Question about Iglesia Ni Cristo [Church of Christ]

[ETE]

I can’t speak for all Catholics, but to me the statues and images in the church are more for the glory of the house of God, to make it beautiful and remind people of the saints and angels, (not necessarily to worship them). The crucifix, which is intrinsic to Catholicism, is to remind us of the sacrifice of our Lord. It’s a visceral experience. To me, the house of God should be beautiful.

Did God allows to carved images for God’s honor, veneration, respect and worship?

It is no doubt beautiful…but a blasphemy before God.

 

[ETE]

ETE;4019135:

I see, so If your wife sleeps with another man, and perform sexual activity [actions in worshiping god through images] and what she is doing is for your honor, veneration and glory though he is on top of another man is okay with you?

It will not bother you right? Anyways, the man he is having sex with is not in her mind no matter what they will do, instead it is you that is in her mind while performing such sexual activity…and you must agree with me, since it can be done with your god, and you are not thinking the images wherein the action of worship is being rendered, anyways it is for god…right?

I believe that a man with a right frame of mind, and knows reasons and common sense will not agree with his wife alibi once caught fornicating with another man…how much more God himself?

ETE, your intellect is indeed surpasses anything else and perhaps, it is not anymore in sync with a normal brain of a human being. Your presumptions of what may other think is just like your ignorance of the true meaning of the scriptures. You like to solve things in logic but here you are speaking like nuts. No insane human being would analyze things like you do. This is perhaps the reason why you are talking like this, your mind is brainwashed by your church.

Let me answer your logic my friend and I do not intend to use scriptures here to clarify. I only wish to ask you how on earth will you be able to know someone’s thoughts? You brought up a very explicit example proving that your mind is full of trash. Are you trying to incite anger from me by using my wife and get insulted? Dear ETE, you have proven what kind of man you are and I think you don’t even deserve to defend Jesus and God.

I want you to know that your assumptions are wrong and very dumb. I think that you are a type of a debater who will resorts to a negative answer when you think there is no way out. But may the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit forgive you. I forgive you and please never think about your wife doing it for you.

Why? does it offended you if you wife sleeps with another man in your behalf? the Catholic calls it INDIRECT WORSHIP…meaning the actions before an idols and images does not refers to the IMAGES it self but to the prototype.

In the same manner, your wife can have a good defense once caught having sex with another man by saying you are doing such to God also.

So what why you will be offended TO THE MAX if your wife commits fornication, whereas you wallowed yourself in fornicating with IMAGES AND IDOLS? And you expect to be ok with God?

If we feel the fury of jealousy once our wife or husband fornicate, God is also a Jealous and feels the same…

Deuteronomy 4:24 "For the LORD your God [is] a consuming fire, a jealous God.

That’s why he expressed his intention the way we can understand on why he do not want man to worship CARVED IMAGES that will represent him or serve such nor bow down and worship.

Exo. 20:4 " You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness [of anything] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth; 5 you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, [am] a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth [generations] of those who hate Me,

 

[ETE]

ETE,

when you say Jesus didn’t become God until the 4th century this is obviously misleading. The doctrine of Christ’s divinity may have been declared in a formalised way there but the Church for the first 300 years was an underground organisation who was persecuted by the state. You can’t do anything in a formalised official way until you become formalised and official yourself.

And things are not needed to be defined unless something is prompting the need for it, such as heresies and misunderstandings with the faith.

webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/heresies.html

Look for me if Jesus’ message means anything it is more likely to be found in the continuous body of orthodox Christians that can be traced back to Christ.

From my point of view - your founder went over to the USA and learned bible studies from Protestants there and like so many before him decided that he could read the “Catholic” scriptures uniquely and decide what is true. And like a small subsection of people he then claimed to have a revelation from God to establish God’s ‘true’ church on earth, just like Muhammad and Joseph Smith.

If you are going to criticise some group for not following the bible then you 1) leave yourself open to the same charge and 2) elevate the bible to the supreme teaching authority.

do you keep holy the lords day ? do you not draw water on that day ? Saturday or Sunday or both. The OT says Saturday, the NT says now Sunday. Do you stone adulturers, do you stay away from your wife when she is menstruating. do you slay a calf once a year to God ?

If you want to criticise someone for not being the ‘true’ church by citing the bible then that applies to everybody and therefore there are no people following God. The thing is the bible is not the supreme teaching. Because basically if you do that you run into the same problems the muslims and some protestants have - that is, the individual interpretations become more important than the words, which makes God look stupid and weak and the sower of divisions and arguements.

Even if you look at the bible itself it says the ‘pillar and foundation of the truth’ is the church.

Look at it’s history. When God gave Moses the ten commandments he made him his representative on earth. Look at the last paragraph of Exodus. When Moses dies Aaron takes his place. Look at Jesus’ comments regarding the High Priest pharisees - that they “sit on the chair of Moses and should therefore be obeyed”. Look at Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16. The authority since Moses is not a book it is a people and there is a shepard to the people. It is that authority which writes and authorises the books for instruction.

You my friend, are appearing to simply quote the authorities books against the authorities themselves.

If you are upset with any ambiguous words regarding statues in the millions of words written by that authority, it would seem to be a much more obvious thing to do - to question those words or receive clarification from that authority rather than to ditch the whole history of Christianity and follow one of the many people who have decided for themselves that they know best.

The result is division and arguement. If God thinks we have made a major mistake he will tell us in a dramatic way, the same as he raised Jesus from the dead.

Simply quoting that a people, in your opinion, are not following the writings given from that people, or who are not interpreting it the right way (in accordance with you) is a very weak arguement.

It is a destructive arguement that anybody can play. It is based on the fallacy of scripture as the supreme authority, or more accurately, your interpretation of that scripture as the supreme authority.

That whole idea for me cuts at any authenticity of Christianity.

Someone tomorrow could claim to receive a message from God and tell us he/she now knows the one true correct way.

Now if they were to perform miracles and be raised from the dead in accordance with Jewish prophecies then i might take an interest. Otherwise you are making your founder out to be more successful than Jesus Christ. It is Christs actions on earth that builds the authenticity of the church. By citing him as a failure regarding the subsequant church’s apostacy, you weaken the impact of his acts here on earth. Which again cuts away at the whole basis for the authenticity of Christianity. All of these ‘break-aways’ ultimately weaken Christianity and sow division.

I would wish you to look again at the early church and take on board the Catholic responses and use your obvious zeal for God to promote his message, his church and his authenticity rather than use your gifts as a pointless mud-slinging exercise on the inheritors of the chair of Moses my friend.

Of course, you may see it differently. May God bless you.

That is a very long explanation, but what does it do in the historical facts that the doctrine of JESUS IS GOD appears only in 110AD?

Historians, Catholic and Protestant agrees with that.

Never never did the 325AD Nicean Council bishop used the letters of the gospel to present a defense that Jesus nor the Apostles preached a direct to the point doctrine that JESUS IS GOD nor GOD THE SON never…unless you can prove it.

That’s why the final solution was handed down by a Pagan Emperor, Constantine that JESUS IS GOD…and that ended the two grueling years for debates regarding Jesus, God or not.

“The Council could not agree and after two years, impatient at the delay, the Emperor Constantine appeared and addressed the assembly, ordering them to agree on the divinity of Christ…”(Challenge of a Liberal Faith, p. 60)

Take note: NOT THE BISHOPS are the final decision maker, instead a PAGAN EMPEROR.

 

[Ghoti]

Over one hundred posts in this forum alone, and so far all you have is one page of a Filipino catechism from 1955 with problematic wording. With this one page you will topple the Church that Christ himself founded? If the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, neither shall you.

It has been gone over and over again.

We WORSHIP God, through prayer and deeds. We also PRAY to Him for our needs.

We VENERATE the Saints, through trying to emulate them. We PRAY to them to INTERCEDE with God, because it has been shown through their lives, miracles, and favours from God that the Saints are God’s friends.

Even more so, we pray to Mary, Jesus’ beloved Mother, to intercede for us with her Son, ad to grant us our requests, just as she did at the wedding feast at Cana. We treat Mary as our own Mother (“Behold thy mother”), only with the superior *veneration *granted to her as Mother of God.

We USE statues, icons, holy pictures, etc, as reminders of our holy friends (in the case of saints) or as a reminder of the suffering and sacrifice of our Lord (in the case of the crucifix). We VENERATE the images because of what they represent – in the same way that I as a soldier honour the Flag of my country: I do not worship the flag – it’s a piece of cloth – but I salute it, respect it, and will not dishonour it, because what I do to the flag is a reflection of what I would do to what it represents. Likewise, when I pray before a Crucifix, I pray to Jesus, Our Lord: The visual image of the Redeemer dying on the Cross, the innocent Victim condemned for my crimes, helps me to focus my heart and mind on Him and is a constant reminder of His mercy and love. In reality, yes, it is only so much wood and plaster; but if I were to show contempt for the image, it displays to the world what I think of the Subject of that image.

What would you think was the mindset of someone who spit on a picture of someone? Is he mad at square pieces of paper? Does he have a hate-on for silver nitrate? No, he is showing contempt for the subject represented by the image. The way you treat an image represents the way you think about its subject.

In Philippians 2, Paul writes: “…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend…”

Why should we bend our knee at the name of Jesus? Shouldn’t knee-bending be reserved for His Presence? Because a name is like an image – one aural, one visual – that represents a subject. The word “Jesus” is sacred, not because of any magic juju appended to any particular arrangement of letters, but because of what it represents: and I cannot here display what it represents, but only give you more “names”: Christ, the King of Kings, Our Lord, God the Son. And we should bend our knee at the Name, just as we should at the Image, because by doing so we say that we will bend our knee for Him.

As for analogies: “Thou shalt not kill” seems very straightforward. Yet almost everyone can see the difference between murder and justifiable killing – say in self defence, or in a just war. One is a sin, one isn’t. Same as idolatry vs the proper veneration (not worship) of images.

Now, please stop flogging this one-trick pony.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

AMEN!!!

 

[ETE]

ETE is the typical INC. Their reasoning patterns are hit-and-miss. They take any book that suits their needs, event though they’re not necessarily representative of Catholic teaching, and conveniently ignore difficult passages.

Catholics and Protestant scholars agrees with history, caused it is history that cannot be changed.

For example, on this thread alone, the point was raised where Thomas declared that Jesus is Lord and God, and Jesus accepted the title instead of reprimanding Thomas.

Where can you read Jesus accept the title? That is another presumption on your part. I also asked, what was Thomas belief regarding Christ before that event in John 20:28?

Did he receive and believe that Jesus is THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD based on the gospel of Jesus and in return they preached the same to the land of Israel before Jesus crucifixion?

If it is, then cite me a verse that proves it.

It was never addressed. Instead, ETE insists on the three-year mission prior to the Resurrection, while this point, clear as day, remains ignored. So are John 1:1 and John 1:14.

My friend, three years historical missionary campaign of Jesus and his Apostles is a good proof for your belief to stand that JESUS IS GOD…cause the same faith will spread throughout Israel…but the problem is, ISRAEL WILL KILL THEM [Jesus and his Apostles] if they preached God became man and he is Jesus.

Why you may ask, because men of Israel are fully trained and biblically educated that GOD IS NOT A MAN not MAN IS NOT GOD…they are believers of the monotheistic God, THE FATHER ALONE IS THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD…and not only them JESUS and his Apostles have the same faith like the rest of the Jews because they are all Jews…obvious to say.

The INC are like this across the board, and really, debating with them is a useless exercise. Their whole apologetics system is devoid of intelligence and reason, and they are incapable of adhering to simple logic and rules of debate.

Proof is the best tool which is missing to prove you beliefs.
Next time cite verses and historical evidence.

 

[ETE]

Over one hundred posts in this forum alone, and so far all you have is one page of a Filipino catechism from 1955 with problematic wording. With this one page you will topple the Church that Christ himself founded? If the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, neither shall you.

It has been gone over and over again.

Are you telling me that the CATECHISM of the RCC with “nihil obstat” and *“Imprimatur” *and “Permissu Superium” of the Vatican was ERRONEOUS? Let me hear your what you will say about that.

 

[ETE]

Over one hundred posts in this forum alone, and so far all you have is one page of a Filipino catechism from 1955 with problematic wording. With this one page you will topple the Church that Christ himself founded? If the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, neither shall you.

It has been gone over and over again.

Are you telling me that the CATECHISM of the RCC with “nihil obstat” and *“Imprimatur” *and “Permissu Superium” of the Vatican was ERRONEOUS? Let me hear your what you will say about that.

 

[Ghoti]

Are you telling me that the CATECHISM of the RCC with “nihil obstat” and *“Imprimatur” *and “Permissu Superium” of the Vatican was ERRONEOUS? Let me hear your what you will say about that.

Again, I say, problematic wording. Similar to the use of the word “worship” in the oath that the Prince of Wales swore to the Queen at his investiture, to render “earthly worship”.

Again, you are using one page out of one particular catechism okayed by prelates in the Philippines, while I have shown the Baltimore Catechism and its commentary, as well as the current one from the Vatican itself – in Latin rather than possibly-misconstrued English. Nowhere in any of these do I see any exhortation for me to treat an image/icon as a God. In actual fact, that is particularly refuted. Yet you cling desperately to this one page, demanding a yes-or-no answer to a false dilemma so you can pounce.

I render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.

Respect to my fellow human beings, veneration to saints and images, worship to God.

thump thump thump Nope, still no whinny.

 

[ETE]

We WORSHIP God, through prayer and deeds. We also PRAY to Him for our needs.

While kneeling down to IMAGES? The prototype of God base on Catholic doctrines right?

We VENERATE the Saints, through trying to emulate them. We PRAY to them to INTERCEDE with God, because it has been shown through their lives, miracles, and favours from God that the Saints are God’s friends.

Even more so, we pray to Mary, Jesus’ beloved Mother, to intercede for us with her Son, ad to grant us our requests, just as she did at the wedding feast at Cana. We treat Mary as our own Mother (“Behold thy mother”), only with the superior *veneration *granted to her as Mother of God.

How can a dead person intercede on your behalf to God?
Did God place them as intercessor? Or you invented your own intercessor?

We USE statues, icons, holy pictures, etc, as reminders of our holy friends (in the case of saints) or as a reminder of the suffering and sacrifice of our Lord (in the case of the crucifix). We VENERATE the images because of what they represent – in the same way that I as a soldier honour the Flag of my country: I do not worship the flag – it’s a piece of cloth – but I salute it, respect it, and will not dishonour it, because what I do to the flag is a reflection of what I would do to what it represents. Likewise, when I pray before a Crucifix, I pray to Jesus, Our Lord: The visual image of the Redeemer dying on the Cross, the innocent Victim condemned for my crimes, helps me to focus my heart and mind on Him and is a constant reminder of His mercy and love. In reality, yes, it is only so much wood and plaster; but if I were to show contempt for the image, it displays to the world what I think of the Subject of that image.

The point is, did God command you to make images on his behalf and offer your service, honor, veneration and worship through IMAGES CARVED BY MAN?

What would you think was the mindset of someone who spit on a picture of someone? Is he mad at square pieces of paper? Does he have a hate-on for silver nitrate? No, he is showing contempt for the subject represented by the image. The way you treat an image represents the way you think about its subject.

In Philippians 2, Paul writes: “…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend…”

Why should we bend our knee at the name of Jesus? Shouldn’t knee-bending be reserved for His Presence? Because a name is like an image – one aural, one visual – that represents a subject.

Where did you learn that the worship in the NAME of Jesus means worship the IMAGE of Jesus? And how did you know that what you have is the IMAGE OF JESUS? Through hallucination?

The word “Jesus” is sacred, not because of any magic juju appended to any particular arrangement of letters, but because of what it represents: and I cannot here display what it represents, but only give you more “names”: Christ, the King of Kings, Our Lord, God the Son. And we should bend our knee at the Name, just as we should at the Image, because by doing so we say that we will bend our knee for Him.

I have no problem in the NAME OF JESUS, but the IMAGES OF JESUS that you worship is the problem and who gave you the idea and commandment to CARVED IMAGES and called that IMAGES JESUS and worship it?

That is what you need to prove and not what you think is right thing to do, but blasphemy before God.

As for analogies: “Thou shalt not kill” seems very straightforward. Yet almost everyone can see the difference between murder and justifiable killing – say in self defence, or in a just war. One is a sin, one isn’t. Same as idolatry vs the proper veneration (not worship) of images.

Now, please stop flogging this one-trick pony.

Nope, that is not a good analogy. GOD said, DO NOT MAKE IMAGES FOR WORSHIP, do not bow down or serve those images what is your defense in that insulting, pre-meditated actions against God’s commandments?

Is it not man in the past was punished due to such action, being IMAGE WORSHIPERS? How can he spare you guys in doing the same IMAGE WORSHIP ? IMPOSSIBLE is it not?

 

[rikkk1958]

Why would ETE insist that we worship images? And why are we listening to this guy anyway? I think it is hopeless for ETE to understand the truth. Once your brain is cooked all it needs is to be eaten by rats, and it is no longer functional. Well, ETE this is my last reply to you and if you still want to be saved, be baptized again in the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[ETE]

ETE;4022991:

Are you telling me that the CATECHISM of the RCC with “nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur” and “Permissu Superium” of the Vatican was ERRONEOUS? Let me hear your what you will say about that.

Again, I say, problematic wording. Similar to the use of the word “worship” in the oath that the Prince of Wales swore to the Queen at his investiture, to render “earthly worship”.

Again, you are using one page out of one particular catechism okayed by prelates in the Philippines, while I have shown the Baltimore Catechism and its commentary, as well as the current one from the Vatican itself – in Latin rather than possibly-misconstrued English. Nowhere in any of these do I see any exhortation for me to treat an image/icon as a God. In actual fact, that is particularly refuted. Yet you cling desperately to this one page, demanding a yes-or-no answer to a false dilemma so you can pounce.

I render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s, and to God that which is God’s.

Respect to my fellow human beings, veneration to saints and images, worship to God.

thump thump thump Nope, still no whinny.

What is the problematic wording in such direct to the point statements of your Superiors…with the Permit of Rome to be published, and the “nihil obstat” and “Imprimatur” which mean FREE of ERRORS…but you reckoned has a problematic wording?

Who shall we believe? You? or your Superiors?

CATHECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
No. 3 in conformity with the decrees of the Plenary Council and the code of 1918.
Nihil obstat: A.G Casas, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: Rufino J. Santos, D.D., Archbishop of Manila. De La Salle College. Brothers of the Christian Schools, Manila Philippines, 1955.

p.95
13. “Is the worship of the saints confined to their persons?

No; it extends also to their relics and images”

p. 95
“15. Ought we to worship holy images?
**
“We should have,** particularly in our churches, images of Our Lord, as also the Virgin Mary and the saints, and we should pay them due honor and venerations.”

 

[ETE]

Why would ETE insist that we worship images? And why are we listening to this guy anyway? I think it is hopeless for ETE to understand the truth. Once your brain is cooked all it needs is to be eaten by rats, and it is no longer functional. Well, ETE this is my last reply to you and if you still want to be saved, be baptized again in the Roman Catholic Church.

Nope, I don’t insist that you should worship images, instead your doctrine insist it…btw, can’t you read?

CATHECHISM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE
No. 3 in conformity with the decrees of the Plenary Council and the code of 1918.
Nihil obstat: A.G Casas, Censor Librorum, Imprimatur: Rufino J. Santos, D.D., Archbishop of Manila. De La Salle College. Brothers of the Christian Schools, Manila Philippines, 1955.

p.95
13. “Is the worship of the saints confined to their persons?

No; it extends also to their relics and images”

p. 95
“15. Ought we to worship holy images?

“We should have, particularly in our churches, images of Our Lord, as also the Virgin Mary and the saints, and we should pay them due honor and venerations.”

Seven year old kid can decipher basic statements like what your Superiors states…with no toppings added.

Remember what your Superiors said, Catholics should pay due honor and venerations to all IMAGES not the one that represents them tsk… "images of Our Lord, as also the Virgin Mary and the saints, and we should pay them due honor and venerations.”

 

[CHRISTINE77]

What is an idol? A passage from Jeremiah gives us a very good insight: “Learn not the customs of the nations, and have no fear of the signs of the heavens, though the nations fear them. For the cult idols of the nations are nothing, wood cut from the forest, wrought by craftsmen with the adze, adorned with silver and gold” (Jer 10:2-4).

The operative word in this passage is nothing. If you take away the wooden image, there is no reality behind it. No divine being exists that gives meaning to this piece of wood. St. Paul makes a strong argument on the same point in 1 Cor 8. In Corinth, animals were sacrificed to idols (carvings of beings that did not exist except in people’s imaginations) and then the meat was sold in the market. There was controversy over whether Christians should eat this meat. Paul argues that there is no meaning behind these idols because there is in reality only one God, the creator of heaven and earth (see 1 Cor 8:4-13). Idols have neither value nor meaning because there is no reality behind them.

But Paul also realizes that some simple people are not capable intellectually of separating the material object (the idol) from the lack of a spiritual reality associated with it: “But not all have this knowledge” (1 Cor 8:7). In order not to scandalize those who are weak-minded, he will not eat this meat in front of them. But he is clear that, other than offending the weak-minded, it would not bother his conscience to eat the meat because he knows that there is no spiritual reality which the wooden figures represent—they are meaningless.

How does this apply to the Catholic practice of having statues of Christ and the saints? Are these figures idols? No! There is a spiritual reality that the image represents. Christ’s humanity came into existence at the moment of his conception and will continue to exist forever in the further dimension of the Kingdom.
The same can be said of the saints. They truly exist. They are that great “cloud of witnesses” (Heb 12:1) who surround us. They are those who are clothed in white robes in the vision of John (Rev 7:9). Their prayers for us go up like incense before the throne of God (Rev 5:8). So let us be very clear: In the biblical sense, images of Christ and the saints are not idols; there are spiritual and physical realities in the glorified bodies of Christ and his beloved which the images represent. If the images are lost or destroyed, the spiritual reality remains. If you destroy an idol nothing remains.

americancatholic.org/Newsletters/CU/ac1001.asp

 

[ETE]

ETE;4021051:

Jesus existence was simply a “Word” of God from the beginning and nothing else…unless we are imagining more that what is written.

And it is IMPOSSIBLE for Jesus to exist as a MAN before Abraham was, and if he does…then God statements will be in contradictions based on the scriptures…

John 1:1, the Word was with God and the Word was God. This is not imagination. The Word was God. So yes, Jesus PREEXISTED Abraham, not as a MAN but as God.

Or are you suggesting that God has a beginning?

So it was the “WORD” of God that is God right? Was Jesus the “WORD”? meaning, was the term “WORD” an entity and that entity was Jesus? Do you get my point of view? Also, I am not suggesting God has a beginning, what I am trying to imply was…Jesus cannot be God if Jesus is the “WORD” per se, cause the The WORD has a beginning…“in the beginning was the word”

ETE;4021051:

Ezekiel 28:2 "Son of man, say to the leader of Tyre, Thus says the Lord GOD, "Because your heart is lifted up And you have said, I am a god, I sit in the seat of gods In the heart of the seas’; Yet you are a man and not God, Although you make your heart like the heart of God–

Was the man mentioned in this verse Christ? Irrelevant verse.

Nope but the King of Tyre is a MAN like CHRIST with flesh and bones which CANNOT BE GOD once MAN is a MAN…that is the point of view that God wants us to understand. *“Yet you are a man and not God” *

ETE;4021051:

Hosea 11:9 I will not execute My fierce anger; I will not destroy Ephraim again. For I am God and not man, the Holy One in your midst, And I will not

God said God is NOT a MAN and Man is NOT GOD…so why would the Almighty God declares such statements if it’s true the JESUS IS GOD the MAN and in existence before time?

That doesn’t make any sense, for the omnipotent God to declare.

God said He was not Man. That was during the time of Hosea. But God never said He COULD NOT BE MAN, which is a different matter altogether.

And the human nature of Christ was distinct and separate from his divine nature. I do not see the logic how the verse you cited supported the doctrine of INC.

I see, so did GOD say he is not a man “YET” or made a descriptive distinction between GOD and MAN that GOD IS NOT A MAN and MAN IS NOT GOD?

 

[ETE]

ETE;4021138:

You believe that Jesus is God, but Jesus believe HE HAS A GOD…which is also the God I believe in.

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Stop clinging to Me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to My brethren and say to them, `I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God

.’ "

So who is the ONLY TRUE GOD now?

Jesus? or the God of Jesus?

That is so very basic not to comprehend my friend.

John 10:30.

I and the Father are one

Did it say “I and the Father are ONE” [GOD]? or you imagined it?

Btw, if Jesus is God, does God has his own God too? “I ascend to My Father and your Father, and My God and your God”

So who is the ONLY TRUE GOD between the two?

 

[ETE]

ETE;4021176:

My friend, I wish I could educate you biblically, cause it can help you understand what faith do you have.

Mary is NOT IN HEAVEN, that is a myth an illusion perpetrated by the Catholic Church…what is the proof?

All dead at the moment are still dead or sleeping and will not be awaken not until the heavens are no more…including Mary, the Mother of Jesus.

Job 14:12 people die, never to rise. They will never wake up while the sky endures; they will never stir from their sleep.

How poor INC’s exegesis is, if at all!

What Job was talking about was the body of the dead person. Being dead, the BODY is incapable of doing anything.

However, there are passages in the Bible that prove that the SOULS of the physically dead people who had done the will of God are now in Heaven.

Revelations 4:4
4 And round about the throne were four and twenty seats; and upon the seats, four and twenty ancients sitting, clothed in white garments, and on their heads were crowns of gold.

Revelations 14:3-5

3 And they sung as it were a new canticle, before the throne, and before the four living creatures, and the ancients; and no man could say the canticle, but those hundred forty-four thousand, who were purchased from the earth. 4 These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb: 5 And in their mouth there was found no lie; for they are without spot before the throne of God.

Which part of those verses proves that the SOUL of those who died who had done the will of God are now in Heaven?

Is the 144,000 in heaven as we speak?

You are guessing again my friend.

 

[ferdie]

Over one hundred posts in this forum alone, and so far all you have is one page of a Filipino catechism from 1955 with problematic wording. With this one page you will topple the Church that Christ himself founded? If the Gates of Hell shall not prevail, neither shall you.

It has been gone over and over again.

We WORSHIP God, through prayer and deeds. We also PRAY to Him for our needs.

We VENERATE the Saints, through trying to emulate them. We PRAY to them to INTERCEDE with God, because it has been shown through their lives, miracles, and favours from God that the Saints are God’s friends.

Even more so, we pray to Mary, Jesus’ beloved Mother, to intercede for us with her Son, ad to grant us our requests, just as she did at the wedding feast at Cana. We treat Mary as our own Mother (“Behold thy mother”), only with the superior *veneration *granted to her as Mother of God.

We USE statues, icons, holy pictures, etc, as reminders of our holy friends (in the case of saints) or as a reminder of the suffering and sacrifice of our Lord (in the case of the crucifix). We VENERATE the images because of what they represent – in the same way that I as a soldier honour the Flag of my country: I do not worship the flag – it’s a piece of cloth – but I salute it, respect it, and will not dishonour it, because what I do to the flag is a reflection of what I would do to what it represents. Likewise, when I pray before a Crucifix, I pray to Jesus, Our Lord: The visual image of the Redeemer dying on the Cross, the innocent Victim condemned for my crimes, helps me to focus my heart and mind on Him and is a constant reminder of His mercy and love. In reality, yes, it is only so much wood and plaster; but if I were to show contempt for the image, it displays to the world what I think of the Subject of that image.

What would you think was the mindset of someone who spit on a picture of someone? Is he mad at square pieces of paper? Does he have a hate-on for silver nitrate? No, he is showing contempt for the subject represented by the image. The way you treat an image represents the way you think about its subject.

In Philippians 2, Paul writes: “…that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend…”

Why should we bend our knee at the name of Jesus? Shouldn’t knee-bending be reserved for His Presence? Because a name is like an image – one aural, one visual – that represents a subject. The word “Jesus” is sacred, not because of any magic juju appended to any particular arrangement of letters, but because of what it represents: and I cannot here display what it represents, but only give you more “names”: Christ, the King of Kings, Our Lord, God the Son. And we should bend our knee at the Name, just as we should at the Image, because by doing so we say that we will bend our knee for Him.

As for analogies: “Thou shalt not kill” seems very straightforward. Yet almost everyone can see the difference between murder and justifiable killing – say in self defence, or in a just war. One is a sin, one isn’t. Same as idolatry vs the proper veneration (not worship) of images.

Now, please stop flogging this one-trick pony.

I don’t think he/she will ever understand how we use the words, worship, pray, bow down, and kneel. For INC, these are words reserved to God alone. For them God will become jealous if we honor and venerate His Saints. For them Saints are dead, but for Catholics they are more alive than us, since they already achieved their earthly purpose, to be reunited with God. They are pure, holy and already partaking in the divinity of Christ.

 

[ferdie]

That is a very long explanation, but what does it do in the historical facts that the doctrine of JESUS IS GOD appears only in 110AD?

Historians, Catholic and Protestant agrees with that.

Just because it was written down around 110AD, doesn’t mean to say that it was the first time it was thought. Remember St. Ignatius was a disciple of St. John who wrote his Gospel to counter Cerenthus and Ebion who denied the divinity of our Lord.

Obviously a well-rounded account of the history of Christianity will narrate the story of its geographic spread, taking account of the forms of the faith which spread, the reasons for the expansion, and the methods, agents, and agencies through which the spread took place. Much of the history of Chrisitianity will concern itself with the visible Church, the institunionalized fellowship, or rather, the congeries of institutions which arose because of Christ. It must tell something of the character, the life and the work of the outstanding creators and leaders of these intitutions. It must narrate the story of the divisions within the Christian community and of the efforts to heal the divisions and to realize the unity in love which is of the essence of the Christian Gospel. **It must cover the development of Christian tought, especially what is called doctrine, the attempts of Christians to give intellectual formulation to their faith…**There must be accounts of some of the outstanding Christians, especially of those who have been regarded by their fellows as approaching the Christian ideal and of those who have been widely influential either within the Christian fellowship or outside it.
If it is not to be distorted, the history of Christianity must include all the varieties of the faith. It must embrace not only those forms which have had a wide following, but also minority groups. It must mention not merely the numerous churches and movements which are features of the current scene in whatever part of the world they are found, but in addition those offshoots of Christianity which have disappeared. (xvi A History of Christianity, Kenneth Scott
Latouretter)

 

[ferdie]

quote=ETE;4023480]
How can a dead person intercede on your behalf to God?
Did God place them as intercessor? Or you invented your own intercessor?

We are adopted children of God, we are brothers and sisters in Christ, we are one big family, and we are all saints. Now we believe that Jesus is our head, and we (the church) are His body. A holy man that dies goes to heaven. And still is a member of Christ body, he/she doesn’t cease being a saint, nor is that holy person removed from the family of God, nor that person cease to be a member of the body of Christ,** but that saint is MORE ALIVE in heaven than us**… Since “saint” means holy one, then we can say that those in heaven are holy, sanctified, totally holy. Remember, nothing unclean will enter the heaven. So the word saint in its fullest sense applies more to those in heaven.

Scriptures encourage us to take care of each other and to pray for each other. Scriptures say that the prayer of a holy man is beneficial for us, how much more if this holy man is in heaven? Is it wrong if your love ones on earth ask for your prayer (intercede)? They are only asking (praying) and not worshiping you. If you, a holy man on earth whose prayer is beneficial to your love ones, how much more beneficial is your prayer (intercession) if you are alive in heaven, holy and free from sin? God, is God of the living!

Why would God stop us from taking care of each other, from loving each other, from praying for each other. I think it will only make God happy to see that we are fulfilling His commandment to love one another.