being spewed out of His mouth, and having their names blotted out of the book of life. Sure seems like it was relevant to the salvation of many to me!
The Apostles’ creed has saved countless persons from falling away from the faith, by making it clear what consitutes the One Faith delivered from the Apostles.
Forgive me but it strikes me as rather arrogant for you, 2000 years later, to sit in judgment upon Christ and His Apostles with regard to what is “relevant” for salvation. It seems to me that if Jesus felt it was necessary to give John a Revelation and command that it be sent to the believers, then isn’t it up to Him to determine what is “relevant for salvation”?
.
Complete understanding of the term “Trinity” is not **“necessary” **for a person to be saved.
Who are you to determine this? How is your opinion about what is necessary more valuable than those appointed by Christ to teach these things to His Body, the Church?
These all came “after” His life…and are all good, wonderful things, but are not necessary for salvation.
Basically what you are saying is that Jesus engaged in useless teaching and actions. His training of the Apostles to manage the Church was a waste of time, and unnecessary. His appointment of them to be the custodians of the Teaching was pissing in the wind, apparently. His promise to build His Church, and to send the Spirit to guide them into all Truth (which would not have been necessary, by the way, if they had all of it already) was just empty words.
Being a member in good standing in the Catholic church **is not **necessary for salvation - but the church claims it is
I am sorry, but you are suffering from an error. This is not the Teaching of the Catholic Church. How did you come to get so twisted in your perceptions of Catholicism?
(this was not part of the salvation gospel that Jesus and the Apostles preached or taught - that gospel was complete and nothing else was necessary)
If nothing else was necessary, then why did they need keys, and the authority to bind and loose? Why did they need councils to make decisions? You seem to be struggling hard to discount the Catholic Church, I am not sure why.
Believing in “any” of the Marian Dogmas **is not necessary **for salvation - but if you don’t believe them - you’re “anathema”
(this was not part of the salvation gospel that Jesus and the Apostles preached or taught, complete/nothing else necessary)
Well, we read it differently.
I have no problem with acknowledging that God still speaks in this day and age, as I have already posted.
Yes, a seemingly double sided attitude. Why would that even be necessary if the whole gospel is already recorded?
How is it to be determined that it is God speaking?
Do you believe the things you have writtten here are “God speaking” in the present day and age?
I truly believe He does and I truly believe that He has used faithful, devout, skilled people **to accomplish His Will **- as He did with the those who transcribed the bible and as He does with true and faithful believers in ALL churches.
Do you consider yourself to be one such person?
He can and He has and He will use anyone to accomplish His Will, as no one church/denomination can contain God - no matter how hard they try either by self proclamation or by stating that they alone are able to dispense God’s grace.
It is very Catholic of you to say this.
