What are we really dealing with here?

[Naomi25]

Look into the history of how easter got established as opposed to the passover. I am talking about the dates. Look into the history of what day the early church actually met. The apostolic church. Not the churches in Rome and Alexandria which early began to apostatize, but the church in Assyria...the Celtic church in Britain, Scotland and Ireland. The church in Ethiopia.
Yes, as Jews the apostles, and those who opposed them, knew exactly the difference between the Sabbath and the first day. Do you not find it curious how the ex-Judaic legalists who had been converted, had no problem whatsoever with the practices of the new faith except for one...circumcision! No complaints ever arose...no protests ever made...by anyone, that anyone was dishonouring the Sabbath. Why? Because they weren't!. The met every Sabbath. At first in the synagogues, and in house churches. Then as persecution arose, first from the Jews, then pagan Rome, then Papal Rome, that persecution was directed at in particular Sabbath keepers! In fact, one reason Christians discarded the Sabbath and began to meet on Sunday was to be seen as being different from the upstart Jews that the Romans hated. And the full establishment of Sunday into the church had everything to do with Rome.
The early Christians saw the Christian faith as a progression, not a new religion. Calvary gave the Sabbath new significance, but did not annul it. Christians were worshiping alongside Jews in the synagogues every Sabbath, but over a period of time Jews became less tolerant of this arrangement and the rabbis actually devised prayers that were to be said which exposed the Christians within the community. This made it very uncomfortable for Christians to continue meeting in the synagogues, but they did not forsake the Sabbath. They began to meet in their houses and in places like the riversides as Paul found in Thyatira. Eventually, Christians found it impossible to worship in the synagogues and about that same time found themselves questioning their connections to the Jews, and with good reason. Much conflict around the early second century between the Jews and Rome began to impact the church. Not wanting to be recognized by Rome as being sympathetic or in any way involved with the Jews, some Christians began to abandon the Sabbath in favour of Sunday, which became an attractive alternative.

At this time also Sun worship increased in popularity with Rome. Mithra was particularly popular with the military, and Sunday became increasingly significant throughout the empire. Constantine established the first Sunday law in 321ad, and the church of Rome adopted that day as its own. As late as the 5th century however there were still a majority of Christian churches that were still observing the Sabbath. The church leaders in Rome strongly encouraged resting on Sunday in accordance to the law, while at the same time imposing fasts and other strictures on the Sabbath. Councils such as that of Laodicea in the mid 4th century recognized the continuing popularity of the Sabbath observance, and instituted canons to further enforce Sunday and demote the Sabbath. Churches that abandoned the Sabbath altogether however were very much in the minority, as attested to by Socrates Scholasticus when he wrote in the 4th century “For although almost all churches throughout the world celebrate the sacred mysteries on the Sabbath every week, yet the Christians of Alexandria and Rome, on account of some ancient tradition, have ceased to do this.”

Despite theological arguments, anti-jewish prejudice, and empirical decrees, the Sabbath was still honoured well into the 5th century. It was not dead. In fact, the Sabbath issue became a greatly heated debate between popes and patriarchs throughout the ensuing centuries, and became a test of authority. Sunday became the sign of submission to papal authority, and was a major cause of the great rift within the Christian faith that remained for 900 years.

With that history in mind, let us forever lay to rest the idea that Jesus or the apostles, or the scriptures themselves for that matter, had anything to do with any change or annulment of the seventh day Sabbath. Let us, at least in this matter, agree with the Church of Rome that responsibility for such a change can be laid squarely upon her shoulders. For it was the leaders, the popes, cardinals and bishops of that church who down through the ages from the 3rd century to the present day deliberately exalted Sunday and erroneously named that day the Lord’s Day; meanwhile persecuting Sabbath keepers, labeling them, among other things as Judaisers and heretics, and have trampled upon the true Lord’s day and cast it aside.

It remains for the Christian today to “choose this day whom ye will serve”. It is for you friend to decide upon whose authority your faith is surrendered to. The Creator of the “heavens, and the earth, and the sea, and all that in them is” as written in the 4th commandment or the prelates and lawmakers of the Catholic church, the foster parents of the counterfeit day of rest and worship, the day of the Sun.
But I fully and without reservation agree with you that freedom of conscience (not scripture) demands all of us have the freedom to set aside whatever day we choose, join whatever church we choose, worship in whatever way we choose. And that is the reason I discuss prophecy. Because Revelation, and the shadow cast from Daniel 3, inform us that the day is fast approaching when such freedoms are going to be removed, notwithstanding the constitution.

Man. Talk about flogging a dead horse. Nice history lesson though.
I can't help but notice you talked about everything except those verses by Paul.


Romans 14:5-6a:On e person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.

Col 2:8-10: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority...
Col 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ...


What do I care about Rome, or the first century habits (apart from interest), when the Bible tells me Christ IS the Sabbath. That I can, as I am convinced, choose any day I like to honor him. And that no one....that includes you, by the way, should pass judgement on me.

 

[brakelite]

Man. Talk about flogging a dead horse. Nice history lesson though.
I can't help but notice you talked about everything except those verses by Paul.


Romans 14:5-6a:On e person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. 6 The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord.

Col 2:8-10: See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head of all rule and authority...
Col 2:16-17: Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. 17 These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ...


What do I care about Rome, or the first century habits (apart from interest), when the Bible tells me Christ IS the Sabbath. That I can, as I am convinced, choose any day I like to honor him. And that no one....that includes you, by the way, should pass judgement on me.

I could respond quite lucidly to Paul's statements, but will for the time being not continue this debate because it is not up to me to convince anyone or to coerce anyone to worship a certain way; I have quoted the scripture, offered history, you I am sure have read the 4th commandment and may possibly even be able to recite from the heart, you also I am sure have read other's answers to the above texts, which you obviously have not been satisfied with. So I will leave you with just one challenge. When a global religion does enforce Sunday worship and Sabbath keepers begin to be looked at as heretics and troublers of the nations, would you revisit your beliefs, please?

 

[brakelite]

You see...here's my question. It's one thing to stand on a stage together and smile at the world and tell them they're working in harmony...blah, blah, blah.
But if anyone of those people changed his beliefs or habits, I'd need to some mighty decent proof for it.
It's all the 'rage' now, don't you see. Smile for the camera's, talk about hugging the trees, embracing humanity and one another, talk about how "much they have in common" (we're all human, so there's bound to be some). But when they walked away, did anyone change their practices, who they worshiped, what their rules where, how they made/collected money, their statements of faith...? I seriously doubt it. So how do we say, then, that other religions are collaborating with Rome? We can't...not without them shifting their doctrines and practices to fit Romes beliefs.
Or do you see posing for a pic as evidence alone?

No, not on a pic alone. Prophecy, and evidence such as the push by such as the late Tony Palmer. The response by evangelicals such as Copeland and many others, all of whom are now advisors to the president, was astonishing. 14.03.05 - Bishop Palmer Presses Forward

 

[brakelite]

"Of course this sounds absurd to most Christians today"
I'm sorry, of course this sounds absurd. Because we come to the surface and breath real air. How about you come up for some too...sounds like you've been too far under for too long.

What was the quote..."It's Spaceball 1...she's gone to plaid..."

Come on Naomi, surely you aren't so naive to think secret societies are just having a little harmless fun. That they have no real influence in either religion or politics. https://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/48/501-the-secret-behind-secret-societies/

 

[Naomi25]

God alone is without beginning, yes? Yet John 1 tells us that at the earliest epoch when a beginning could be, a period so remote that to finite minds it is essentially eternity, appeared the Word. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." God alone is without beginning remember. Here is said that the Word, in the beginning, was with God...was God. ", and we read Jesus said in Revelation 22:13 "I am the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last". Again, consider John 1:1. "In the beginning". What beginning is John 1:1,2 speaking of? In the beginning was...what? Was it the beginning of the earth? No. Was it the beginning of creation? No. Why does it not refer to either the earth or creation? First, it doesn't say, therefore such a conclusion would be speculation. But second, verse 3 says "all things were made by Him". By who? By Him who was in the beginning with God. Therefore this beginning must be before creation. So "In the beginning was the Word" could just as easily read as "when the Word was, this was the beginning".
In Colossians 1:15 it says, "the firstborn of every creature". Can this refer to the incarnation? No, because verse 16 says "for by Him were all things created", the same teaching as John 1:3, and verse 17 says And He (the firstborn) was before all things".
Thus whatever beginning means, it cannot be the beginning of God the Father, because God has no beginning. It cannot be the beginning of creation, because the Word, and the Firstborn, were before creation. The ONLY conclusion to be drawn therefore, and without any undue speculation and guesswork, is that the beginning referred to in John 1:1 can only refer to the Son...begotten before the worlds were created, the only Son of the Living God.

Oh please! Only someone trying with some desperation to find anything to support and idea already held would come up with something like this. It is a completely unnatural reading of the scripture and what it intends.
The intellectual gymnastics is, I'll admit, intriguing to watch, but quite dumbfounding in it's conclusion or why it needs to be performed on straightforward scripture in the first place.

 

[Naomi25]

I could respond quite lucidly to Paul's statements, but will for the time being not continue this debate because it is not up to me to convince anyone or to coerce anyone to worship a certain way; I have quoted the scripture, offered history, you I am sure have read the 4th commandment and may possibly even be able to recite from the heart, you also I am sure have read other's answers to the above texts, which you obviously have not been satisfied with. So I will leave you with just one challenge. When a global religion does enforce Sunday worship and Sabbath keepers begin to be looked at as heretics and troublers of the nations, would you revisit your beliefs, please?

Yep, as I thought...you can't actually denounce Paul and what he says. Although, given your 'logic pretzels' with some other verses, I must say I am surprised you didn't try.

 

[Naomi25]

Come on Naomi, surely you aren't so naive to think secret societies are just having a little harmless fun. That they have no real influence in either religion or politics. https://amazingdiscoveries.tv/media/48/501-the-secret-behind-secret-societies/

Do I think they exist? Sure. I'm sure they are also powerful and wealthy. But...how was it put...?

Secret Societies control everything, and all secret societies are controlled by the Papacy. The United States is largely lead by Catholic sympathizers which appeals to Catholics and Protestants who are too afflicted with Stockholm Syndrome to recognize that the Papal "Counter-Reformation" was established to destroy Protestantism.

See all those bits in bold? Foolishness. Nothing controls everything, unless we're talking about God. And ALL secret societies controlled by the Papacy? Really? And Protestants are too afflicted with Stockholm syndrome? I have never heard anything so silly in my life! Where on earth was that pulled from?

 

[mjrhealth]

What do I care about Rome, or the first century habits (apart from interest), when the Bible tells me Christ IS the Sabbath. That I can, as I am convinced, choose any day I like to honor him. And that no one....that includes you, by the way, should pass judgement on me.

Amen to that

 

[twinc]

Amen to that

notice the many and desperate attempts to try and draw attention away from who actually are the beasts and anti Christ in the Bible according to Christ - twinc

 

[bbyrd009]

Yes...but, we're not Esau. That's the point. Like Jacob, we, although sinners, deserving nothing but punishment for what we've done, have still been shown favor and grace by God. If that doesn't make the story come alive for you, and you need to put yourself in the shoes of the 'vessel elected for destruction' then I suppose I just have to shake my head at you!

yet note how your conclusion for Esau does not match up with what we read, later. For a reason.

 

[APAK]

I'm sorry, APAK, but it sounds to me like you are asking me if I've had "Someone and other people reinforced this and hard-wired it into your head"....but you've just admitted that you yourself have clung to an opinion you've had since your limited understanding as a child.

Let me flesh this out a bit. As a kid, you can't grasp a lot...or at least, not the really 'big' stuff. And the Trinity? That's about as complicated as it gets. So do we get taught about God the Father...separate person to....Jesus the Son....separate person to....the Holy Spirit. Yes. And yet we're told that they are all God. Not God's'...but God. One God. Now, at some point most kids are going to wonder about that...if they are seriously interested in their faith and in knowing God. Reading scripture they can see the three separate persons...often mentioned in the same passage, but listed separately (Matt 28:19, 2 Cor 13:14, Matt 3:16-17).
So...sometimes some of us just go on to blindly accept that teaching. Sometimes some of us find the idea interesting and study further, looking for the doctrine in scripture ourselves.

I'm not sure the direct path matters. Because what you've just written accuses us "Trinity" believers of doing nothing but believing what's been pushed at us...and yet you clearly admit you've done the same thing, just on the different side of the coin. You grew up believing one thing, and when confronted with the notion of something new, you abhorred it and have spent the next 'x' years avoiding or opposing teachings for it.

Naomi:

you said "...I'm not sure the direct path matters. Because what you've just written accuses us "Trinity" believers of doing nothing but believing what's been pushed at us...and yet you clearly admit you've done the same thing, just on the different side of the coin. You grew up believing one thing, and when confronted with the notion of something new, you abhorred it and have spent the next 'x' years avoiding or opposing teachings for it."

Naomi, I grew up believing One God and One Jesus Christ that was 'pushed' at me and I believed it. I still believe this way today because it is scriptural and I believe of my free that the spirit within agrees with as well. This is a big difference from was you proposed I meant or even said. So there was nothing 'new' I encountered as I grew up, besides more recently knowing others believe as I do. That was the 'new' thing.

Yes, I believe with all my heart that the Trinity belief model is pagan made, through and through, and it is hateful to God. The spirit of Truth that guides and leads me tells me so.

You would think there would be at least a Chapter each devoted to Jesus = God and Jesus’ pre-existent life before time began. There is none for good reasons. We do see God Almighty as Jesus’ Father sprinkled all throughout scripture. We also see Jesus as the son of God and the Messiah. They are there for good reasons.

I guess the devil and the demons also are Trinitarians, although it’s funny that they never caught on to the trick that Jesus preexisted and incarnated himself into a human being, and they never called Jesus God, only the son of God. You would think if anyone would know Jesus, the devil would know him more precisely than any human being? The devil never knew or practiced any Trinitarian concept.

Here are some basic reasons why Jesus cannot be God.

1. God Almighty cannot be tempted to sin. Jesus was tempted as a regular human being, as you and me.

2. Why did the Devil attempt to tempt Jesus to sin if he was God?

3. It would be impossible for Jesus to be part god and part human as a demi-god. Just not happening, no matter was added rationale that one can muster to continue this nonsense theory. Again, the devil would have noticed this and spoke of it.

4. How could Jesus die (his entire being, total nature) for our sins if he was ‘part’ god- immortal. Immortals cannot die, human beings can. You do believe that Jesus actually died?

5. How can Jesus be god (immortal) and also have a Father who is also God Almighty (immortal). So, Jesus was like a Greek or Roman mythological creature that was immortal with immortal parents (God Almighty and Mary), and decided to become a demi-god, part human? This is where the thinking started, with Greek and Roman secular influential writers – wove pagan god ideas for the new upcoming Political-State form of Christianity.

6. If Jesus was/is God why did Jesus at the right hand of God, still refer to his Father and his God in the Book of Revelation, well after his ascension? The reason why most folks will never figure out the Book of Revelation is because they think and read as a pagan Trinitarian.

7. If Jesus was God why did he have to pray to his Father, God Almighty? And the answer cannot be the humans side of his was weak etc., that is pure kaka.

8. If Jesus was God, why did he need to pray at all to, and for anyone? And the answer cannot be as in #7.

9. If Jesus was God why did he tell the disciples to trust in God and also in himself? Why would he do that……a mystery of faith I guess.

10. If Jesus and God are co-equal how can God Almighty, his Father be greater that Jesus. It’s another mystery of faith I guess…or is this modalism in disguise.

11. Jesus as God is alien to the OT. It should harmonize with the OT. One of the major reasons why some people that practice a form (reformed) of Judaism and consider Jesus as the Messiah today, find Christianity cock-eyed is basically because of the Trinity pagan idea. I share their view, there is just One God and One Son of God as the Messiah.

I will continue to walk in the spirit within me, I guess you have your walk with your spirit that possesses you.

Gook luck with your beliefs


Bless you,


APAK

 

[bbyrd009]

Absolute truth. You make it sound like a foolish thing. What is wrong with seeking truth? God is truth, and if it is his truth, then is it not absolute?

then you should have no probs Quoting some i guess, right.
Should be able to pump out Scriptural "truth" for the rest of the day i guess huh.
be my guest, give it your best shot

What of those who rely just on 'Word' as you call it? Just the callings of the Spirit within. Haven't you seen how often vast differences are there, between the word received, depending on the person? Goodness...the way people can (and do) argue when they see black and white words on a page; it makes me shiver to think if the Church was to rely on nothing more than what you call "Word" and our own interpretation of him. That's why, even with the differences, we do hold on to our bibles, so we can line up what we hear from 'Word', with the word.

k i'll be waiting then

 

[bbyrd009]

And I'll thank you not to mock me, or those who see this book that God sent us, as an extremely important, and precious tool. So many people go on about how we 'revere' the bible too much. I mean, please. If it could be proven that God dropped a rock out of the sky, people would stick it up on a shiny alter where they could 'ohh' and 'ahh' at it. "Imagine...this came directly from God's hands!" Well...we don't have a rock...we have a whole book, and it tells us what he's thinking, what he's done in history, how he's saved us, what he'd like from us, and what he plans to do. That's worth some respect, yeah?

best tool going, not denying that, but It is going to reflect a sword that divides better than our notion of Absolute Truth, i'm pretty sure. At least It always has so far

 

[bbyrd009]

The Bible is the Holy Bible, it's a Spiritual Book of Books, that only they who are born again can understand and Christians have faith in the word of God.

There are other bibles for your cars mechanicals etc etc.

sorry but this misrepresents the Bible for a purposeful reason, an agenda, and the "Book of Truth" already exists
which is why you cannot Quote "Holy Bible."
"Holy Law," no problem though, hmm

 

[bbyrd009]

Do I think they exist? Sure. I'm sure they are also powerful and wealthy. But...how was it put...?



See all those bits in bold? Foolishness. Nothing controls everything, unless we're talking about God. And ALL secret societies controlled by the Papacy? Really? And Protestants are too afflicted with Stockholm syndrome? I have never heard anything so silly in my life! Where on earth was that pulled from?

A Supreme Court without Protestants? - CNN.com

 

[bbyrd009]

What do I care about Rome, or the first century habits

Amen to that

bc we live in first century Rome? An empire in decline/decadence?

 

[Phoneman777]

Just for your edification.....
Though Tyndale is known as the father of the modern Bible, there were numerous copies of the scriptures in Britain before Tyndale. These however were not derived from the corrupted Latin Vulgate, but from the Syriac or Peshitta translations of Lucian of Antioch. These formed the basis of the Cristian faith of such venerable Christians such as Dinooth, Aiden, Patrick, Columba and Columbanus of the Celtic church. Also the Waldensian Christians of northern Italy and southern France, as well as the Gaelic believers throughout Asia minor. The Christianity which came to these Celtic and Gaelic people was apostolic…it came direct from missionaries from Palestine and Syria, as did their scriptures, not from Rome, which by that time was slowly being corrupted by Origen, whose philosophies has been inculcated into Jeromes Bible, with Eusebius’ editorial help he also being a fan of Origen.

Also, it is mentioned by different authors such as Dr. Adam Clarke, who claim that the examination of Irish customs reveals that they have elements which were imported into Ireland from Asia Minor by early Christians. Since Italy, France, and Great Britain were once provinces of the Roman Empire, the first translations of the Bible by the early Christians in those parts were written in Latin. This is not the ‘high Latin’ which later became known only in academic circles, but ‘low Latin’, which throughout the early Roman Empire was the common language of the people. The early Latin translations were very dear to the hearts of these primitive churches, and as the Roman Church did not send any missionaries toward the West before 250 A.D., the early Latin Bibles were well established before these churches came into conflict with Rome. Not only were such translations in existence long before the Vulgate was adopted by the Papacy, and well established, but the people for centuries refused to supplant their old Latin Bibles by the Vulgate. “The old Latin versions were used longest by the western Christians who would not bow to the authority of Rome — e. g., the Donatists; the Irish in Ireland, Britain, and the Continent; the Albigenses, etc.”

What brought about Tyndale’s untimely demise could be attributed to two things. One, his constant objections and debates with local priests and bishops over Catholic superstitions, and two, the fact that the translation into English which he offered the people was deeply influenced by Erasmus, a student of the Greek NT and advocate for the line of manuscripts derived from the italic/Syriac Peshitta which the early church used as opposed to the Vaticanus which by then was exclusively Rome’s favourite. A Bible in the hands of the common people in their own language which exposed Rome’s deceptions and false doctrines was what brought about the English Reformation.
The commonly diffused Catholic argument that the Catholic Church “preserved the sacred scriptures for 2000 years” and that if not for the Catholic Church “we would not have a Bible” is patently false, a lie, and an attempt to establish a myth as fact. It is said by the RCC that it was in 400AD, or thereabouts, that the church got all the manuscripts together to form the “first Bible’. That also is a lie. Throughout Christendom, Bibles existed from the 2nd century and were carefully copied into the language of the day, the lower Latin, throughout the western Roman empire. They all were derived from Antioch, in Syria, where God’s people were first called Christians, and these Bibles or portions thereof were spread throughout the churches of Asia Minor, Persia, India, Europe and Britain. The later version of Rome, the Vulgate, was rejected by these churches as being inferior and corrupt…the older italic versions continued to be used so long as the lower latin language was spoken, upward of 1000 years….and in those lands where the Romans had no influence, it was kept in the languages of the local people, all without any influence, protection, or sponsorship or credit going to Rome at all.

It is sad but true that Catholics today are still only too ready to accept their church’s lies without any open and honest investigation into the facts of history, and are thus completely duped. It is time that Catholics woke up and realized that the reformation didn’t come about because some odd priest here and there started teaching heresy. The Reformation came about because after reading the actual scriptures for themselves instead of taking their teachers word for what they said, many very serious and highly educated Bible scholars discovered that it was Rome who was the true Antichrist of the Bible, began to ‘protest’ the truth of scripture and object to the ridiculous superstitions and heresies and false doctrines of their own church that the Bible patently contradicted. Seeking to “reform” the church they loved, they met with a brick wall and stubborn refusal to repent, and were forced out. Excommunicated, persecuted, and the majority killed. Along with their followers. Their writings burned. Their Bibles burned. Their homes destroyed. Their lands stolen. And thus was the “preservation of Biblical truth” applied by Mother. What is even more sad is the ease with which the Protestant churches which developed from these courageous founders, are returning to Mother, and thus fulfilling the prophecy which names them harlots. It is only one completely ignorant of scripture who could pretend that the Lutheran Federation and the Catholic Church now agrees 100% on justification by faith alone. Luther, if he weren’t now a small pile of dust, would be tearing his hair out.

After the Christians of the East were chased out of the Byzantian and Palestine areas by Islamic invaders, and they fled West bringing with them their pure, unadulterated Eastern Greek Bible MSS, a formidable challenge to Rome's "authentic" Latin based Bibles arose and still wages today. Except that Protestants ignorant of history have now taken up the mantle in defense of those corrupted Roman MSS by promotion of all the "new" Bible versions that sprang up in the 20th century which are based on Greek "Critical Text" which was compiled from those equally corrupt ancient Greek MSS that were translated from the high Latin which originated from what Luther called "the Roman dunghill of decretals".

Erasmus published a Bible with each page containing side by side passages of the same text in Eastern MSS Greek and RCC Latin, which was revolutionary at that time, and by that exposed just how corrupt the RCC MSS when compared to the Greek Eastern MSS of where the Gospel born.

 

[Phoneman777]

So...Your Church doesn't care if we worship on Sunday? You don't care that worshiping on Sunday is a sign of the Beast? I think this is an important issue to address. Because if you claim you want religious freedom, but really think everyone not under your banner is the enemy, how can I take your speculation on any of the rest without severe skepticism?

God says "come out of (Babylon) MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues." The wonderful truth is that God refers to those who are yet trapped in the Babylonian captivity of false religion as "MY PEOPLE" that have His Spirit ("he that hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of His") and love Him, but He is calling them out before He lays Babylon to waste. That's why it is so unfair to accuse those who criticize the RCC as "Catholic bashers" instead of "Catholic doctrine bashers" for all the horrible fallout that Catholicism has caused in the lives of disenchanted Catholics who aren't taught the truth of God's mercy and don't know Jesus as their friend.

 

[Frank Lee]

God says "come out of (Babylon) MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins and receive not of her plagues." The wonderful truth is that God refers to those who are yet trapped in the Babylonian captivity of false religion as "MY PEOPLE" that have His Spirit ("he that hath not the Spirit of God, he is none of His") and love Him, but He is calling them out before He lays Babylon to waste. That's why it is so unfair to accuse those who criticize the RCC as "Catholic bashers" instead of "Catholic doctrine bashers" for all the horrible fallout that Catholicism has caused in the lives of disenchanted Catholics who aren't taught the truth of God's mercy and don't know Jesus as their friend.

Exactly

Of late God has given me what us the bottom line question - who and what do you defend and why?

Whether Roman Catholic or of some so called protestant denomination the reaction to criticism of a doctrine is the same. I'm always shocked at those who will be enraged at a questioning of the doctrines of whatever church they attend. That anti biblical statements are revered more than the very word of God.

Denomination is a good word. It denotes value. As of bills in denominations of 1 dollar. The word of God, the Bible is priceless and without denomination. Without describable worth. Nothing can be compared to it. Consider these statistics. No numbers can be exact but how many of these millions are believers?

• Catholic Church – 1.285 billion.
• Protestantism – 920 million.
• Eastern Orthodox Church – 270 million.
• Oriental Orthodoxy – 86 million.
• Restorationism and Nontrinitarianism – 35 million.
• Independent Catholicism – 18 million.
• Minor branches – 1 million.

Brother Paul said that he was set for the defense of the gospel. So must we be.

Philippians 1:7 KJVS
Even as it is meet for me to think this of you all, because I have you in my heart; inasmuch as both in my bonds, and in the defence and confirmation of the gospel, ye all are partakers of my grace.

Philippians 1:16-17 KJVS
The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: [17] But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.

Defence denotes a battle. The defence of the gospel, the good fight of faith, is the only battle worthy of joining.

Would that every one who names the name of christ set themselves to question every doctrine, tradition, habit of a church, sect or denomination that opposes the word of God. There is NO other standard that can be used.

It doesn't matter how much a teacher or preacher or pastor has learned at some seminary or so called institution of so called higher learning. What do they believe about the word of God? The Bible. As I told my children every day, the Bible is the only place that you can get the whole truth.

Catholics are mentioned here but I as others, have had ridiculous confrontations with baptists, Methodists and every denomination that can be named.

When I've witnessed to baptists about the gifts of the Holy Spirit, indeed about the baptism of the Holy Spirit they begin to assault tooth and nail. They defend their denomination above God's word.

1. God does not do those things anymore.
2. Those things are of the devil
3. Tongues have ceased (where did forbid not go?)
4. The Bible is that which is perfect... has come (the Bible large portions of which are denied!)

When I witnessed of the Lord opening my wife's womb after 14 childless years they had the affrontary to tell me that God did not send my children. Good for them I was Christian!

They were so entrenched in their doctrines that they didn't care that my wife and I had been the joyful recipients of God's grace. That our broken hearts had been healed by the Rise of Sharon. When your doctrine is so powerful it supplant the words of God it is beyond frightening. When it has no care for the wounded of the earth.

Hardness of heart is hard evidence of absence of the love of God.


Zechariah 13:6 KJVS
And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

Who and what do we defend and why? A doctrine of men or the truth? We talk about the brainwashing of Muslims but segments of protestant denominations are just as deceived.

 

[Helen]

@APAK Let's reverse this issue.
WHY does it matter to you if Jesus is God or not?
Why is it so important to prove Him not so?

And the real bottom line is...if He is or if He isn't , how will that impact or not, your salvation and future standing in the Kingdom?

Blessings...H