Jesus's claims to divinity?

[guanophore]

You make me sound like I am of the new age movement which is not of God. I am not.

No, I do not think that. You just have to realize that, from a faith that is 2000 years old, a modern innovation that was created 500 years ago does seem “new”.

I believe only in the Word of God and my gospel is the gospel of Jesus Christ. He entered my heart when I was born again, opening my eyes to his truth which is written on the tablets of my heart.

It is great you had a powerful conversion experience, and have responded with an obedient heart. However, your beliefs about the Word of God are part of the Protestant Reformation of 500 years ago. I understand that you don’t realize that they are modern innovations, and that they are not consistent with the Apostolic teaching. I believe you promote this “different gospel” in all sincerity.

Where we disagree here is your claim on what I believe is new. What I believe is what is written in the Word of God.

Yes, I understand. But how you interpret the written word brings you out in a place that is contrary to what the Apostles believed and taught.

I believe our minds are shaped by Jesus who lives in our hearts. When a man is saved/born again, he looks into a mirror and the image he sees is murky, unclear. Yet, as Christ grows in the man, the image grows more and more Christlike.

Yes, this is Catholic Teaching. Although the Reformers did abandon a significant amount of the faith committed to the Church by the Apostles, there are also a number of Truths that were retained. This is one of them. The Scripture being inspired/inerrant also is one, though they did take out some of the books.

I believe the reason I am here is because the Lord sent me. As for part of my conversion, I was saved 36 years ago. Now, I do believe that we as believers are to work together in hashing out what is and is not of God.

I am glad that you are willing to have an open mind, and to learn what was really taught by the Apostolic Church.

Although there are things we disagree on, there is also much we agree on. For instance. I believe homosexuality is wrong, is sin. I believe abortion is wrong, is sin. I believe in the ten commandments.

More Apostolic Teaching retained by the Reformers.

Does a man have faith before he is born again?

The Apostles taught that a person is born again in baptism, by water and spirit. A profession of faith is required.

Does not the faith process begin there? As for faith, it comes by way of Jesus Christ, being of the spirit, not of the flesh. The flesh is at war with our spirit. That is why it is so important to remember, greater is he who is in me, then he who is in the world.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches, yes.

I believe that it is baptism or misuse of that has created churches that have a form of godliness, but deny the power of the Holy Spirit.

As you have said in other threads. What does this have to do with the topic of this thread?

 

[MDK]

Do you believe the Word of God is infallible, without mistake? You continually say there is more truth then what is written in the Word of God. Yet, if a so called truth is contrary to the Word of God, do we accept it or do we reside to the Word of God?

Then on top of that, you insist that no truth can be found outside the CC or it seems that way.

The importance of the written word was used by Jesus to combat satan, when satan attempted to tempt Jesus is the wilderness. Jesus said, “It is Written.” I think the Word of God being written has precedence over the doctrines of men.

The Word of God was not meant to be disected by theologians and philosophers and the wisdoms of the world. It was and is understanding through faith, by the Holy Spirit quickening it to us.

Men attempt to complicate the Word of God, when it was given in simplicity.

Wow, a lot of unlearned responses above… first, it is exceedingly ignorant for one to say that everything taught by Christ was written down. That much is also written in Scriptures as well, and easily understandable, not requiring Magisterial interpretation. For instance, I think we can all understand John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Next, it is never recorded in Scriptures that Christ ever even asked that anything be written down. Paul’s letter may require some more explanation to you, but it’s clear that there is more than the written teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 “*Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

*The written word of God, the Scriptures in the true Bible are inerrant. However, your interpretations of these Scriptures are nowhere near inerrant. *
*
It would be a misrepresentation to claim that I have ever said that there is no truth outside the Catholic Church. In fact, I’ve said many times including on CAF, that those outside the Church have some truth, which we hope can be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of revealed truth found in the Catholic Church. I know of no other institution, ecclesial community, or believer, who possesses the fullness of truth outside the Catholic Church. Why… because God built the Church and protects her from teaching error. The Church God built taught for years without a Bible. Without the authority established by God to teach, those outside the Church don’t really know what is truth and what is not true in regard to God’s word.

The word of God was meant to be taught by those whom Christ sent to continue His Mission. Later, this was written down. You take this written word and claim some kind of authority to interpret which was never promised to you. God never promised He would send the Holy Spirit to you or me so that we could reject His Church and still have the truth. In fact, that one rejects the Church means they do not have the fullness of revealed truth, and usually it is not even close to the fullness of revealed truth.

As you pointed out, Satan quoted Scriptures as well and distorted the meanings as you are doing. Christ corrected Satan in regard to the meanings of Scripture, just like the Catholic Church does to you.

The Word of God is not simply understood as you stated, otherwise Peter would have never written in Scriptures something that can generally be understood fairly well without Magisterial teaching when Peter discusses Paul’s epistles in 2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” Scriptures themselves include text that refutes your statement about them having “simplicity.” Sadly, you are doing exactly what Peter warned about, and as an unlearned person, wresting Scriptures to your own destruction.

There are doctrines in the Church because these are God’s doctrines, and for no other reason.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Wow, a lot of unlearned responses above… first, it is exceedingly ignorant for one to say that everything taught by Christ was written down. That much is also written in Scriptures as well, and easily understandable, not requiring Magisterial interpretation. For instance, I think we can all understand John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." Next, it is never recorded in Scriptures that Christ ever even asked that anything be written down. Paul’s letter may require some more explanation to you, but it’s clear that there is more than the written teaching in 2 Thessalonians 2:14 “Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.”

The written word of God, the Scriptures in the true Bible are inerrant. However, your interpretations of these Scriptures are nowhere near inerrant. *
*
It would be a misrepresentation to claim that I have ever said that there is no truth outside the Catholic Church. In fact, I’ve said many times including on CAF, that those outside the Church have some truth, which we hope can be used as a stepping stone to come to the fullness of revealed truth found in the Catholic Church. I know of no other institution, ecclesial community, or believer, who possesses the fullness of truth outside the Catholic Church. Why… because God built the Church and protects her from teaching error. The Church God built taught for years without a Bible. Without the authority established by God to teach, those outside the Church don’t really know what is truth and what is not true in regard to God’s word.

The word of God was meant to be taught by those whom Christ sent to continue His Mission. Later, this was written down. You take this written word and claim some kind of authority to interpret which was never promised to you. God never promised He would send the Holy Spirit to you or me so that we could reject His Church and still have the truth. In fact, that one rejects the Church means they do not have the fullness of revealed truth, and usually it is not even close to the fullness of revealed truth.

As you pointed out, Satan quoted Scriptures as well and distorted the meanings as you are doing. Christ corrected Satan in regard to the meanings of Scripture, just like the Catholic Church does to you.

The Word of God is not simply understood as you stated, otherwise Peter would have never written in Scriptures something that can generally be understood fairly well without Magisterial teaching when Peter discusses Paul’s epistles in 2 Peter 3:16 “As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.” Scriptures themselves include text that refutes your statement about them having “simplicity.” Sadly, you are doing exactly what Peter warned about, and as an unlearned person, wresting Scriptures to your own destruction.

There are doctrines in the Church because these are God’s doctrines, and for no other reason.

Adding to words again?

Wow, a lot of unlearned responses above… first, it is exceedingly ignorant for one to say that everything taught by Christ was written down.

I believe what I said is if there is a belief that is contrary to the Word of God, we must prove it is not to be used as doctrines. Not exact wording. Certainly there are many things that have not been written down, but you will find out that when it is deemed important, it is written down. If you don’t make a grocery list, you won’t remember all that you need. Writing down things is important.

Now, when it comes to God, is it not even more important to write things down, not just say this is or that is? And if a thought is said to be given by way of the Holy Spirit pertaining to God and deemed truth, is it not important that it be written?

The thing is, if things that are brought as doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, it should not be allowed or included as such.

 

[MDK]

Adding to words again?

No. Protecting what Christ did against the claims of heresy.

I believe what I said is if there is a belief that is contrary to the Word of God, we must prove it is not to be used as doctrines. Not exact wording. Certainly there are many things that have not been written down, but you will find out that when it is deemed important, it is written down. If you don’t make a grocery list, you won’t remember all that you need. Writing down things is important.

Now, when it comes to God, is it not even more important to write things down, not just say this is or that is? And if a thought is said to be given by way of the Holy Spirit pertaining to God and deemed truth, is it not important that it be written?

The thing is, if things that are brought as doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, it should not be allowed or included as such.

No, that’s not what you said which I was responding to. You said “You continually say there is more truth then what is written in the Word of God.” To respond, I will continue to say that, as it is true.

No, not all important things were written down. Once again, it’s your own take on this… which is normally at odds with truth. Are you calling essentially unimportant the other things Jesus did because they were not written?

If you don’t understand what Christ established to teach the truth, you will never really have the truth. Even the parts of truth you have, you can’t be sure of and the parts you’re in error, you can’t be sure of… as you claim equally that the truth you know is the same as the error you also claim as truth. You’re lost, and you won’t accept proper directions. You have no way of knowing without God’s Church what the true doctrines are… and sadly you seem happily content with this errant behavior born of ignorance.

The first thing on your grocery list should be to determine where to shop for the truth. It’s a one stop shopping place, called the Catholic Church.

 

[Hope3]

Heiscoming:

Historical references of the early Church for the necessity of Baptism:

catholic.com/library/Necessity_of_Baptism.asp

catholic.com/library/Born_Again_in_Baptism.asp

Infant Baptism:

catholic.com/library/Infant_Baptism.asp

catholic.com/library/Early_Teachings_of_Infant_Baptism.asp

Baptism by Immersion:

catholic.com/library/Baptism_Immersion_Only.asp

Baptismal Grace:

catholic.com/library/Baptismal_Grace.asp

Trinitarian Baptism:

catholic.com/library/Trinitarian_Baptism.asp

The teachings of the true Church regarding Baptism have not changed in 2000 years and will not be changing.

Hope3

 

[heiscominginthe]

No. Protecting what Christ did against the claims of heresy.

Tell that to William Tynsdale who I believe is with the Lord as we speak.

No, not all important things were written down.

 

[guanophore]

Adding to words again?

No, heis. You have it backwards. You see, Jesus commited the faith to the Church. The Church then produced the “words” (Scripture). Scripture was never meant to contain the sum total of the faith, nor was it meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

The reason there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the Catholic faith is that it was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church chose not to include any documents that were not consistent with the Faith that was committed to her by the Apostles.

However, the entire NT was “added” by the Catholic Church.

I believe what I said is if there is a belief that is contrary to the Word of God, we must prove it is not to be used as doctrines. Not exact wording.

I understand. The problem, however, is how one determines which “Word of God” is the standard, as everyone interprets it differently. This is why the Apostles delivered the doctrine whole, and entire, before a word of the NT was ever written. We know when doctrines are errant because they are not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

Certainly there are many things that have not been written down, but you will find out that when it is deemed important, it is written down.

If that were true, heis, then there would be no division in the Church of God. The reason we have so many denominations is because of hte controversy over things “deemed important”.

If you don’t make a grocery list, you won’t remember all that you need. Writing down things is important.

Not necessarily. If the HS is protecting the “list” in the heart and minds of the believers, He is just as able to protect it there as He is in writing.

Now, when it comes to God, is it not even more important to write things down, not just say this is or that is? And if a thought is said to be given by way of the Holy Spirit pertaining to God and deemed truth, is it not important that it be written?

Evidently not, or Jesus would have written us a “how to” book. Instead, He founded a Church. This is the method by which He chose to preserve His word.

The thing is, if things that are brought as doctrine is contrary to the Word of God, it should not be allowed or included as such.

I appreciate your sentiment, heis, but what ends up being contrary is everyone’s interpretation of what the Word of God means.

 

[guanophore]

Tell that to William Tynsdale who I believe is with the Lord as we speak.

If he is with the Lord, then he has no need to be told. He is now fully Catholic.
When we see Him, we see Him as He really is!

Sorry, but if not written down, it will be forgotten. Jesus said, it is written. That says it all.

No, heis. You are making a logical fallacy. The fact that we can depend upon the written scriptures does not mean that God is incapable of protecting Truth that is not written. If this were true, then none of the Scriptures would exist. How do you think Truth got preserved between the time of Adam and Moses?

When the insturctions you boast about from the supreme authority, the CC, and not God are contrary to the Word of God, I will not accept their authority over the Lord.

There are no doctrines of the Catholic Church that are contrary to scripture. What is contrary is your understanding.

If this was so, then the CC teachings would be in accord with the Word of God and not their own interpretation.

And it is true, they are in accord. You perceptions/interpretations are not.

I believe God loves those in the CC, but is not real happy with this churches teachings. If God did not love those in the CC, I would not be here talking to you this day.

Is that why you are here on CAF, heis? ARe you trying to save us poor lost CAtholics?

 

[Holly3278]

How about this for a claim to divinity?

(Joh 10:30 DRB) I and the Father are one.

I would also suggest the following web page:

scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html

 

[heiscominginthe]

No, heis. You have it backwards. You see, Jesus commited the faith to the Church. The Church then produced the “words” (Scripture). Scripture was never meant to contain the sum total of the faith, nor was it meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

And who is the Church? Even one who is born again, born into Christ through his blood. Romans 6

The reason there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the Catholic faith is that it was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church chose not to include any documents that were not consistent with the Faith that was committed to her by the Apostles.

Wow, this is out there. I never read where Paul or Peter or James or any of the apostles claimed they were catholic. They did consider themselves saints, making up the church of God.

As for contradictions, the CC do not understand or interpret the milk of the Word correctly, so how much more contradictory is their meat. You can’t even get John 3 correct, making up your own interpretation, changing the water pertaining to physical birth to water baptism. Yet, is not physical birth being born of the water? Yet, you want to make the baptism of water the point in which a man is born of the water and this is not correct.

I understand. The problem, however, is how one determines which “Word of God” is the standard, as everyone interprets it differently. This is why the Apostles delivered the doctrine whole, and entire, before a word of the NT was ever written. We know when doctrines are errant because they are not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

Sorry, but the apostles were every careful to insure that all that was written as doctrine was given to all the churches that were not called CATHOLIC yet. The apostles did this so that all the churches would be in one accord.

When did the Church stop being the Church, becoming catholic? If Jesus wanted the church to be called the catholic church, would he not have done so? Yet, no place in scripture does it say catholic church, it just says church.

Not necessarily. If the HS is protecting the “list” in the heart and minds of the believers, He is just as able to protect it there as He is in writing.

What if a man feels or believes something, and it goes against the written Word? Should it be accepted as truth?

Evidently not, or Jesus would have written us a “how to” book. Instead, He founded a Church. This is the method by which He chose to preserve His word.

Jesus did write a how to book. It is called the Holy Bible.

I appreciate your sentiment, heis, but what ends up being contrary is everyone’s interpretation of what the Word of God means.

I understand that there should not be multiple interpretations. Yet, there will be some. I believe there are things written in the Word of God that can have different interpretations, with each being correct. Yet, I also believe there are somethings that may have only one interpretation.

The thing we must ask ourselves is does this or that create confusion. If if creates confusion, then we can be certain it is not of God, for God is not the god of confusion.

 

[heiscominginthe]

How about this for a claim to divinity?

(Joh 10:30 DRB) I and the Father are one.

I would also suggest the following web page:

scripturecatholic.com/jesus_christ_divinity.html

God gave Jesus the full authority of the Godhead, the fullness of his Holy Spirit. So Jesus, who was a life unto himself, ( John 26 ), was completely filled. over filled with the Holy Spirit of the Father. It is for this reason it is not robbery to say the Father and the Son are one.

Here is where I have found this argument where not one who believes in the trinity doctrine can explain.

It is written that God is not a god of confusion.

So why would God the Father come to the earth, posing as his only begotten Son, even though it was really himself? Doesn’t this promote confusion?

 

[Roy5]

DOUBTS RE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

 I haven't gone back read all the postings, but several verses from the Gospels have always puzzled me re this subject. Here are three of them.

  Matt. 19:17 - Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God...."

  John 14:12 - I say unto you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, and greater works than these shall he do....

   John 14:28 - for my Father is greater than I.

How does one adjust these to traditional Trinitarian theology?

 

[MDK]

Tell that to William Tynsdale who I believe is with the Lord as we speak.

What do you base your belief on? I thought you were sola scriptura, and is it written by God that William Tynsdale is in Heaven?

Non Catholics can get to Heaven. But, that is in no way justification for one to reject God’s one true Church, the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but if not written down, it will be forgotten. Jesus said, it is written. That says it all.

No, once again (it’s deja vu all over again), you don’t understand what that Scripture means. Your false interpretation also conflicts with Christ’s own words as recorded in 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.” To see that it refutes your misinterpretation doesn’t require Magisterial teaching. It may for some in regard to who Christ is speaking to… and He’s not speaking to you, by the way, even if you falsely claim to be 2,000 years old and an Apostle.

When the insturctions you boast about from the supreme authority, the CC, and not God are contrary to the Word of God, I will not accept their authority over the Lord. As for your constant insults, they phase me not, for the love of Christ is in me and I forgive you.

Ignorance of the Catholic teachings doesn’t stop some from making unfounded criticisms. These instructions are directly from God. That’s why they’re authoritative. Contrast this with your claims, which are almost strictly from man, and are not authoritative. There is no insulting, but the truth of your behavior is less than desirable when shown accurately, and so you don’t like it. If you don’t like it, then I recommend changing to the correct behaviors. The truth, then when compared to your behaviors will be much more palatable to you. Please consider not bearing false witness against one who speaks the truth because you don’t like what the truth shows.

If this was so, then the CC teachings would be in accord with the Word of God and not their own interpretation.

There is no place the Catholic teaching is at odds with Scripture for instance, you know, the Book authored by the Catholic Church with the inspriation and protection of the Holy Spirit.

I believe God loves those in the CC, but is not real happy with this churches teachings. If God did not love those in the CC, I would not be here talking to you this day.

God is happy with His own teachings, which subsist only in the Catholic Church, of which Christ is Head. For instance, compare Revelation with the Catholic mass sometime… you’ll be amazed at the striking correlations… assuming that one actually understands the correct meanings of the Scriptures in Revelation.

Some attend mass, and have said that they are truly worshiping God for the first time.

 

[heiscominginthe]

DOUBTS RE DIVINITY OF CHRIST

 I haven't gone back read all the postings, but several verses from the Gospels have always puzzled me re this subject. Here are three of them.

  Matt. 19:17 - Why callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is God...."

  John 14:12 - I say unto you, he that believeth in me, the works that I do, and greater works than these shall he do....

   John 14:28 - for my Father is greater than I.

How does one adjust these to traditional Trinitarian theology?

Undoubtedly, you are going to get a multitude of answers attempting to support the trinity doctrine.

What you wrote above is only in part. This is other scriptures that point to the Father being over the Son.

What about the end times. Jesus said that only the Father knows the day and hour. He himself admitted he does not know. How can this be if Jesus is the Father, is equal to the Father, knowing all things?

What about John 5:26 where it says the Father gave the Son life unto himself?

I believe why it is not robbery to call the Son God is the fact that the Father gave the Son his Holy Spirit without measure, filling the Son completely with his spirit.

Also, in Hebrews, the Father himself refers to the Son as God, so who are we to do less.

 

[heiscominginthe]

God gave Jesus the full authority of the Godhead, the fullness of his Holy Spirit. So Jesus, who was a life unto himself, ( John 26 ), was completely filled. over filled with the Holy Spirit of the Father. It is for this reason it is not robbery to say the Father and the Son are one.

Here is where I have found this argument where not one who believes in the trinity doctrine can explain.

It is written that God is not a god of confusion.

So why would God the Father come to the earth, posing as his only begotten Son, even though it was really himself? Doesn’t this promote confusion?

I am still waiting for an explanation to this. To say that God the Father came to earth posing as his only begotten Son is to promote confusion and I find confusion by all who stand on the trinity doctrine. One answer to this confusion is that God is a mystery and we cannot understand him.

Sorry, but I disagree with this. I believe God is always ready to reveal himself to us. Unfortunately, we are not always receptive to his truth.

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;5222430]No, heis. You have it backwards. You see, Jesus commited the faith to the Church. The Church then produced the “words” (Scripture). Scripture was never meant to contain the sum total of the faith, nor was it meant to be separated from the Sacred Tradition that produced it.

The Word of God came to be though the unction of the Holy Spirit through the church. The church produced nothing other then the writing down part.

The reason there is nothing in scripture that contradicts the Catholic faith is that it was written by, for, and about Catholics. The Catholic Church chose not to include any documents that were not consistent with the Faith that was committed to her by the Apostles.

Wow, where do I start. Where does it say water baptism saves a man? Where does it say to pray to Mary to have your sins forgiven, or to pray to Mary period? Where does it say that all baptisms are lumped into one? Where does it say to baptize a man in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, changing from baptizing in the name of Jesus? Where does it say to create a position of pope and that he is to be Christ’s ambassador on earth? Should I go on?

Where does it say trinity in the bible? Where does it say that mankind evolved and was not created? Where does it say anything about pergatory? Where does it say that a man who is born of water and of spirit aquires this through water baptism? I can go on and on and on. Let’s not go here. Let us stick to the original thread.

However, the entire NT was “added” by the Catholic Church.

Hmmmmmmmm. the CC may of had a hand in gathering the many letters used to complete the bible, but they did not write them.

I understand. The problem, however, is how one determines which “Word of God” is the standard, as everyone interprets it differently. This is why the Apostles delivered the doctrine whole, and entire, before a word of the NT was ever written. We know when doctrines are errant because they are not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

On this I agree. Yet, only on what is written in the Word of God. The multitude of interpretations written by men to explain scripture on the other hand is where there is problems, since the majority of it either adds or takes away from the original text.

If that were true, heis, then there would be no division in the Church of God. The reason we have so many denominations is because of hte controversy over things “deemed important”.

What creates the many and diverse denoms is the changing of the Word of God. Men interpret it to mean what they want it to mean instead of believing what it says through the unction of the HS.

Not necessarily. If the HS is protecting the “list” in the heart and minds of the believers, He is just as able to protect it there as He is in writing.

Is not the NT written on the fleshly tablets of the hearts of the believers?

 

[guanophore]

The Word of God came to be though the unction of the Holy Spirit through the church. The church produced nothing other then the writing down part.

Such a statement denies the incarnational character of the Church. It is akin to saying that The HS placed Jesus in Mary, and she contributed “nothing but the birthing part” or that the HS inhabited the human body of Jesus, but that His humanity “produced nothing”.

Wow, where do I start. Where does it say water baptism saves a man?

We are saved when we are born again of water, and spirit. This happens in baptism. We are saved 'through" the water, just as Noah and his family were saved “through the water”. It is the HS that saves us, but that salvation, purchased by the blood of Christ, 'washes" away our sins in baptism. Water baptism is the means by which the saving and cleansing blood of Christ is applied to the individual.

Where does it say to pray to Mary to have your sins forgiven, or to pray to Mary period?

You are suffering under a false assumption that all of Christian teaching and practice can be found in Scripture. In the book of Acts we read:

Acts 2:41-42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

What prayers were these? Catholics know, because they have been obedient to the apostolic commandment to keep the traditions, just as they were delivered. Protestants, being separated from the Apostolic Traditions, often have no idea.

Where does it say that all baptisms are lumped into one?

Did someone say that? Neither does it say they are “separated” from one another. The Apostles taught that there was One Baptism. Therefore, they are all part of the One, even if they occur at different times and places.

I notice you have never been able to explain away that scripture that says there is One Baptism.

Where does it say to baptize a man in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, changing from baptizing in the name of Jesus?

heis, why are you trying to derail this thread? You have already posted this on the baptism thread. That is the appropriate place for it. I understand that you have trouble resisiting your urge to find fault with the Catholic Church, whereever and whenever you can, but please try to restrain yourself.

Where does it say to create a position of pope and that he is to be Christ’s ambassador on earth? Should I go on?

Sure! But let’s stick to the thread topic. You have brought up many topics that are unrelated to the thread, and should be treated with their own threads.

Where does it say trinity in the bible?

I presume by this question you are trying to make the case that, since it is not in the Bible, then it is not part of the Apostolic teaching? I guess it also means that you are part of a non-trinitarian sect?

The problem you are left with, if you reject the teaching of the Church on Trinity, is that it was the same church that produced the canon of the Bible. If you can’t trust the Church to get it right, then you don’t have any valid source for scripture.

Where does it say..

As long as you labor under the error of Sola Scriptura, you will fall short of the fullness of the truth.

Hmmmmmmmm. the CC may of had a hand in gathering the many letters used to complete the bible, but they did not write them.

This is interesting. You are saying that the early Church was not Catholic, but that the Catholic Church somehow “appeared” somewhere along the way, and gathered the authentic Apostolic writings, even though they apparently had already fallen away from the Apostolic faith, then accruately (apparently when separated from the Spirit of God) comprised the writings into a bible. What an interesting theory!

On this I agree. Yet, only on what is written in the Word of God. The multitude of interpretations written by men to explain scripture on the other hand is where there is problems, since the majority of it either adds or takes away from the original text.

Certainly much commentary is available. However, you really have no basis to believe in what you call “the Word of God”, since it did not come from an authenic source.

What creates the many and diverse denoms is the changing of the Word of God. Men interpret it to mean what they want it to mean instead of believing what it says through the unction of the HS.

No, heis. The Word of God is unchanging, and cannot be changed. That is what “immutable” means. I agree, though, that men do interpret it to make it mean what they want. This is a product of being separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

Is not the NT written on the fleshly tablets of the hearts of the believers?

Not as much as it should be!

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;

We are saved when we are born again of water, and spirit. This happens in baptism. We are saved 'through" the water, just as Noah and his family were saved “through the water”. It is the HS that saves us, but that salvation, purchased by the blood of Christ, 'washes" away our sins in baptism. Water baptism is the means by which the saving and cleansing blood of Christ is applied to the individual.

Again you add to the Word of God.Why do you refuse to believe what your own eyes look upon. Instead, you believe what the CC teaches and completely ignore what Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus.

You are suffering under a false assumption that all of Christian teaching and practice can

be found in Scripture. In the book of Acts we read:

Acts 2:41-42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

What prayers were these? Catholics know.

Now what do you suppose they were praying about? I would think that they prayed for other believers, also non-believers hoping they would be saved. I believe they prayed for the growth of the faith. I believe they prayed for God’s protection. I believe they prayed for the needy and the sick. I believe they prayed for those in authoritive positions. Shall I go on?

You say you know what they prayed about because you catholics were sitting at the feet of the apostles. Funny it does not mention that in scripture.

Did someone say that? Neither does it say they are “separated” from one another. The Apostles taught that there was One Baptism. Therefore, they are all part of the One, even if they occur at different times and places.

I notice you have never been able to explain away that scripture that says there is One Baptism.

I can’t explain it away, but I can explain what it means for it is the baptism that all believers are baptized with to be part of the family of God, to be part of the church and that is the baptism that saves us by faith. It is the baptism of blood through Christ where our sins are destroyed.

heis, why are you trying to derail this thread?

Actually, I am just replying to your post.

Sure! But let’s stick to the thread topic. You have brought up many topics that are unrelated to the thread, and should be treated with their own threads.

I guess it also means that you are part of a non-trinitarian sect?

The problem you are left with, if you reject the teaching of the Church on Trinity, is that it was the same church that produced the canon of the Bible. If you can’t trust the Church to get it right, then you don’t have any valid source for scripture.

I don’t view the trinity as yourself. Yet, this is where so many attempt to use philosophy and theology to try to understand God instead of just believing what is written.

If you read my threads on this subject, I doubt you can disagree with what I posted. Yet, the point I try to bring out is did the Son exist prior to being begotten of the Father. There is that word begotten. It must have a powerful meaning. Was the Son born of the Father? I believe he was.

So, did the Son exist prior to being begotten of the Father? Now here is the philosophy and theology part.

It is written the Jesus is the Word of God. So we must ask ourselves, does a word exist before it is spoken into existance? So an unspoken word is merely a thought. Now, if that thought goes without being spoken, does it truly exist? If you have a thought and do not tell me what it is, then it may exist to you, but it will not for me.

I believe Jesus was begotten of the Father, in the beginning, even before the creation of the heavens and the earth. I believe he is the mirror image of the Father, being made a life unto himself, seperate of the Father, but yet of the Father. I believe the Son is filled without measure with the Holy Spirit of the Father, thus making it not robbery to call the Son God, to call the Son Father. For no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

As long as you labor under the error of Sola Scriptura, you will fall short of the fullness of the truth.

I will stand on the King James period. I believe it is the infallible Word of God.

This is interesting. You are saying that the early Church was not Catholic!

What I am saying is the church established by Jesus to the apostles through the unction of the Holy Spirit was written down exactly the same for all the churches established by the apostles so that all the churches would be in one accord.

And there was several. I believe for the KJ alone, there was about 5000 manuscripts used in compiling the KJ.

Certainly much commentary is available. However, you really have no basis to believe in what you call “the Word of God”, since it did not come from an authenic source.

Sorry, but the KJ comes from an older version of greek than that of the Douey.

No, heis. The Word of God is unchanging, and cannot be changed. That is what “immutable” means. I agree, though, that men do interpret it to make it mean what they want. This is a product of being separated from the Apostolic Tradition.

No, this is the result of changing the Word of God by adding or taking away from what was already written by the apostles.

You are write though that the Word is unchanging. It is the corruption in the hearts of men that change the bible to appease their flesh.

 

[guanophore]

Again you add to the Word of God.Why do you refuse to believe what your own eyes look upon. Instead, you believe what the CC teaches and completely ignore what Jesus is conveying to Nicodemus.

Actually, no, heis. Catholics are not concerned as you are about “adding to the Word of God”. Catholics know that the entire NT was “added” by the Church. There is nothing in it that does not reflect Catholic Teaching, nor is there anything that is contradictory to Catholic Teaching. This is because the NT and the Teaching of the Apostles contained in the Catholic Church both come from the same Source. Therefore, for us, there is not “instead” involved. The Bible reflects the teaching of the Apostles.

would think that they prayed for other  believers, also non-believers hoping they would be saved. I believe they prayed for the growth of the faith. I believe they prayed for God's protection. I believe they prayed for the needy and the sick. I believe they prayed for those in authoritive positions. Shall I go on?

No, my point is that the Catholic Church has preserved these prayers, and that is how we know what they are. Those such as yourself that have become separated from the Apostolic Succession do not have this part of the Revelation of God to the Church. Your guesses are good ones, though.

You say you know what they prayed about because you catholics were sitting at the feet of the apostles. Funny it does not mention that in scripture.

That was the Scripture I quoted:

Acts 2:42
42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers.

These were the first believers, all Catholic, all devoted to the teaching of the Apostles, and the prayers that were used by them. These prayers and teachings have not changed from that day, until this.

 I can't explain it away, but I can explain what it means for it is the baptism that all believers are baptized with to be part of the family of God, to be part of the church and that is the baptism that saves us by faith. It is the baptism of blood through Christ where our sins are destroyed.

Yes, I read some drivel about how the destroyed sins are still clinging to the person and then are washed away in baptism, or some such like that. However, you cling to baptism having no power to wash anything. Just another inconsistency in your theology.

Actually, I am just replying to your post.

No, you brought baptism, and a lot of your other complaints about Catholicism into this thread.

I don’t view the trinity as yourself. Yet, this is where so many attempt to use philosophy and theology to try to understand God instead of just believing what is written.

This much is clear.

If you read my threads on this subject, I doubt you can disagree with what I posted. Yet, the point I try to bring out is did the Son exist prior to being begotten of the Father. There is that word begotten. It must have a powerful meaning. Was the Son born of the Father? I believe he was.

Begotten, not made. One in being with the Father.

So, did the Son exist prior to being begotten of the Father? Now here is the philosophy and theology part.

Indeed, many philosophies and theologies have managed to depart from the Apostolic Teaching. However, the HS assured that the Teaching of the Apostles was retained and defended in the Church through all these heresies. It is interesting that today, the early heresies are again rearing their ugly heads.

It is written the Jesus is the Word of God. So we must ask ourselves, does a word exist before it is spoken into existance? So an unspoken word is merely a thought. Now, if that thought goes without being spoken, does it truly exist? If you have a thought and do not tell me what it is, then it may exist to you, but it will not for me.

Are you trying to say that Jesus is created of the Father?

I believe Jesus was begotten of the Father, in the beginning, even before the creation of the heavens and the earth. I believe he is the mirror image of the Father, being made a life unto himself, seperate of the Father, but yet of the Father. I believe the Son is filled without measure with the Holy Spirit of the Father, thus making it not robbery to call the Son God, to call the Son Father. For no man cometh unto the Father, but through the Son.

Wow. This is exactly one of those early heresies!

 

[guanophore]

I will stand on the King James period. I believe it is the infallible Word of God.

The scripture cannot be “infallible”, heis, because it cannot take responsibilty for it’s actions, which is one of the elements of fallible action. The scripture is inerrant, and inspired. Infallibility is a quality that can only belong to humans.

What I am saying is the church established by Jesus to the apostles through the unction of the Holy Spirit was written down exactly the same for all the churches established by the apostles so that all the churches would be in one accord.

I understand that is what you are saying, but it is an erroneous statement. Unity was preserved by adherance to the Teaching of the Apostles. This was necessary because there was no NT for almost 400 years. The Church was not created out of the Scriptures, as many have done today, but out of the Revelation of God to the Apostles.

No, this is the result of changing the Word of God by adding or taking away from what was already written by the apostles.

What is written cannot be properly understood when it is separated from the Teaching of the Apostles, to which the Catholic Church was devoted from the day of Pentecost. Efforts to create Church out of the Bible as is common today inevitably results in error.

You are write though that the Word is unchanging. It is the corruption in the hearts of men that change the bible to appease their flesh.

When you gather your courage, and begin to study the history of the church, you will find that you have become the unwitting victim of this yourself. I believe that you are devoted to your faith, and do not realize that your theology is founded upon errors that occurred centuries ago.