Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

[iakov]

Catholics do kneel before the pope, and kiss his ring. And the pope not only allows this, he expects it.

But what would Peter think of this behavior? Did he expect, or encourage anyone to kneel in front of him?

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Evidently not.

Even the very angels in heaven objected to a man kneeling to them.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

And yet this man...not an angel, just a man, like other men...not only accepts, but actually encourages this behavior.

However, this has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread, which is a look at beliefs about the trinity.
If you want to discuss the papacy, you should probably start another thread. <_<

Kneeling an kissing his ring is not an act of worship any more than is a soldier saluting an officer.

AGAIN: If you will bother to consult the catechism of the Catholic church, which is on line, you will find that the pope is NOT worshiped.

IF you bother to actually verify that statement THEN you will have no excuse for continuing to make false accusations against the members of the body of Christ who worship Jesus in that communion.

<<But what would Peter think of this behavior?>>
We have no idea what Peter would think. You'll have to ask him when you see him.

<<If you want to discuss the papacy, you should probably start another thread.>>
Tell the person who brought up the topic. I just responded to the misinformation and slander.

Have a nice day!

iakov

[SIZE=10pt]John 13:34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another;[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=10pt]as I have loved you, that you also love one another.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=10pt]John 14:15 If you love Me, keep My commandments.[/SIZE]​

[SIZE=10pt](NKJV)[/SIZE]​

 

[StanJ]

So you give me another red herring fallacy.

ONLY in your opinion Oz. Like I said, you have to identify exactly what it is I am saying that is false.

I'm not subject to men's opinion, only to God's word.

 

[StanJ]

Take a close look at my post at #111. Not once in the entire post did I mention Isa 9:6. Not once. When you invent what I did not state, don't you understand that you have erected a straw man fallacy?

Oz, you said in post #111; "Because He was 'from the Father', that means he was not the same as the Father.

Is 9:6 says different. It states;
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Then there is Is 45:21. It states;
Declare what is to be, present it— let them take counsel together.
Who foretold this long ago, who declared it from the distant past?
Was it not I, the Lord?
And there is no God apart from me,
a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none but me.


So obviously, as I did not do as you claim, your whole rational for accusing me, is erroneous or just plain vindictive?

 

[Barrd]

Kneeling an kissing his ring is not an act of worship any more than is a soldier saluting an officer.

Then why did Peter and the angel both object to it?
We think of worship a bit differently as folks thought of it in times past. Falling on on knee before the King was considered "worship", although very few people thought of the king as a god, although in some cultures the King, or ruler, was thought to be descended from the gods.
Still, whether you thought he was a god or not, he had life and death authority over his subjects, so if he said "kneel" you hit the floor, right? And if he said he was a god, you said, "Yes, your Glory".

At one time, the Pope held this kind of authority, even over Emperors, who hit their knees and kissed that ring, just as expected. Not to do so could be a rather....uh...painful choice...

AGAIN: If you will bother to consult the catechism of the Catholic church, which is on line, you will find that the pope is NOT worshiped.

What it says on paper, and what is in the hearts of the common "KATHlick" are often two very different things. Now, while it's true that there aren't very many Catholics in this small southern town where I live now... loads of charismatics, God help me ...it is also true that where I grew up, in upstate New York, there were a great many of them. And yes...a great many of them thought him second only to Jesus, Himself. Even Mary, the Queen of Heaven, was hard put to it to compete with the glory of the pope, in many of their eyes...

P.S. No, I do not think of Mary as "The Queen of Heaven". That's me, with my tongue in my cheek. I just hope it doesn't get stuck there.

IF you bother to actually verify that statement THEN you will have no excuse for continuing to make false accusations against the members of the body of Christ who worship Jesus in that communion.

False accusations? Please! Pointing out error is not the same thing as making false accusations. Please, if you see me walking around town with a hole in my skirt, stop me and tell me, so that I might either mend the skirt, or change it for one that is not air conditioned, and I will be grateful to you...

<<But what would Peter think of this behavior?>>
We have no idea what Peter would think. You'll have to ask him when you see him.

I don't have to ask him. He made himself very plain, when Cornelius thought to kneel before him:

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Obviously, it made Peter uncomfortable to have a man kneeling at his feet, as if he were God.


<<If you want to discuss the papacy, you should probably start another thread.>>
Tell the person who brought up the topic. I just responded to the misinformation and slander.

Yeah, I know. 'Dem dang ol' KATHlicks get all het up 'bout sech as dat.
The only reason the Catholic church got brought up is because the Trinity doctrine, or so many seem to think, began with them. I don't happen to agree, but then, I'm a bit of a maverick around here, as you might have already noticed.
But, hey...we each have a right and a responsibility to search the scriptures, like those noble Bereans, to see if these things be so.

Have a nice day!

iakov

Back atcha, Iakov

 

[StanJ]

Kneeling an kissing his ring is not an act of worship any more than is a soldier saluting an officer.

I agree, and as it is more a sign of respect like bowing to the Commonwealth Queen, or bowing very low as the Japanese do to show deep respect, I have no problem with this particular issue. I have a strong feeling that the current Bishop of Rome feels a lot different about his role than many of his predessors have.

 

[Barrd]

I agree, and as it is more a sign of respect like bowing to the Commonwealth Queen, or bowing very low as the Japanese do to show deep respect, I have no problem with this particular issue. I have a strong feeling that the current Bishop of Rome feels a lot different about his role than many of his predessors have.

Perhaps this recent pontiff does not have these delusions of godhood...I really wouldn't know.
And maybe there are younger folks who don't think of him as being Christ-on-earth. That would be a happy change.

But I double-g guarantee you, there are still older folks who do think of him in this way, and to them, kneeling and kissing his ring is still an act of worship, as it was originally intended to be.

As also, at one time, kneeling before royalty was also considered "worship".

And again, I do not think we should discount the FACT that both Peter (who was supposed to be the first pope....AND one of God's Own angels both forbad such behavior.

If the First Pope, who did not wear an expensive ring, dress in that outrageous outfit or wear that hat, or live in a place surrounded by wealth...if, I say, the FIRST POPE would not allow a man to kneel before him...why would anyone think it is now okay to kneel before his "successors"??

A little common sense, please?

 

[StanJ]

Perhaps this recent pontiff does not have these delusions of godhood...I really wouldn't know.

And again, I do not think we should discount the FACT that both Peter (who was supposed to be the first pope.... one of God's Own angels both forbad such behavior.

If the First Pope, who did not wear an expensive ring, dress in that outrageous outfit or wear that hat, or live in a place surrounded by wealth...if, I say, the FIRST POPE would not allow a man to kneel before him...why would anyone think it is now okay to kneel before his "successors"??

A little common sense, please?

Apparently you don't.

What fact would that be and where did you find this in scripture?

IF is a big word, but WHO EXACTLY was the first pope, and what did he wear?

I agree, little common sense.

 

[OzSpen]

ONLY in your opinion Oz. Like I said, you have to identify exactly what it is I am saying that is false.

I'm not subject to men's opinion, only to God's word.

Stan,

I have given you an explanation of the way you engage in fallacious reasoning with a red herring logical fallacy in #119. I do not plan on repeating the nature of your false reasoning when you use a red herring. In your reply here, you have given me another red herring.

It has zero to do with my opinion. It has everything to do with the identification of your false kind of reasoning when you engage with me.

If you are not subject to men's opinion, why do you use English grammar when you write? You are following men's rules as grammarians. You trip up on your own explanation.

 

[StanJ]

Stan,

I have given you an explanation of the way you engage in fallacious reasoning with a red herring logical fallacy in #119. I do not plan on repeating the nature of your false reasoning when you use a red herring. In your reply here, you have given me another red herring.
It has zero to do with my opinion. It has everything to do with the identification of your false kind of reasoning when you engage with me.
If you are not subject to men's opinion, why do you use English grammar when you write? You are following men's rules as grammarians. You trip up on your own explanation.

Now all you're doing is talking in circles to AVOID answering. This is definitely a new side of you I've never seen. Suffice it to say I'm not playing your game, whatever it is.
There is no doubt you opine, but sadly you cannot or will not identify what you assert is wrong with my arguments, and the longer you do so, the more i am left I am left to believe you're using these tactics as a ruse to cover that fact.

 

[OzSpen]

Now all you're doing is talking in circles to AVOID answering. This is definitely a new side of you I've never seen. Suffice it to say I'm not playing your game, whatever it is.
There is no doubt you opine, but sadly you cannot or will not identify what you assert is wrong with my arguments, and the longer you do so, the more i am left I am left to believe you're using these tactics as a ruse to cover that fact.

That's a straw man, a false claim against me.

You are proving the point I've been making. When you use logical fallacies, we cannot engage in a rational conversation.

Bye! Bye!

 

[Barrd]

Apparently you don't.

What fact would that be and where did you find this in scripture?

IF is a big word, but WHO EXACTLY was the first pope, and what did he wear?

I agree, little common sense.

You didn't know that the Apostle Peter is supposed to have been the "first pope"? I'm sure Kepha, or Iakov, could set you straight on that.
Or you could GOOGLE it. Please, don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
Peter the Apostle, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was the first pope.


What did Peter wear? The same thing any other man wore at that time. He wore a tunic, and over that, a robe, which he tied with a girdle...you'd say "belt" or possibly "sash"...and on his feet he wore sandals.

And he did not allow anyone to kneel to him.

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Even the very angels in heaven objected to a man kneeling to them.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

You can look those verses up in your own Bible, Stan. Please, don't take my word for it...

 

[StanJ]

That's a straw man, a false claim against me.

You are proving the point I've been making. When you use logical fallacies, we cannot engage in a rational conversation.

Bye! Bye!

Your denial doesn't negate the veracity of what I said Oz. It just further proves you prefer using your vernacular to actually clearly addressing any issue.

C ya!

 

[StanJ]

You didn't know that the Apostle Peter is supposed to have been the "first pope"? I'm sure Kepha, or Iakov, could set you straight on that.
Or you could GOOGLE it. Please, don't take my word for it. Check it out for yourself.
Peter the Apostle, according to the Roman Catholic Church, was the first pope.

Not what I asked. Seems hard for you to make direct answers to direct questions?

What did Peter wear? The same thing any other man wore at that time. He wore a tunic, and over that, a robe, which he tied with a girdle...you'd say "belt" or possibly "sash"...and on his feet he wore sandals.
And he did not allow anyone to kneel to him.
Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.
Even the very angels in heaven objected to a man kneeling to them.

Actually the proper rendering of προσκυνέω (proskyneō) is 'reverance', and Acts says nothing about Peter not allowing it, it says he made him stand up and said "I am only a man myself". Good for Peter but nothing is said of that being wrong to do.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Yes, here John was worshipping the angel, but understandable given the circumstances. Still does not condemn this issue of Papal reverance as long as we know the difference.

 

[iakov]

Back atcha, Iakov

Peter and the angel never objected to kissing any pope's ring because there weren't any popes at the time. You are confused.

<<Falling on on knee before the King was considered "worship",>>

No, it was a sign of respect for his office and his power. It was not the same as worshiping God or a god.

You're trying to make a point where there is no point to be made in order to excuse your slander against your brothers and sisters who worship God in the RCC. I ain't buyin' it. You've apparently been taught to hate Roman Catholics and you're doing what you've been taught by your church or whoever convinced you to ignore Jesus' command rather than obeying Jesus' commanded which was, "Love one another."

So, why do you call Jesus "Lord" if you don't do what He commands?

I find it curious and sad that so many Protestant churches have a need to teach hatred for fellow members of the Body of Christ and go to great lengths to make excuses trying to justify their demonically inspired hatred.

I suspect that Jesus isn't buying any of it because He told us to love. He said to love the LORD (Mat 22:37), love one another (Jhn 15:12), love your neighbor (Mat 22:39), and even love your enemies. (Mat 5:44)

I'm not feelin' the love. :-(

<<What it says on paper, and what is in the hearts of the common "KATHlick" are often two very different things.>>

Oh! So you know what's in people's hearts! Are you the Holy Spirit! I though you were just flesh and blood like me. My apologies.

What's in your heart? So far, you've expended a lot of energy trying to justify your hatred of Catholics.

<<But, hey...we each have a right and a responsibility to search the scriptures, like those noble Bereans, to see if these things be so.>>

Scriptures like; Mat 22:37, Jhn 15:12, Mat 22:39, Mat 5:44, and Luk 6:46???

Here's two passages to consider:

Mar 7:20-23 “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Phl 4:8 "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."

Does your reviling of and hatred toward Catholics better fit the first passage or the second?

How about this one, my Berean friend: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." (Mat 5:16)

What kind of light does hatred toward others shine?

For the sake of your soul, please, put a sock in it.


iakov

 

[Guestman]

Does John 1:18 say as the NIV reads, that "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" ? This is where translators have rewrote the Bible to fit their own ends, to fit it so that the Trinity seems true.


Are the words "but the one and only Son, who is God himself " in the oldest manuscripts ? No. The oldest Greek manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus of the 4th century C.E. do not have these words. Rather, it reads literally: "God not-one-yet (no one) has-seen ?-as-?-when (ever) only-generated (only-begotten) god the one-being into the bosom of-the Father that-one unfolds (explains)".(Scripture4all interlinear) Thus, it is accurately translated as: "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him".(NW)


This is no different than adding the spurious words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth".(1 John 5:7, 8, KJV) These words are not on the oldest Greek manuscripts, but have been added to support the Trinity.


Likewise, at 1 Timothy 3:16, the Greek word hos meaning "who" was changed into the abbreviation for "God" with the slight stroke of a pen, so that according to the King James Bible, it reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory", instead of accurately reading "he (Jesus Christ) was made manifest in flesh".


So, who are the ones seeking what Jesus said is "the truth (that) will set you free" from religious error as well the stranglehold that sin and death holds on the masses of mankind ?(John 8:31, 32) Jesus established that very few are willing to discard religious bias and error and earnestly look for the truth.(see Matt 7:13, 14)


At Matthew 13, Jesus told his genuine disciples: "To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but to them (the Jews as a nation) it is not granted. For whoever has more (of understanding the Bible due to humility), more will be given him (gaining an accurate understanding of God's Word), and he will be made to abound (in grasping Bible truths such as the relationship of God, Jesus and the holy spirit); but whoever does not have, even what he has (or thinks he has) will be taken from him".(Matt 13:11, 12)


When a person is humble, then these will carefully follow Jesus words: "Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find (the truth); keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you".(Matt 7:7) Those who read the Bible with their mind already set instead of continuing to ask, search, and knock for Bible truth will not find "the truth".

 

[Barrd]

Peter and the angel never objected to kissing any pope's ring because there weren't any popes at the time. You are confused.

<<Falling on on knee before the King was considered "worship",>>

No, it was a sign of respect for his office and his power. It was not the same as worshiping God or a god.

You're trying to make a point where there is no point to be made in order to excuse your slander against your brothers and sisters who worship God in the RCC. I ain't buyin' it. You've apparently been taught to hate Roman Catholics and you're doing what you've been taught by your church or whoever convinced you to ignore Jesus' command rather than obeying Jesus' commanded which was, "Love one another."

So, why do you call Jesus "Lord" if you don't do what He commands?

I find it curious and sad that so many Protestant churches have a need to teach hatred for fellow members of the Body of Christ and go to great lengths to make excuses trying to justify their demonically inspired hatred.

I suspect that Jesus isn't buying any of it because He told us to love. He said to love the LORD (Mat 22:37), love one another (Jhn 15:12), love your neighbor (Mat 22:39), and even love your enemies. (Mat 5:44)

I'm not feelin' the love. :-(

<<What it says on paper, and what is in the hearts of the common "KATHlick" are often two very different things.>>

Oh! So you know what's in people's hearts! Are you the Holy Spirit! I though you were just flesh and blood like me. My apologies.

What's in your heart? So far, you've expended a lot of energy trying to justify your hatred of Catholics.

<<But, hey...we each have a right and a responsibility to search the scriptures, like those noble Bereans, to see if these things be so.>>

Scriptures like; Mat 22:37, Jhn 15:12, Mat 22:39, Mat 5:44, and Luk 6:46???

Here's two passages to consider:

Mar 7:20-23 “What comes out of a man, that defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lewdness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within and defile a man.”

Phl 4:8 "Finally, brethren, whatever things are true, whatever things are noble, whatever things are just, whatever things are pure, whatever things are lovely, whatever things are of good report, if there is any virtue and if there is anything praiseworthy—meditate on these things."

Does your reviling of and hatred toward Catholics better fit the first passage or the second?

How about this one, my Berean friend: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven." (Mat 5:16)

What kind of light does hatred toward others shine?

For the sake of your soul, please, put a sock in it.


iakov

First of all, I do not hate anyone. Goodness, Iakov, you can disagree with someone, without hating them.
And secondly, speaking of hate, what is this tirade of yours? If you think I am wrong...and obviously, you do...should you not lovingly correct me? Instead, you spew a whole page of hate at me. Why?

You said:

Peter and the angel never objected to kissing any pope's ring because there weren't any popes at the time. You are confused.

So, then, Peter was not the first pope? I'm sure he will be relieved to hear it.


You said:

No, it was a sign of respect for his office and his power. It was not the same as worshiping God or a god.

What I had actually said was:

Falling on on knee before the King was considered "worship", although very few people thought of the king as a god, although in some cultures the King, or ruler, was thought to be descended from the gods.
Still, whether you thought he was a god or not, he had life and death authority over his subjects, so if he said "kneel" you hit the floor, right? And if he said he was a god, you said, "Yes, your Glory".

At one time, the Pope held this kind of authority, even over Emperors, who hit their knees and kissed that ring, just as expected. Not to do so could be a rather....uh...painful choice...

I guess you've never heard of the Egyptian pharoahs, who were thought to be gods, or the Roman emperors who insisted that they were gods...one of them...Caligula, called "Little Boots...even had a golden stall made for his horse, whom, he said, was also a god. And then there were the Mayans, who believed that their rulers were gods who had come to them from the sky...I'm sure I could think of many more examples of god-kings.
Being of Welsh descent, I know that there were those who believed in the Arthurian legend, who were sure that their duchess, the Lady Igraine, was impregnated by a god...her husband, the duke, was away, fighting Ambrosius' armies, while Ambrosius himself, disguised by magic to look like her husband, went to her and...well, if you don't know the rest of the story, I'm sure you can guess. Then, too, Ambrosius himself, being Roman...


You are the one who spelled Catholic "KATHlick"...somehow I got the impression that you had a sense of humor. Which wouldn't be such a bad thing, actually...

As a kid growing up in upstate New York, I had a great many Catholic friends. I still keep in touch with some of them. The only reason I knew what was in the hearts of some of their older aunts or grandmothers, was because they told us. The pope was, in their eyes, second only to Jesus Christ. Because he is Christ on earth, he is also divine...not in the same sense as the Trinity, but in the same way as Mary is divine. It was confusing to me, so don't expect me to explain it...I'm simply reporting on what I was told by some of these folks. I'd tell you to take it up with them, but I'm pretty sure they'd be dead by now, seeing as the child I was is now a 65 year old great grandma...

I was never taught to hate Catholics, by anyone. There are several things that Catholics believe that I disagree with, but that is not the same thing as hating them. I tell you with all the love in my heart...this elevating of a mere man to the office of "vicar of Christ" and making him "infallible" has proven, again and again, to be a huge mistake.

Iakov, my dear brother in Christ, do consider whether these things you are saying to me reflect your own light. Surely, if you are a member of the Lord's True Church, you ought to have a light to shine on my darkness...is this it? Because you aren't showing me anything...

I am very glad that the Catholic church does not have the power she once had...otherwise, my loving Catholic brothers and sisters would very lovingly burn me at the stake for being a "heretic". With all the love in their hearts, they would listen to me scream...

I suppose I ought to be thankful that the worst they can do to me in this century, is to tell me to "put a sock in it."

Yeah, I'm feelin' the love....
Feels a bit like being stretched out on the rack, or being shut into an iron maiden....

 

[StanJ]

Does John 1:18 say as the NIV reads, that "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known" ? This is where translators have rewrote the Bible to fit their own ends, to fit it so that the Trinity seems true.


Are the words "but the one and only Son, who is God himself " in the oldest manuscripts ? No. The oldest Greek manuscripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Siniaticus of the 4th century C.E. do not have these words. Rather, it reads literally: "God not-one-yet (no one) has-seen ?-as-?-when (ever) only-generated (only-begotten) god the one-being into the bosom of-the Father that-one unfolds (explains)".(Scripture4all interlinear) Thus, it is accurately translated as: "No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father's side is the one who has explained him".(NW)


This is no different than adding the spurious words "in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth".(1 John 5:7, 8, KJV) These words are not on the oldest Greek manuscripts, but have been added to support the Trinity.


Likewise, at 1 Timothy 3:16, the Greek word hos meaning "who" was changed into the abbreviation for "God" with the slight stroke of a pen, so that according to the King James Bible, it reads: "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory", instead of accurately reading "he (Jesus Christ) was made manifest in flesh".


So, who are the ones seeking what Jesus said is "the truth (that) will set you free" from religious error as well the stranglehold that sin and death holds on the masses of mankind ?(John 8:31, 32) Jesus established that very few are willing to discard religious bias and error and earnestly look for the truth.(see Matt 7:13, 14)


At Matthew 13, Jesus told his genuine disciples: "To you it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the Kingdom of God, but to them (the Jews as a nation) it is not granted. For whoever has more (of understanding the Bible due to humility), more will be given him (gaining an accurate understanding of God's Word), and he will be made to abound (in grasping Bible truths such as the relationship of God, Jesus and the holy spirit); but whoever does not have, even what he has (or thinks he has) will be taken from him".(Matt 13:11, 12)


When a person is humble, then these will carefully follow Jesus words: "Keep on asking, and it will be given you; keep on seeking, and you will find (the truth); keep on knocking, and it will be opened to you".(Matt 7:7) Those who read the Bible with their mind already set instead of continuing to ask, search, and knock for Bible truth will not find "the truth".

This is bull pucky. The majority of Greek scholars translate it the way the NIV does, and trying to show what it literally translates as, without proper equivalence, is to say the least dishonest. As a bilingual person, I know from experience that languages CANNOT be translated word for word. ANY linguist will attest to that, and they don't need to be Biblical scholars. Mounce, Moo and Wall7ace, just to name a few preeminent modern Greek scholars, show it the way it is PROPERLY rendered. We'll stick with them thank you.

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

I know that I never really felt close to God in the Episcopal church, which is pretty close to the Catholic church, except that Episcopalians do not accept the pope. ( All because ol' King Henry wanted a divorce... Just goes to show what a man will do for a woman.)
Maybe that was cuz my family was not really devout in their religion. I probably would never have become the Christian I am today, had not God gifted me with a love for reading. Or maybe it was all the ritual...the liturgical calendar, dressing the altar for the different seasons of the liturgical year, praying out of a book rather than out of the heart...just didn't work for the emotional little girl I was...and still am in so many ways...

Anyway, i read the catechism, but I didn't see anything there about a PERSONAL Savior. Perhaps I missed it?

It certainly doesn't(and shouldn't) use protestant language if that's what you mean.

The Anglicans do not have valid holy orders thanks to the split and them "reforming" themselves.. So yeah, no actual body and blood of the Lord in those churches. Maybe that's why it seemed like a bunch of empty rituals being conducted in the episcopal church. BTW, I was orthodox Anglican but once attended a Episcopal "mass"...and the "pastor" was a female who looked more manly than I did. (it was a very liberal church) Almost threw up as I ran out of the church never to return.

Anyway, as I know you don't believe in the Eucharist, let me just say this to anyone here who is curious....learn about things from their sources, not their enemies(Jack Chick lol). I've been through RCIA and I can tell you it's all about Jesus in there. If some Catholics are derailed it's because they have chosen to not educate themselves. And, BTW, I have met some very worldly protestants as well so this is not something happening exclusively in the Catholic church. Satan is on the prowl in every denomination seeking to destroy.

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

I agree VCS, AND, was once RC. I don't agree with many of the RCC traditions, but that doesn't mean they are anti Christian.

You seem to have a good grasp of what the Catholic church actually is.

No problem at all with people disliking something they actually understand. It's the misconceptions and those who keep spreading falsehoods that are bothersome. Not talking neccessarily here, just in general

 

[Veni_Creator_Spiritus]

Now, I like that. Willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt. Not quick to judge and condemn.
Not an attitude I see an awful lot of in these threads...

I may not agree with everything you believe....but I like your Christian attitude!

Thank you.

Catholics and protestants actually say the same things sometimes, but they are just speaking different languages. Biggest difference is we think salvation is a process and differs from redemption. I think we have plenty in common and should probably worry more about the lunatics in the middle east that are decapitating our brothers and sisters in Christ.