If the Roman Catholic Church is so bad...

Well, going by your standards, Eliyahu, you are not qualified to interpret scripture as you have denied the divinity of Christ or the humanity take your pick, denied the promises of Christ (denying Real Presence), denied the promises of God concerning Baptism, promoted emotional experiences over the objective promises of God concerning salvation, and promoted the doctrines of anti-trinitarian and gnostic heretics.

 

....and yet, and yet.... the Catholics and the Catholic Church lurches forward as a leaky boat on the dissenting seas, despite the foibles of its humans, its errors and all.....because it will not fail (I am a very conservative Mick and find plenty that is questionable in this time).

 

Entirely False Accusation similar to that of Inquisitors !

You may have opposed to Johannine comma!
Can I defend it so strongly if I denied the deity of Christ? No one else than me could defend Johannine Comma so powerfully. Check this out:

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2698.html?

Johannine COMMA tells everything about deity of Christ, Trinity completely. Do you believe this?


You don't understand the meaning of BAPTISM. Baptism doesn't save the people, but it is performed unto the people who were saved already.

Real Presence? I never denied it. But what I deny is that Bread becomes Jesus Christ, which may be claimed by people worshipping cookie gods!
Jesus Christ is Omni-Present and thereby He is present everywhere. Do you believe this? Or you may believe that Jesus is present only at the scene of Lord Supper.

 

You condemn yourself, for do you not know that when you are baptized you are joined to Christ in His death and ressurrection?

You regularly deny that Christ offers His body and blood, instead you opt for some vague presence.

You support the Christ splitting teachings of the heretic Nestorious by denying either God the Son became incarnate by means of the Flesh of Mary or support the notion that at least one point in time Jesus was not God and Man.

You claim as true christian martyrs those who taught horrible heresies.

Maybe you should read less conspiracy theory fantasies and more books based on factual information.

 

I would stop wasting time with you, because of your hopeless accusations and ignorance of the truth. You may like the Inquisitors and Heretic Mary worshippers.

 

Jesus died bodily on the cross - and there and then put a STOP to ALL sacrifices and offerings.

He was sacrificed ONCE for ALL time.

 

Matt Black,

I said...

And you said...

I know both of those brothers and although we disagree on some things I'd be very surprised if either of them dont acknowledge that they have been blessed by non-baptist teachers, books, bible studies, radio broadcasts, etc.

I said...

And you said...

1st, lets be clear regarding what "The Church" is. It is not any one organisation, and if it were it would certainly not be overflowing with blasphemies and idolatries like the Catholic Church is.

The Church here on earth is nothing more than all of the born again people here on earth. Nothing more. The particular organisation somone might be affiliated is 100% irrelavent.

And the church is indeed the "pillar and ground of truth" because...

1) We are indwelt by, and offer to the world, the Lord Jesus Christ who...along with being the "way" and the "life"...identified Himself as being "the Truth".

2) We are enpowered by the Holy Spirit, who is the "Spirit ot Truth".

3) And we have the scriptures of God, which of course are Gods widsom, instruction, and truth in written form, and are Gods unchanging truth standard for us to use to determine truth from error.

"All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightiousness, that the man of God might be complete and thoroughly equipped for every good work"

"But these where more noble, in that they searched the scriptures daily, to see if these things be so"

Because I have not forsaken the truth found in Gods scriptures and turned instead to bringing paganism, idolatry, superstition, a "works" based gospel, and scores and scores of other blashphemies into the christian community.

As the Catholic Church as been doing for about 1700 or so years now.

God bless,

Mike

 

So YOU say. The Catholics here would equally argue that they are just as if not more so faithfully following the Scriptures as interpreted by their Magisterium/ Tradition. You say you are following them and I comment your integrity for that but ultimately your following them is based on your own individualistic interpretation. For instance, doubtless you would say that the Catholic Marian hyperdulia is blasphemy/ idolatry yet Catholics would say that this is perfectly valid based on a perfectly valid interpretation of, for instance, of Luke 1:28-48. Now, doubtless you will accuse them of 'twisting and mangling' the Scriptures, but how do I know that your individualistic interpretation is not a 'twisting or mangling'? Are you the 'Pillar and Foundation of the Truth'?

On that last point, your comments on Truth lead you straight back to Doubting Thomas' point, which you have failed to address: if the Church is all born again people on earth, then it simply cannot be the 'Pillar and Foundation of the Truth', since that company of born again believers produce, as has been demonstrated time and time again, a plethora of mutually-contradictory epistemologies, and therefore no one single Truth; your definition would work if the Holy Spirit through St Paul had said 'The Pilliar and Foundation of the Truths', but He didn't, so the Holy Spirit and St Paul must mean something rather different than your definition in I Tim 3:15...

 

Entirely False Accusation similar to that of Inquisitors !

</font>[/QUOTE]No. Not really. You've demonstrated your false beliefs about the Trinity and Jesus Christ time and again here. Retract those, and we'll get somewhere.

 

I can easily imagine how Inquisitors accused the True Believers as Heretics.

I firmly believe the deity of Jesus Christ.
I do not insist on Trinity, but accept it as the best expression on the relationship of Godheads. What I insist on is that we should stay with the Bible expression only. I don't claim any doctrine or theory other than Bible itself.
However, for easy understanding, I would agree that Trinity is the best expression by human logic and by human words.
As for Modalism, I disagree because it portrays Jesus and God working as One-Man-Show, especially at the time of Cross.
However, I do not rule out that there can be any True Believers who were born again, but claim Modalism. In other words, there is a possibility that there can be true believers who believe in the Modalism. I don't condemn them very much because they don't deny the deity of Jesus Christ, which is the crucial point of all doctrines.
Again, I would believe that Trinity is the best expression of Godheads, even though my main belief is simply staying with Bible expressions only in any situation.

For example, I believe KJV is correct in 1 Tim 3:16 where it says " God was manifest in flesh" which clearly reveal the deity of Jesus Christ.
I denounce any modern versions which state:
"He appeared in flesh"

Another example, I believe that 1 John 5:7 is the part of Genuine Bible.

As I mentioned above, you can notice how strongly I denfended Johannine Comma at the thread.
I defend " for there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit, and these three are one"

I denounce any modern version which omit this Johannine Comma.

Can there be better clause to defend Trinity than this verse?

Do you believe that this 1 John 5:7 is the part of the genuine Bible? If you don't, you may disbelieve Trinity.

The main problem with doubting my belief is that some people like RC do not know how to believe the deity of Jesus Christ without calling Mary as Mother of God, because they have been brain washed by RC theories so much.

I do believe the deity of Jesus Christ, but do not call Mary as Mother of God, because she was a sinner forgiven by grace thru Jesus' sacrifice and the creature used as a pot by the Creator. Calling a pot as Mother of Creator is a non-sense and therefore Heb 7:2-3 says Melchisedec doesn't have a mother as Son of God doesn't. Melchisedec was the Pre-Incarnate Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ came into this world as an extension of Melchisedec. Otherwise no one can explain where Melchisedec is now. If one doesn't know that Melchisedec is Pre-Incarnate Jesus, such person doesn't know the meaning of the Incarnation and eventually the mainstream of the Bible itself.

I hope your misunderstanding can be resolved as far as my belief on Trinity.

 

Bob before you jump in you should know what you are talking about. I as a Lutheran acknowledge that the Sacrifice on the cross is the all sufficient sacrifice to end all sacrifices and do not teach the delusion that at Communion the sacrifice is being offered anew, rather we are being connected to the sacrifice on the cross by means of Christ's body and blood along side the bread and wine.

 

Are you still trying to push this pipedream? Give it up even your prooftext debunks your position by plainly stating that Melchizedek resembles Christ. Get over it you're just plain wrong.

 

You are right in your statement here, but RC is wrong because in reality they ask for the forgiveness of sins at the Mass every week, which means that they don't believe the effect of the forgiveness of sins at the Cross once for all.

 

Are you still trying to push this pipedream? Give it up even your prooftext debunks your position by plainly stating that Melchizedek resembles Christ. Get over it you're just plain wrong . [/QB][/QUOTE]

You don't know who is Melchisedec and therefore you are simply wrong!

 

Eliyahu, I'm more reassured now on your Trinitarianism, so thanks for that, but still have concerns re your Christology.

 

Thanks to Matt.

I think you have got to the point!
Indeed, you may find some difference on my Christology. What I find more and more is that Jesus worked during OT times actively. He didn't sleep after creation of the world. He worked very hard. As we read 1 Cor 10:4 He was the Rock in Dt 32. I have discovered Him working in OT thousand times, but slightly different from Jehovah himself, details of which we can hardly imagine now.
When we read Gen 31:13, how can the Angel say " I am God at the house of God(Beth-El)" ?

When we talk about the Eucharist, again Melchisedec was the first person seen as handing over the Bread and Wine there? ( Genesis 14:18)

Who can be called Malkhi-Tsedek ( King of Righteousness) other than Jesus Christ?

Studying Jesus Christ in OT times is extremely interesting.

Who is this angel ?

Exodus 23:20-23
I send an Angel before thee.... 21 obey him ( shall mankind obey angels? No!) FOR MY NAME IS IN HIM ! I think it is a terrible statement by God. Can anyone carry the name of God in himself ?

" I AM COME IN MY FATHER"S NAME " John 5:43

Problem is that the most english bibles translate both Elohim and Malack as angels. In my translation I separated as angel and Envoy!

Jesus didn't become a new Jesus by coming out of Mary, He has been the same for yesterday, today and forever !

 

Matt,

Remember that Jesus mentioned Abraham was delighted to have seen Him. When ?

 

Moses regarded the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt ( Heb 11:26)

 

We're not here talking about the pre-Incarnate Divine Logos, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, but rather the nature of the Incarnation of that Second Person, when we are considering the validity of the theotokos and Mother of God titles.

 

John 8:56 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad."

You're not doing too good, 0 for 2. Once again your proofs disprove your pet theory. Abraham saw the day not Jesus.

I know who Melchizedek is, he is a man who in his lack of a levitical geneology resembles Christ as priest. He is nothing more, if he was more than that the verse in Hebrews would say that He is the Son of God not that he is like the Son of God. Why do you persist when the very language used doesn't allow for your theory.