An Opinion about rituals "in religions

[APAK]

epostle1:
That's one way to put it. Miracles are an extension of the Resurrection, the Church is an extension of the Incarnation united by the Eucharist. Not all Protestants all share this view.

John 1:14
At the instant Jesus took on human flesh in His mother's womb.
God.

epostle1: Thanks for your reply. I have more ???

So, then according to your reply, the ‘church’ is a byproduct of:

1. Jesus’ unique birth - that he became a divine nature via God Almighty or Jesus himself before he was born (does not make any difference because Jesus=God Almighty, right?), with a human nature from Mary. I believe the Catholics call this concept, fully God and fully man, united in one nature - the hypostatic union.

2. And because of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist/communion– his body and blood are present (transubstantiation), during the ‘church’ service.

3. And that God Almighty or Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross. As before, this must be irrelevant because God = Jesus, right?

Did I get this all right?

So, WHEN in history, did the Catholics and others believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, beside saying when Jesus was born or in his mother’s womb? If you are referring to scripture, then where is the EXPLICIT reference? There had to be a belief decision made by people at some time.

One last question:

How does the hypostatic union from birth, account for the ‘fullness’ of the spirit of God with/in Jesus after his act of baptism? There cannot be two events that provided Jesus the fullness of God – one at his birth, or even before his birth, according to Catholic and another groups’ doctrine, and then again as an adult.

Now I will be fair and provide a little of my beliefs regarding this subject.

I believe Jesus was born with both a powerful divine nature or spirit from his Father and a much less powerful human nature from his mother; the latter can produce sin. His divine spirit grew over time as the expense of his ‘withering’ human nature. Jesus finally gains the fullness (sufficient amount) that was of his Father’s spirit immediately after his baptism. He was now ready to perform his mission to the cross with the aid of his Father.

So, Jesus was the first and only natural born believer in God. As a human believer, I gained this same dual nature later in life with much less divine power of the spirit of God. I struggle at times, not as before, with my powerful human nature. Fortunately, the divine spirit within me is growing stronger all the time. It is growing by my growing faith.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[amadeus]

Now I will be fair and provide a little of my beliefs regarding this subject.

I believe Jesus was born with both a powerful divine nature or spirit from his Father and a much less powerful human nature from his mother; the latter can produce sin. His divine spirit grew over time as the expense of his ‘withering’ human nature. Jesus finally gains the fullness (sufficient amount) that was of his Father’s spirit immediately after his baptism. He was now ready to perform his mission to the cross with the aid of his Father.

So, Jesus was the first and only natural born believer in God. As a human believer, I gained this same dual nature later in life with much less divine power of the spirit of God. I struggle at times, not as before, with my powerful human nature. Fortunately, the divine spirit within me is growing stronger all the time. It is growing by my growing faith.

Bless you,

APAK

I do like this latter part of your post and although not exactly the same, it is closer to where I am on this subject than many others on this forum. It seems that every time I actually write down what I believe, it has changed since the last time. If this growth toward God it is good, is it not?

 

[aspen]

Quibbling about doctrine on this board is a hobby at best - a vice, at worst.

Loving God and neighbor is my day job

 

[epostle1]

I really want to know if you really know these things, no bashing intended here.........

epostle1:
No bashing here....I want to know what these words mean. "All created matter was “good” from the start (Gen 1:25), but was “glorified” by the Incarnation." I am very confused. Are we melding the creative powers of God Almighty with the miraculous feats of his son and his/our Father as they worked as one spirit to the cross and beyond?[/quote] What did God say after He created everything?

Also if you can, not mandatory,
Where in scripture is the 'explicit' basis for the concept of incarnation?
When did this concept materialize in history?
Who devised this concept?

Thank you,

APAK[/QUOTE]

 

[epostle1]

HR:
The Catholics and its leaders believe in a religion of fear and intimidation, designed to discourage and even nullify any personal attempt to have a personal belief and genuine faith in Christ.

That is a lie from the pit of hell.

The Catholics themselves do not know if their own salvation is guaranteed.

False. We know by moral certitude, not by faith alone.

And because they have this great fear, they are determined to make all people believe as they do – stay in limbo, insecure and fearful of their souls.

They proceeded to devise an earthly kingdom based on many rituals, ceremonies and writings. These devices would be so confusing that any new layman or convert would eventually realize it was beyond their understanding, and therefore resigned themselves to the religious elite class for wisdom.

This is hate speech, unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a Christian. Do Catholics slander you?

They are very similar to the Pharisees that teased and tickles the ears of the people selling them their way to heaven through its gates. When the people finally reached them in believing what they said, they were told that to enter through the gates they needed the key. The Pharisees preached that they were the keepers of the keys to heaven and even ‘hell.’ And for anyone seeking to enter heaven they must follow throughout their lives their teachings and religious traditions. Many people fell for this lie and ‘died.’

Jesus said their religion never got anyone into heaven.

Bless you,

APAK

You are an expert in anti-Catholic bigotry and lies, but you are no expert in Catholicism.
Your funnymentalist lies are boring.
Snowball fight! Rare snowfall leads to fun, frenzy in Rome

 

[epostle1]

***

Since you love and trust in your religion then keep it. As for me I told you that the religious church in the time of Jesus committed murder when they killed Jesus. Your RCC religious church committed murder when they burned people at the stake. And you think I am foolish enough to think they are God's Priests on earth. FAT CHANCE.

Matrimony is a sacrament, founded by God before the Fall, and officiated by priests for thousands of years. Do we throw that out too to appease your insanity? I'm still waiting for evidence of your false charge of burning people at the stake. The Church does not have that authority. Better check with reformist history and stop persecuting Catholics with your falsehoods.
Do you even know what a priest is?

 

[tabletalk]

Why is this good? Are you confusing agreeing with doctrine with loving neighbor? Christians are called to love not quibble about doctrine

Why is this good? Are you confusing agreeing with doctrine with loving neighbor? Christians are called to love not quibble about doctrine

You said in post #22: "..He was not murdered."
I said "He was murdered."
It is a quibble: def: "a slight objection or criticism"
But, since you and others think this is not love I will stop posting responses to you, to ByGrace and to Amadeus.
Hopefully this is a loving thing to do.

 

[APAK]

I do like this latter part of your post and although not exactly the same, it is closer to where I am on this subject than many others on this forum. It seems that every time I actually write down what I believe, it has changed since the last time. If this growth toward God it is good, is it not?

Amadeus: Yes, I have been led by the spirit and it has taught me this and many years to understand/grasp it.

I'm glad I may not be that far off-base.

Thanks for the encouragement.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[APAK]

That is a lie from the pit of hell.

False. We know by moral certitude, not by faith alone. This is hate speech, unbecoming of anyone claiming to be a Christian. Do Catholics slander you?

You are an expert in anti-Catholic bigotry and lies, but you are no expert in Catholicism.
Your funnymentalist lies are boring.
Snowball fight! Rare snowfall leads to fun, frenzy in Rome

epsotel1:
I guess you I will not be getting any answers back from my questions then. They are very fair questions don't you think?

No, I'm not a basher. That is what you see through the lens of your religion. Yet I was firm in what I was saying. I'm sure you do not have the courage to see that your beliefs are similar in 'nature' to the Pharisees. This is the point I was making. I'm a believer in Christ and I'm compelled to point out a religion or belief model where its time has come and gone. You must trust Jesus, the Christ over myriads of writings, rituals and other objects of worship that are obstacles to salvation. You don't need a 'religion.'

Emotions and ill-feeling are not intended here, only understanding, that I disagree with a religion that you cherish and protect over Jesus Christ.

I've spoken and written to many, many Catholics and the responses are usually not welcoming, with no confidence and joy; even when I just touch on the mildest points of their religion.


Bless you,

APAK

 

[H. Richard]

Matrimony is a sacrament, founded by God before the Fall, and officiated by priests for thousands of years. Do we throw that out too to appease your insanity? I'm still waiting for evidence of your false charge of burning people at the stake. The Church does not have that authority. Better check with reformist history and stop persecuting Catholics with your falsehoods.
Do you even know what a priest is?

***

The Phaisees did not have the authority to put Jesus to death either. That is why they forced the Romans to do it. Your RCC forced the civil governments to have their killing done just as the Pharisees did. After all they would be put out of the RCC if they did not comply.

I am not persecuting the people in the RCC. I am stating what I believe and you, if you could, would have me put to death just as your church did in he past. You can tell it by what you say to me PERSONALLY.

Incidentally, those of the RCC and OC would do well to dispense with the term "anti-Catholic" as if helpless little old Catholics are being bashed left and right. If you want to resort to that tired label, I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself.

 

[bbyrd009]

Those who really killed Jesus are the rabble that demanded His death, and the sins of you and me.

this is counter to Scripture, that tells us that Christ willingly "gave up His Spirit." No one killed Christ

The Phaisees did not have the authority to put Jesus to death either.

no one on earth nor in the world did, nor could they have gotten it, so

That is why they forced the Romans to do it.

is also not true, wadr

 

[bbyrd009]

Christ laid down His life for us, so any perspectives to the contrary are not Scriptural, and are only going to lead to forced and irrelevant premises imo

 

[epostle1]

epostle1: Thanks for your reply. I have more ???

So, then according to your reply, the ‘church’ is a byproduct of:

1. Jesus’ unique birth - that he became a divine nature via God Almighty or Jesus himself before he was born (does not make any difference because Jesus=God Almighty, right?), with a human nature from Mary. I believe the Catholics call this concept, fully God and fully man, united in one nature - the hypostatic union.

That is not what I said. I said the Church is an extension of the Incarnation...Jesus said very much the same thing in Acts 9:5. There is an intricate union of Christ with His Church. It didn't disappear.

2. And because of Jesus’ presence in the Eucharist/communion– his body and blood are present (transubstantiation), during the ‘church’ service.

That has not changed in 2000 years until the so called 'reformation' tried to destroy it. They failed.

3. And that God Almighty or Jesus, the Christ, died on the cross. As before, this must be irrelevant because God = Jesus, right?

You are trying to confuse the issue with phony polemics. John 10:30 – Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus’ statement in John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus’ statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh. This truth is professed by all Christians: Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. I am beginning to think you are in some bizarre cult and play word games, which I find rather annoying.

Did I get this all right?

Not even close.

So, WHEN in history, did the Catholics and others believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, beside saying when Jesus was born or in his mother’s womb? If you are referring to scripture, then where is the EXPLICIT reference? There had to be a belief decision made by people at some time.

There is no explicit verse. Is John 1 the same as Genesis 1? I suggest you read the Councils of Nicae, Ephesus, and Constantinople where the greatest minds of the day wrestled with these questions. The scriptures did not make the Church, the Church made the scriptures. Protestants always get this backwards. There was no Bible as we know it for 350 years yet you expect everything to be spelled out immediately after the Ascension??? Biblical revelation was GRADUAL. The early Christians didn't fully know what they didn't fully understand.
The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.
Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.

One last question:

How does the hypostatic union from birth, account for the ‘fullness’ of the spirit of God with/in Jesus after his act of baptism? There cannot be two events that provided Jesus the fullness of God – one at his birth, or even before his birth, according to Catholic and another groups’ doctrine, and then again as an adult.

What do you mean by the hypostatic union?

Now I will be fair and provide a little of my beliefs regarding this subject.

I believe Jesus was born with both a powerful divine nature or spirit from his Father and a much less powerful human nature from his mother; the latter can produce sin. His divine spirit grew over time as the expense of his ‘withering’ human nature. Jesus finally gains the fullness (sufficient amount) that was of his Father’s spirit immediately after his baptism. He was now ready to perform his mission to the cross with the aid of his Father.

Careful. You are treading closely towards the Arian/Nestorian heresy.
Are you a former JW?

 

[APAK]

That is not what I said.I said the Church is an extension of the Incarnation...

That has not changed in 2000 years.

You are trying to confuse the issue with phony polemics. John 10:30 – Jesus says, “I and the Father are one.” They are equal. The Jews even claimed Jesus made Himself equal to God. Jesus’ statement in John 14:28, “the Father is greater than I,” cannot contradict John 10:30 (the Word of God is never in conflict). Jesus’ statement in John 14:28 simply refers to His human messianic role as servant and slave, which He, and not the Father or the Holy Spirit, undertook in the flesh. This truth is professed by all Christians, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. I am beginning to think you are in some bizarre cult and play word games, which I find rather annoying.

Not even close.

So, WHEN in history, did the Catholics and others believe that Jesus was God in the flesh, beside saying when Jesus was born or in his mother’s womb? If you are referring to scripture, then where is the EXPLICIT reference? There had to be a belief decision made by people at some time.[/quote] The scriptures did not make the Church, the Church made the scriptures. There was no Bible as we know it for 350 years yet you expect everything to be spelled out immediately after the Ascension??? Revelation was GRADUAL.
The Catholic Church defines doctrinal development as a growth of depth and clarity in the understanding of the truths of divine revelation. It is important to understand that the substantial or essential truths at the core of each doctrine (as part of the one apostolic deposit, given from Christ to the apostles) remain unchanged. The Catholic Church preserves this deposit, and is the Guardian of it. Only the subjective grasp of men increases, without the actual doctrine or dogma changing in an essential way. This is the main distinction to keep in mind when considering development.

This increase is the result of the prayerful reflection of the Church, theological study and research (often occasioned by heretical challenges), practical experience, and the collective wisdom of the Church’s bishops and popes, especially when joined in Ecumenical Councils.
Like many Christian doctrines, the idea of doctrinal development is based on much implicit or indirect scriptural evidence. The best indications are perhaps Mt 5:17, 13:31-32, Jn 14:26, 16:13, 1 Cor 2:9-16, Gal 4:4, Eph 1:10, 4:12-15. Furthermore, doctrine clearly develops within Scripture itself (“progressive revelation”).

Some examples would be: doctrines of the afterlife, the Trinity, the Messiah (eventually revealed as God the Son), the Holy Spirit (a Divine Person in the New Testament), the equality of Jews and Gentiles, bodily resurrection, sacrifice of lambs evolving into the sacrifice of Christ, and so forth. Not a single doctrine emerges in the Bible complete with no further need of development.

In general, whenever Holy Scripture refers to the increasing knowledge and maturity of Christians and the Church, an idea very similar to doctrinal development is present. Holy Scripture, then, is in no way hostile to development.

The canon of Scripture itself is an example of developing doctrine. The New Testament never informs us which books comprise itself, and its canon (final list of books) took about 360 years to reach its final form (at the Council of Carthage in 397). For instance, the books of Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were not widely accepted by the Church until 350 A.D.

[/QUOTE]One last question:

How does the hypostatic union from birth, account for the ‘fullness’ of the spirit of God with/in Jesus after his act of baptism? There cannot be two events that provided Jesus the fullness of God – one at his birth, or even before his birth, according to Catholic and another groups’ doctrine, and then again as an adult.[/QUOTE] Because there isn't.

Careful. You are treading closely towards the Arian/Nestorian heresy.
Are you a former JW?[/QUOTE]

epostle1: The part of your reply that can be a bridge for understanding is when you said,

"You are trying to confuse the issue with phony polemics." epsotle1, I'm not playing any games here, believe me. I wish to speak of scripture with you, these for now, that you presented. I can provide a more extensive commentary of each, No problem. Let me know.

And no, I am not a former JW or anything else, I do not do 'church.' as you would understand it. I'm being very sincere with you because I really care about your views. I used to be a Catholic as part of my mandatory religious duty many years ago. I used to be an altar boy, a choir boy...the nuns' pet etc... Unfortunately these things and these good folks never introduced me to Christ, in a personal way.

Bless you,

APAK

 

[epostle1]

***

The Phaisees did not have the authority to put Jesus to death either. That is why they forced the Romans to do it. Your RCC forced the civil governments to have their killing done just as the Pharisees did. After all they would be put out of the RCC if they did not comply.

I am not persecuting the people in the RCC. I am stating what I believe and you, if you could, would have me put to death just as your church did in he past. You can tell it by what you say to me PERSONALLY.

Incidentally, those of the RCC and OC would do well to dispense with the term "anti-Catholic" as if helpless little old Catholics are being bashed left and right. If you want to resort to that tired label, I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. For almost a thousand years the RCC and the OC church was very much "anti-everyone who is not Catholic," most especially Bible-only believers like myself.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You will never accept scholarly history because your mind is shut. That explains why you refuse to provide any. For example, bible only believers didn't exist until the 16th century and not many of them were around because Luther and Calvin were busy killing each other off. People like you who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
The Protestant Inquisition <<That's called providing a source...try it sometime.
"I need only remind you that your alleged throne of Peter is piled high upon the skulls of men, women and children who would not bend to the will of popes and paid for it with their lives. " Yes, you keep reminding me of this monumental LIE and I keep asking for evidence from ANY scholar. It's a meaningless inflammatory mini-rant.

 

[H. Richard]

You are an anti-Catholic LIAR with a phony history, bible only believers didn't exist until the 16th century and not many of them were around because Luther and Calvin were busy killing each other off.
The Protestant Inquisition <<That's called providing a source...try it sometime.

***
So you are saying that Paul's writings did not exist and was not taught by letters to the grace churches he started until 16th century.

LOL, You seem to love calling me a liar. Okay let me return the favor, Your catholic religious leaders are liars too and since you say what they say you are a liar too, so there!! childish behavior on your part. But I have never debated with a catholic that was civil.

Stick to the subject. Did your religious catholic church have people killed because of their refusal to accept the RCC doctrines, Yes or NO?

 

[epostle1]

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

 

[H. Richard]

4. As the sacred synod searches into the mystery of the Church, it remembers the bond that spiritually ties the people of the New Covenant to Abraham's stock.

Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God's saving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are found already among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professes that all who believe in Christ-Abraham's sons according to faith (6)-are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that the salvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosen people's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore, cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testament through the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concluded the Ancient Covenant. Nor can she forget that she draws sustenance from the root of that well-cultivated olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild shoots, the Gentiles.(7) Indeed, the Church believes that by His cross Christ, Our Peace, reconciled Jews and Gentiles. making both one in Himself.(8)

The Church keeps ever in mind the words of the Apostle about his kinsmen: "theirs is the sonship and the glory and the covenants and the law and the worship and the promises; theirs are the fathers and from them is the Christ according to the flesh" (Rom. 9:4-5), the Son of the Virgin Mary. She also recalls that the Apostles, the Church's main-stay and pillars, as well as most of the early disciples who proclaimed Christ's Gospel to the world, sprang from the Jewish people.

As Holy Scripture testifies, Jerusalem did not recognize the time of her visitation,(9) nor did the Jews in large number, accept the Gospel; indeed not a few opposed its spreading.(10) Nevertheless, God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes or of the calls He issues-such is the witness of the Apostle.(11) In company with the Prophets and the same Apostle, the Church awaits that day, known to God alone, on which all peoples will address the Lord in a single voice and "serve him shoulder to shoulder" (Soph. 3:9).(12)

Since the spiritual patrimony common to Christians and Jews is thus so great, this sacred synod wants to foster and recommend that mutual understanding and respect which is the fruit, above all, of biblical and theological studies as well as of fraternal dialogues.

True, the Jewish authorities and those who followed their lead pressed for the death of Christ;(13) still, what happened in His passion cannot be charged against all the Jews, without distinction, then alive, nor against the Jews of today. Although the Church is the new people of God, the Jews should not be presented as rejected or accursed by God, as if this followed from the Holy Scriptures. All should see to it, then, that in catechetical work or in the preaching of the word of God they do not teach anything that does not conform to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ.

Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone.

***

But the RCC had people put to death because they did not believe in the RCC doctrines. That is a historical fact.

 

[bbyrd009]

***

But the RCC had people put to death because they did not believe in the RCC doctrines. That is a historical fact.

Prots are currently putting Muslims to death for the same reasons, HR, i don't see much difference.
The only thing different is who is in power imo

 

[epostle1]

***
So you are saying that Paul's writings did not exist and was not taught by letters to the grace churches he started until 16th century.

No, I said no such thing. Bible alone Christians, or the concept of sola scriptura did not exist until the 16th century after Luther invented it.

LOL, You seem to love calling me a liar.

I made one mistake.

Okay let me return the favor, Your catholic religious leaders are liars too and since you say what they say you are a liar too, so there!! childish behavior on your part. But I have never debated with a catholic that was civil.

I retract. We are not always civil because you guys are so irritating. Our patience is pushed beyond human limits and you do it on purpose. Every document and teaching is taken out of context, including the Early Church Fathers, which you generally avoid anyway. You have no concept of development, which I have briefly begun to explain, but most irritating of all is denial of historical facts, such as bible origins.

Stick to the subject. Did your religious catholic church have people killed because of their refusal to accept the RCC doctrines, Yes or NO?

Did your religious reformist churches have people killed because of their refusal to accept the reformist doctrines, Yes or NO?
Stick to the subject.

One more thing that is very frustrating when dealing with hostile anti-Catholics- excessive pride where they refuse to be corrected, they stick to useless outdated attitudes.[/QUOTE]