Search results

If you have ever boasted to solicit praise, that would be an instance of leading people to yourself instead of to God. People lead others to themselves as to an idol, so they will bow down to the idol (self), "come let us follow gods our fathers never knew"--as Jesus says of the false Jews...

Not saying it's "wrong", it just struck me as odd bc I didn't know Catholic priests would do that

I think the difference is "walking in faith" comes from a relationship with God, living "as unto the Lord" (Ro 14:5), thus you lead people to the Lord not to yourself.

You teach catechism without being catholic lol

Are you Catholic, then?

Nope.

I have not spent time on the idea of the trinity, but, being cautious, as I listen to people try to explain it, it falls apart. It sounds incoherent. Like an invention of men. Maybe one day it will make sense. Ultimately, what ever I think the text says will not change the God I know.

Except that in Hebrew there exists the plural to show intensity--eg, Jesus died "deaths", but, of course, there was only one death, so this was to show the intensity of His death/sacrifice.

Thanks, but, also, Matthias reminded me that the topic is not permitted.

@Pearl Would it be all right if I discussed the issue of the Trinity in PM with another member?

Will do!

In private message, you could communicate, right?

I'm not really sure Jesus is God, because it says no one has seen God, but Christ has explained Him (including past appearances of "God", according to John--"Isaiah saw Christ's glory"), and, so, we have seen Christ... but, then, why does Christ say "I AM"... unless He just copies the Father...

I guess IDK how that would mean Christ wasn't a "human person", but, then again, the issue of "trinity" brings many distinctions and definitions that I'm not really acquainted with.

The dominant Christian theology of today says He was fully man and fully God doesn't it?

I don't know... you were exploring blasphemous and unedifying ideas IMO... and, at the end of the day, Jesus didn't sin, so... I guess it could be an "interesting" question, but I'm not sure I'd want to explore blasphemy to be edified--that doesn't make sense. That said, if you're saying you're...

You've misrepresented me. Is that something you like to have happen to you--for people to misrepresent you? If not, why are you perfectly fine doing it to others?

Based on what you've said (you seem to be under the impression I don't believe or say doing good matters, and we can just do evil--the opposite is true, i affirm we must do good), I have doubts you actually read what I thought the confusion about the word "works" was (eg, in the OP) before...

Even the Reformers didn't say they thought all Catholics were doomed, so I wouldn't say "Catholics" are necessarily thinking or doing something completely disqualifying. Again, per the OP, which you still haven't addressed, I think "works" has been misunderstood.

OK My issue has been the idea of a gift of justification by a righteousness of faith, and that no "works" contribute to justification, but, also, if you don't walk in faith, remaining at peace (Ro 5:1), you are "condemned", not justified (Ro 2:6-16, 14:23). That was why I wrote the OP.