Hi Naomi. This thread is about exposing the RCC for who it really is. A religion that confesses or professes to be Christian, but in reality is the ultimate expression of Antichrist practice and teaching, as has been detailed previously. Part of that revealing must include what has, for most of its existence, been an innate mindset that deems it appropriate to use force to compel others to submit to papal authority and dogma, and has done so on numerous occasions over a period of over 1000 years costing the lives of millions in the process.
And that is the main reason that motivated this thread... The threat of future force as revelation 13 clearly shows in its due warning against the mark of the beast and the death sentence imposed on all dissenters. The Mark is clearly a religious dictate, denying food, property, and life to any who choose to reject it, and if as has been shown, that the RCC is the beast, then the mark belongs to the RCC. Thus it must be an RCC sign or mark of authority. Yes, it is a religious liberty issue. It certainly is not about my demand to impose my beliefs on others, but certainly about my own right of conscience. And yours. And even of Catholics.
I agree with you though that our rights stop the moment they interfere with others rights.
Hi Brakelite. I suppose that I cannot argue that the Catholic Church has, in times past, used violence to try and force those around them to concede to their views. It's rather shameful, is it not, that in light of what happened to the Savior they worship, and the apostle they admire, they would do such things; following Pharisaical and Roman thought patterns. And while I'm not a 'history buff', I do believe there have been more than a handful of Protestant believers who have felt justified in the same violence. It's a shame upon our faith, I think.
But I was very interested in your point of the mark of the beast, and that, should the RCC be the AC, the mark would, therefore be a mark of the RCC. Not that I agree that the RCC is the AC, but the thought is interesting anyway. Because for so long the Church and State have been divided, and the Church, really, has nothing to do with our ability to buy or sell. What your suggesting is that the RCC, in her role of AC, will become the state, and therefore gain control of such things. As interesting as that might be, intellectually, I can't see that happening, world wide. There are too many non-Catholics out there opposing her for her to gain such authority within the world...don't you think?
Okay. We are dealing with just two topics, the trinity and Sunday sacredness. Not about your stance on those topics, we can discuss that on another thread, but the RCCs stance, and the fact that the RCC boasts that because Protestantism believes as they do, then Protestantism is surrendering it's Sola scripture claim to papal authority. That's not my boast, it's Rome's. And Rome has backed that claim up by persecuting both Sabbath observers and arians relentlessly up to the 17th century.
Well...if we're not talking about the validity of these things, biblically (which I get...off topic for this thread), and we're only talking about what the RCC believes....all I can say is...as Protestants, we don't care what they believe in these regards. If they want to tell themselves, and others, that we believe in the Trinity and Sunday worship because of Catholic teaching...well, that's nice then, we'll give them a nice little pat on the head to make them feel better. And then go on our way knowing that we came to our own beliefs on those doctrines....out of the bible. You know, the Sola Scriptura thing. So, I suppose what I would say to you is...clearly you don't believe the RCC on most things, why believe them on this? If the RCC persecuted you about observing on the Sabbath, I'm sorry...we had quite a few burned at the stake too...but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.
The Mark of the beast is a religious liberty issue. Protestants who believe as Rome believes will be quite safe, so you wont have any problem.
No, not really. They still think we're "outside the true Church". And if your out, you're out. I doubt anyone will be considered "in" until they are fully in, the whole kit and caboodle.
As to your contention that I am attempting to define God, you couldn't be more wrong. It is actually the trinity doctrine itself that is a human definition of God. Christianity would have been far better off if they had left such definitions alone and simply accepted what the Bible reveals rather than take several steps beyond to satisfy human ego. The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God. Thus God is His Father. The holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God. The Bible says nothing about Christ being eternal. It says He is immortal, but it also says He was begotten. How can someone who is begotten not have a beginning? How can someone who is inherently immortal, die? And if Jesus did not die because He is part of a trinity and cannot be separated from the other members of the godhead because God cannot be separated, what becomes of the atonement? Did Jesus die or not? Is He a literal Son or not? Is God His Father or is the trinity His Father? Is He as old as His Father?
I would add that the reason Jesus is God is BECAUSE He is God's Son. Everything His Father is, Jesus inherited. And it is because He received life from His Father, He was empowered to give it back, thus the life Christ has is a gift, our perhaps better described as His rightful inheritance as a Son.
Here's the deal, straight out. The bible doesn't
outright say "Trinity". It also doesn't outright say "Hey guys, I'm God, I always existed" (although I would argue Jesus comes pretty darn close in Jewish terms.). But it also doesn't,
outright, say "When God The Father impregnated Mary, Jesus didn't exist before then." or "Jesus is NOT God". What the bible does say, we have to extrapolate from. We think there are plenty of verses that lead to the very natural conclusion that Jesus is God, that the Spirit is separate and also God. You, and several more of you here, clearly believe otherwise. And I suppose we have to, naturally, allow that people will see different things in different passages. And that, of course means, there is no point in me posting them all again...you'll see what you see, and I'll see what I see.
The thing is...this is sort of a really important topic, wouldn't you agree? And come "crunch" time, judgement time, for you and for me, I sort of expect our views on Jesus and the nature of God, might hold eternal consequences. But...I suppose neither of us will change our view. I am quite convinced, quite persuaded, quite convicted! We'll just have to see what we'll see when it comes to that moment I guess.