What are we really dealing with here?

[bbyrd009]

This thread is about exposing the RCC for who it really is. A religion that confesses or professes to be Christian, but in reality is the ultimate expression of Antichrist practice and teaching, as has been detailed previously.

ah, so iow ezackly like institutional protestantism

 

[bbyrd009]

“Without any desire to treat lightly the opinions of others, we nevertheless feel it necessary to point out to all a few of the absurdities connected with the common view concerning Antichrist, that thereby the dignity and reasonableness of the truth on this subject may be properly estimated, in contrast with the narrow claim that all which the Scriptures predict concerning this character will be accomplished by someone literal man.

This man, it is claimed, will so charm the whole world that in a few short years he will secure to himself the homage and worship of all men, who will be so easily imposed upon as to suppose this man to be God, and, in a rebuilt Jewish temple, to worship him as the Almighty Jehovah. All this is to be done at lightning speed--three and a half years, say they, misinterpreting the symbolic time, even as they misinterpret the symbolic "man."

Tales of fiction and the most absurd imaginations of childhood furnish no parallel to the extreme views of some of God's dear children who are stumbling over a literal interpretation of Paul's language, and thereby blinding themselves and others to many precious truths, which, because of the error on this subject, they are unprepared to see in an unprejudiced light. No matter how much we may sympathize with them, their "blind faith" forces a smile as they seriously tell over the various symbols of Revelation which they do not understand, misapplying them literally to their wonderful man. In this, the most skeptical age the world has ever known, he will, they claim, in the short space of three and a half years, have the whole world at his feet, worshiping him as God, while the Caesars, Alexander, Napoleon, Mahomet and others sailed through bloody seas and spent many times three and a half years, without accomplishing the one thousandth part of what is claimed for this man.

And yet those conquerors had all the advantages of dense ignorance and superstition to aid them, while today we live under conditions most unfavorable to such a development of deceit and fraud: in a day when every hidden thing is being manifested as never before; in a day when fraud of the sort claimed is too preposterous and ridiculous for consideration. Indeed, the tendency of our day is toward a lack of respect for men, no matter how good, talented and able, or what offices of trust and authority they may occupy. To such an extent is this true, as never before, that it is a thousand times more likely that the whole world will deny that there is any God, than that they will ever worship a fellow human being as the Almighty God.”

i asked "linked from where" bc you need to provide a link for these, ok--like i guess it's even a rule or something. plus it credits the author, etc

 

[bbyrd009]

i'll take a guy who confesses to men they call father in dark closets over a guy who is constitutionally unable to confess any shortcoming, any day of the week

 

[Naomi25]

Hi Naomi. This thread is about exposing the RCC for who it really is. A religion that confesses or professes to be Christian, but in reality is the ultimate expression of Antichrist practice and teaching, as has been detailed previously. Part of that revealing must include what has, for most of its existence, been an innate mindset that deems it appropriate to use force to compel others to submit to papal authority and dogma, and has done so on numerous occasions over a period of over 1000 years costing the lives of millions in the process.
And that is the main reason that motivated this thread... The threat of future force as revelation 13 clearly shows in its due warning against the mark of the beast and the death sentence imposed on all dissenters. The Mark is clearly a religious dictate, denying food, property, and life to any who choose to reject it, and if as has been shown, that the RCC is the beast, then the mark belongs to the RCC. Thus it must be an RCC sign or mark of authority. Yes, it is a religious liberty issue. It certainly is not about my demand to impose my beliefs on others, but certainly about my own right of conscience. And yours. And even of Catholics.
I agree with you though that our rights stop the moment they interfere with others rights.

Hi Brakelite. I suppose that I cannot argue that the Catholic Church has, in times past, used violence to try and force those around them to concede to their views. It's rather shameful, is it not, that in light of what happened to the Savior they worship, and the apostle they admire, they would do such things; following Pharisaical and Roman thought patterns. And while I'm not a 'history buff', I do believe there have been more than a handful of Protestant believers who have felt justified in the same violence. It's a shame upon our faith, I think.
But I was very interested in your point of the mark of the beast, and that, should the RCC be the AC, the mark would, therefore be a mark of the RCC. Not that I agree that the RCC is the AC, but the thought is interesting anyway. Because for so long the Church and State have been divided, and the Church, really, has nothing to do with our ability to buy or sell. What your suggesting is that the RCC, in her role of AC, will become the state, and therefore gain control of such things. As interesting as that might be, intellectually, I can't see that happening, world wide. There are too many non-Catholics out there opposing her for her to gain such authority within the world...don't you think?

Okay. We are dealing with just two topics, the trinity and Sunday sacredness. Not about your stance on those topics, we can discuss that on another thread, but the RCCs stance, and the fact that the RCC boasts that because Protestantism believes as they do, then Protestantism is surrendering it's Sola scripture claim to papal authority. That's not my boast, it's Rome's. And Rome has backed that claim up by persecuting both Sabbath observers and arians relentlessly up to the 17th century.

Well...if we're not talking about the validity of these things, biblically (which I get...off topic for this thread), and we're only talking about what the RCC believes....all I can say is...as Protestants, we don't care what they believe in these regards. If they want to tell themselves, and others, that we believe in the Trinity and Sunday worship because of Catholic teaching...well, that's nice then, we'll give them a nice little pat on the head to make them feel better. And then go on our way knowing that we came to our own beliefs on those doctrines....out of the bible. You know, the Sola Scriptura thing. So, I suppose what I would say to you is...clearly you don't believe the RCC on most things, why believe them on this? If the RCC persecuted you about observing on the Sabbath, I'm sorry...we had quite a few burned at the stake too...but it doesn't change the facts on the ground.

The Mark of the beast is a religious liberty issue. Protestants who believe as Rome believes will be quite safe, so you wont have any problem.

No, not really. They still think we're "outside the true Church". And if your out, you're out. I doubt anyone will be considered "in" until they are fully in, the whole kit and caboodle.

As to your contention that I am attempting to define God, you couldn't be more wrong. It is actually the trinity doctrine itself that is a human definition of God. Christianity would have been far better off if they had left such definitions alone and simply accepted what the Bible reveals rather than take several steps beyond to satisfy human ego. The Bible says Jesus is the Son of God. Thus God is His Father. The holy Spirit is described as the Spirit of God. The Bible says nothing about Christ being eternal. It says He is immortal, but it also says He was begotten. How can someone who is begotten not have a beginning? How can someone who is inherently immortal, die? And if Jesus did not die because He is part of a trinity and cannot be separated from the other members of the godhead because God cannot be separated, what becomes of the atonement? Did Jesus die or not? Is He a literal Son or not? Is God His Father or is the trinity His Father? Is He as old as His Father?
I would add that the reason Jesus is God is BECAUSE He is God's Son. Everything His Father is, Jesus inherited. And it is because He received life from His Father, He was empowered to give it back, thus the life Christ has is a gift, our perhaps better described as His rightful inheritance as a Son.

Here's the deal, straight out. The bible doesn't outright say "Trinity". It also doesn't outright say "Hey guys, I'm God, I always existed" (although I would argue Jesus comes pretty darn close in Jewish terms.). But it also doesn't, outright, say "When God The Father impregnated Mary, Jesus didn't exist before then." or "Jesus is NOT God". What the bible does say, we have to extrapolate from. We think there are plenty of verses that lead to the very natural conclusion that Jesus is God, that the Spirit is separate and also God. You, and several more of you here, clearly believe otherwise. And I suppose we have to, naturally, allow that people will see different things in different passages. And that, of course means, there is no point in me posting them all again...you'll see what you see, and I'll see what I see.
The thing is...this is sort of a really important topic, wouldn't you agree? And come "crunch" time, judgement time, for you and for me, I sort of expect our views on Jesus and the nature of God, might hold eternal consequences. But...I suppose neither of us will change our view. I am quite convinced, quite persuaded, quite convicted! We'll just have to see what we'll see when it comes to that moment I guess.

 

[Naomi25]

@Naomi25

Naomi, I just could not resist answering a segment of your reply you made to Harvest 1874 recently where you quoted me. My words, about seeing the Trinity ‘woven’ in scripture. And as you said ‘wresting; the scriptures to make them something they are not.” Of course, I beg to differ with you. I would say you are doing the wrestling and not I.

As I have NO filters or lens to look through when I search and understand scripture, you do – the Trinity lens, an obscure, mysterious relationship of gods that promotes a false Christ and denies the existence of his Father, and ours, as the only God.

View attachment 2162

Anytime you want to discuss any scripture, even other than the Trinity let me know.

Bless you,

APAK

We all come to scripture without a lens! The views we hold are the ones that naturally jump off the page without any outside influence, without any preconceived notions or starting suppositions. It's just us and the word!
Please have the honesty to admit everyone has some filters. You were not raised in a vacuum.

I fully admit that I was raised being taught about the Trinity. But I can also think for myself. And I can read and reason. There are many reasons I still believe the bible teaches it. And I think that until a person can admit to their preconceived suppositions, then no one will get anywhere in a conversation...you just end up throwing verses at each other.

 

[APAK]

We all come to scripture without a lens! The views we hold are the ones that naturally jump off the page without any outside influence, without any preconceived notions or starting suppositions. It's just us and the word!
Please have the honesty to admit everyone has some filters. You were not raised in a vacuum.

I fully admit that I was raised being taught about the Trinity. But I can also think for myself. And I can read and reason. There are many reasons I still believe the bible teaches it. And I think that until a person can admit to their preconceived suppositions, then no one will get anywhere in a conversation...you just end up throwing verses at each other.

Naomi: Well whether you are referring completely to yourself in the entire reply or partly aimed at folks like myself, you are saying the same reasons that I would say causes contentions and disagreements in understanding scripture that forms doctrine and teachings. Believing traditions, wholesale, and other 'baggage' just adds to more confusion. It is tough to disengage from things taught from childhood which may be completely wrong. You know clearing all the thought-pieces off the table and beginning from scratch again is a great thing to do. Have you tried this?

Take off your religious garments and drop the membership badge at the door. Forget religion, dogmas and traditions and start over. Do a several months-long assignment and start from the foundations of why you believe in what you believe..brainstorm....on the blank table, get a white poster sheet and draw circles and attach lines of association...use scripture only to develop and fill your paper..start with the two most important personalities in the Bible.

Ask why is God real and personal to you?....then why is Jesus his son real and personal to you? Build on these two pillars and develop you re-understanding of scripture from both the OT and NT. You will be surprise yourself waht you find, believe me.

Bess you,

APAK

 

[Harvest 1874]

Well, I suppose it all depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? Like...why do you guys think us Protestants have just tripped merrily along after the RCC on some of these things? Because we're gullible? Stupid? Blind? Or maybe, it's in the bible.
Maybe we believe in the Trinity, not because of the "mother church", but because we see the bible telling us that "God is One", and then showing us God in Three Person's...acting separately, playing different functions within the Godhead. We can either deny that God is then 'One', or we can deny, as some do, the deity of Christ and the person-hood of the Spirit. The bible forbids this. So there we are, remaining faithful. No need of RCC interference at all.

If you believe the Trinity doctrine to be true, then supply your scriptural evidence.

How is it that you are able to judge what sin against a holy God is worth? And what Jesus paid to meet it? The bible tells us that it is an eternal punishment. If for some reason you want to pretend all the times Jesus says "forever and ever", or "eternal punishment"...he doesn't actually mean 'eternal' or 'forever', then go ahead, but you won't convince most people who have access to a dictionary.

Who's arguing about the length of the punishment we know that those deemed unworthy of life will suffer "eternal punishment" suffer everlasting death, that's not the issue here, what we're talking about is the false doctrine (or teaching) propagated by the professing church that the punishment of the wicked is eternal torment. Thankfully saner minds are starting to realize how preposterous this is and now some are saying that the punishment is only symbolic, a mental torment, this however is still not what the scriptures teach as the wages of sin, the soul that sins it shall die, period, cease to exist.

Immortality of the soul. Well...true immortality would be existing forever, like God, and clearly we don't meet that criteria, as we are not God, and we all had a clear beginning. The bible teaches that God will grant to us life everlasting, due to the tree of life. When sin first came to the Garden of Eden, God barred Adam and Eve from the Garden and the Tree of Life, thus sparing Adam and Eve, and any person afterwards, from living in sin forever. The tree is again revealed to us in the New earth. Does this mean those suffering will eat of the tree? I don't know, the bible doesn't say, but it does say they will live in their torment forever. And that we will also live forever.
Matt 25:45: And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Where does it say in the scriptures that those found unworthy of life are still alive that they can feel and suffer forever, scriptures please?

 

[Naomi25]

i wouldn't deny that some are, yes, but for me the issue is revealed when we contemplate that the KJV is a Bible, and replaces PAssover with Easter, and then someone wants to insist that it is Word. Apart from the truth that if one calls Book Word, then by def they are not hearing Word, and would likely even dismiss It if they did

Are all bibles equal? No, I don't think so. I wouldn't touch "the message" with a ten foot pole. I recognize what people are trying to do...make it more accessible to people, but that's wrong. God's word IS accessible, because it needs to be read in conjunction with the Spirit. It shouldn't be "easy reading". You should wrestle with it, dig through it, wage with it, work for it.
But this, and foolish translations, makes it no less God's Word to us. If we must seek out better translations, or read wiser...does that cancel out what God has sent to us? And I think that no...in no way is any of this likely to make anyone miss or dismiss hearing the Spirit. In fact, I've found the more I'm in the Word, the more I hear the Spirit. That was my point, the two work together.

yes, the same distinction Scripture makes, in many places. You cannot Quote "The Bible is the Word," and the relationship gets clearer the more you seek.

Actually...I thought the Bible portrays Jesus as "the Word"...see John. Isn't the Spirit referred to as the Spirit, or the Helper? In some versions the Advocate.

feelings are...not the best way to detect the Spirit, imo. i don't mean to say that emotions are bad per se, but they rep our "female," and imo one should find the Spirit from their male. Feelings are easy to "whip up," the heart is deceitful above all things, um, how else to illustrate this...preachers appeal to emotions, usually. Hence all the yelling and whatnot.

for an example, if you would like to post a truth that you have read from Scripture that you felt the Spirit in, i could reply to that.
You prolly aren't going to like it ok, but it would help to illuminate the nature of Scripture i guess.

i give you my word that it would help illuminate the nature of the Book. Now, has Mark Whittington(bbyrd009) just given you his word?

reflect upon the qualifications you would have to add if you were to tell someone, a cop say, that i had "given you my word" here. Iow you would have to add "well, i didn't actually hear him say it."

Well, I'd have to post all the verses, if I posted a truth I felt the Spirit in while reading the bible! But..."feelings" is not, strictly what I meant when I said "feel it"...although I can understand how that could have been confusing! I think that rather than 'feel' it in terms of 'woo-hoo', happy, joy, affirmation...those sort of feelings (although they can accompany it), I meant that you can feel the truth as you would feel conviction. It's a sort of knowing, deep in your soul. A reverberation of knowing what you are reading is absolute truth, not just empty words on a page.

all i can say here is that as long as Book is Word to you, you are running a light version of that program. Which might even be intentional. Not sure how i could show this in a post...what comes to mind is, right now when i post something like "they heard the Word, and then searched the Scriptures to see if it was true," guess i better Quote it, Acts 17:11,
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

you read one thing and i read another, essentially. ya, and there's nothing wrong with that per se, so i can already tell this line may not be productive, bc i certainly am not about to go commending myself to you, who have a better heart than me. It's strictly a personal thing. But you might see where there is Scripture that let's say the Spirit does not move you at all reading?

i've rambled enough here i guess, but you might see that the truth is not always going to be a feel-good thing, and this does not mean that it is bad, just that it does not always fit with our expectations. Knowledge brings sorrow, but people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.

I can't see how, in regarding scripture as God's words to us, and therefore of uttermost importance, it in anyway lessens my interaction, love of, attention to, the Spirit. If the Spirit is part of the Godhead, the Trinity, then he is in perfect alignment with scripture (or the other way around if you like). The two will only deepen our understanding of God and our love for Jesus. There needs to be no separation or "ones better than the other" competition. If God gave both, we are to accept and use both.
And...as you say, we might see things differently, but I believe the passage about the Bereans "checking the scriptures daily" is like when John tells us to "test the spirits". One purpose the bible has, that God has given it for, is that The Holy Spirit is not the only spirit out there, just like there are many false teachers. If you hear that "small quiet voice" telling you things that do not match the Bible....it is not the Helper.

Let's keep in mind for instance that right now you are surely more likely to compare yourself with Jacob than Esau; so iow you associate with-
-{BDB Theological Dictionary and NOBSE Study Bible Name List both read Supplanter. BDB adds Heel, Overreach, One Closely Following. Jones' Dictionary of Old Testament Proper Names reads He Will Supplant, A Heeler, One Who Trips Up or Takes Hold By The Heel.}-
-this guy, who literally put on sheep's clothing to (attempt to) fool his father, but are not getting any Spirit-feels at all reading Esau, who is Adam by another name, i could dig it up if you like. Which is not even a bad thing ok, Jacob becomes Israel, but it is woefully incomplete. Light-light version. I'm speaking generally here, this may not apply to you even, it was just the first example that came to mind. Esau is closed to...many believers iow.

Okay...I'm afraid you've totally lost me in the line of our conversation here. Totally. But to comment on it....Why do most of us "identify" with Jacob? Well...firstly, because God picked him. Secondly...sure, the guy was dishonorable (name one biblical character who didn't have his moment under the 'shame' sun)...but was his crime any less than Esau throwing away his birth right...which was huge in that culture...for a pot of soup? Talk about spitting on your parents and your God.

i agree they go hand in hand yes, but hearing comes by the Word. So Word is surely much better IDed as that whisper you got that brought some Scripture to mind IRL, as you mentioned earlier.

Again...I still think perhaps you're confusing it all. Every time you say Word, I think of Jesus, not the Spirit. But...I suppose at least we're talking about the same thing here, no matter what we call him!

 

[Naomi25]

Naomi: Well whether you are referring completely to yourself in the entire reply or partly aimed at folks like myself, you are saying the same reasons that I would say causes contentions and disagreements in understanding scripture that forms doctrine and teachings. Believing traditions, wholesale, and other 'baggage' just adds to more confusion. It is tough to disengage from things taught from childhood which may be completely wrong. You know clearing all the thought-pieces off the table and beginning from scratch again is a great thing to do. Have you tried this?

Take off your religious garments and drop the membership badge at the door. Forget religion, dogmas and traditions and start over. Do a several months-long assignment and start from the foundations of why you believe in what you believe..brainstorm....on the blank table, get a white poster sheet and draw circles and attach lines of association...use scripture only to develop and fill your paper..start with the two most important personalities in the Bible.

Ask why is God real and personal to you?....then why is Jesus his son real and personal to you? Build on these two pillars and develop you re-understanding of scripture from both the OT and NT. You will be surprise yourself waht you find, believe me.

Bess you,

APAK

I appreciate what you are trying to say with all honesty, but you are missing two big points. One: even doing those things, people cannot dismiss certain underlying assumptions they have. It can't be done. You didn't grow up on an Island, or in a vacuum. So even 'taking off your religious garments' will leave you with some things, buried so deep, you won't even realize you have them as foundation. You can deny this, but most rational people recognize it as fact. People are not blank slates.
The other issue is...why do you assume I have not 'dropped my membership at the door'? Do you think I have spent my entire life in the same denomination, eating the food they shoveled me and not thinking or studying for myself? I can assure you it's quite the opposite. I have dropped or adjusted several doctrines that I grew up being taught because I found them to be unbiblical. And I can tell you that the Trinity? I keep it because it jumps off the page to me. Not because the man up the front tells me it does. But because I see it...repeatedly. The Trinity, Christ's divinity. After reading the bible, I can say from my own study, that it's what I see, clearly, logically, truthfully. All the times that Jesus outright claims he is God (yes, I know you deny it), and all the times the Spirit is mentioned in his own right, his own person (again, you won't see it). But I've seen it, and noted it. Maybe I don't have a poster sheet...but I do have a notebook...and that is what I have found. No surprises.

 

[mjrhealth]

Hi Naomi. This thread is about exposing the RCC for who it really is. A religion that confesses or professes to be Christian, but in reality is the ultimate expression of Antichrist practice and teaching

What this is all about, is one religion telling another religions that they are worst than theirs, in reality it is just mum and daughters having a fight over who is the most righteous. All are corrupt it is all a great abomination.

 

[Naomi25]

If you believe the Trinity doctrine to be true, then supply your scriptural evidence.

I'm not sure if this will be worth my time, since I doubt anything I post will change your mind...but, here we go:

Before we can discuss the Trinity, we must look at Christ's divinity:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made....And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.- John 1:1-3, 14

To them belong the patriarchs, and from their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed forever. Amen.- Romans 9:5

For in him (Christ) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, - Col 2:9

But of the Son he says,


“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom. - Heb 1:8

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true; and we are in him who is true, in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. -1 John 5:20

These are not all the verses there are that speak to Christ's deity, but they will do for now.
The doctrine of the Trinity is hard, that is granted. But we start with what God makes clear. That God is "One".

“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. - Deut 6:4

Therefore, as to the eating of food offered to idols, we know that “an idol has no real existence,” and that “there is no God but one.” - 1 Cor 8:4

Now an intermediary implies more than one, but God is one. - Gal 3:20

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, - 1 Tim 2:5

Now, you might say "Ah, ha! That last verse says that Jesus is the mediator between God and man...and he is a man!" That's true, Jesus became a man. But as we saw above, the bible also, clearly claims Jesus is God. How do we deal with that tension? Well...certainly not by de-throning him, I would suggest. You cannot make the bible un-say what it has already said. Jesus IS God.
But...to make the doctrine of the Trinity hold, you need the Spirit. What does the bible say about the Spirit?

That he is a Person:
He grieves:
And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. - Eph 4:30
Intercedes:
Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness. For we do not know what to pray for as we ought, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words. 27 And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, becauseg]">[g] the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.- Rom 8:26-27
Testifies:
12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. 15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. - John 16:12-15
Speaks:
11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. - Mark 13:11
Creates:
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. - Gen 1:2
And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God. - Luke 1:35
And has a mind:
And he who searches hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God. - Rom 8:27
And can be blasphemed:
“Truly, I say to you, all sins will be forgiven the children of man, and whatever blasphemies they utter, 29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” - Mark 3:28-29

The Bible also tells us the Holy Spirit is God; a divine person:

how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without blemish to God, purify our conscience from dead works to serve the living God. - Heb 9:14

Lying to the Holy Spirit is the same as Lying to God:
But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.” - Acts 5:3-4

And Paul uses the phrase "God's temple" interchangeably with "temple of the Holy Spirit", thus equating the two:
Do you not know that you are God's temple and that God's Spirit dwells in you? - 1 Cor 3:16
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own - 1 Cor 6:19

The bible also makes it clear that the Spirit is distinct from the Father and the Son.
Though he is distinct from the Father and the Son, the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ.

You, however, are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if in fact the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. - Rom 8:9

We can say that "the Spirit of God dwells within us", or "the Spirit of Christ is within us" or "Christ dwells in us"...they are three ways of saying the same thing:

But if Christ is in you, although the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness - Rom 8:10

The Spirit is sent from the Father:
But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. -John 14:26

And from the Son:
Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.- John 16:7
And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. - John 20:22

In fact, the identity of the Son and the Spirit so overlap that Paul can even say:
Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. 18 And we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from one degree of glory to another. For this comes from the Lord who is the Spirit. - 2 Cor 3:17-18

This does not mean that the Son and the Spirit are one in terms of person-hood, just that their mission is so united that they are often one in their shared redemptive activity! But this, in itself is a great support for the Trinity! Jesus and the Spirit being one...the Jesus and God "being One"....the Spirit is "the Spirit of God".

And yet..."God is One".

Now, goodness knows that the topic both can go on, and certainly deserves greater in-depth justification than I have given it here. But one is limited by time, and word limit. But hopefully that should be enough to show you where I am coming from, and why I see what I do.

 

[Naomi25]

Who's arguing about the length of the punishment we know that those deemed unworthy of life will suffer "eternal punishment" suffer everlasting death, that's not the issue here, what we're talking about is the false doctrine (or teaching) propagated by the professing church that the punishment of the wicked is eternal torment. Thankfully saner minds are starting to realize how preposterous this is and now some are saying that the punishment is only symbolic, a mental torment, this however is still not what the scriptures teach as the wages of sin, the soul that sins it shall die, period, cease to exist.



Where does it say in the scriptures that those found unworthy of life are still alive that they can feel and suffer forever, scriptures please?

So, you've decided that those who are not saved, will be wiped from existence. Well...it makes us feel better about it all, doesn't it? It probably makes them feel better about it as well.
And it doesn't give us much incentive to want to share the good news. Where is the urgency, do you think, in just...goodnight?

Verses, you say.

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. - Dan 12:2

while the sons of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” - Matt 8:12

The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. - Matt 13:48b-50

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels...And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” - Matt 25: 41, 46

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ - Mark 9:43-48

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. - John 5:28-29

but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. - Rom 2:8

when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. - 2 Thess 1:7b-8

just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire. - Jude 1:7

Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done. And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.- Rev 20: 11-15

(we know from Rev 20:10 that the lake of fire is eternal torment: "and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.")

Again, not a comprehensive list. But it's enough, I think, to show the bible repeatedly states that those...even those who have already died, will be judged. If they do not have the covering of Christ, what awaits them is "eternal", "punishment", "wrath", "fire", "darkness". And they will be in torment..weeping, gnashing of teeth. Do I like this? No. Do I trust God that it is just, and good and he is in complete control of such things? Yes...yes I do, even if it sounds scary, confusing, and even mean. I fully confess my limited understanding to his omniscience, my sinful heart to his perfect, good, just one. Ultimately, it is not our call. It is his, and he is telling us in scripture which one he has made.

 

[Phoneman777]

Ok. Pretend like I didn't understand anything you just said....

OK LOL

Key Maxim: "The Bible is its own interpreter". Knowing our propensity to err, God took it upon Himself to assign the meaning of prophetic symbolism. The movie "Contact" ripped off this concept by explaining the key to unlock the mystery of the alien blueprints was a "primer" found right there within the blueprints themselves.

"Beasts" = kingdoms, government, political power. (Daniel 7:23)
"Sea" = "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" - densely populated regions. (Revelation 17:15)
"Earth" = (by implication, the "earth" would be the antithesis of the "Sea", therefore representative of sparsely populated region)
"Lamb" = Christ. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Genesis 22:7,8)
"Horn" = king or kingdom; power and strength. (Daniel 7:24; 8:5, 21, 22; Zechariah 1:18, 19; Revelation 17:12)
"Dragon" = Satan and/or his agencies. (Isaiah 27:1; 30:6; Psalms 74:13,14; Revelation 12:7,9; Ezekiel 29:3; Jeremiah 51:34)

The two pillars of Protestantism which stood 300 years from Luther's day until the mid-19th century were salvation by grace through faith and the eschatology of Historicism, the basis of which is the Papacy is the Antichrist, Beast, Little Horn, Whore, etc. of prophecy.

In Revelation 13, as the First Beast receives a deadly wound, the Second Beast is to arise. The Reformers proved Biblically that the reign of the First Beast, which began in 538 A.D., would last 1,260 years until 1798, and Wesley and his contemporaries knew that in their day, the Papal reign was fast coming to a close. Wesley plainly states in his Explanatory Notes that the Second Beast was not far off as the time of the First Beast has almost arrived. The Second Beast was a "lamblike" Christian nation which arose among a veritable wilderness that would end up speaking like Satan and have the muscle to force the entire world to worship the First Beast, and would arise around 1798 which was the year of the first recognition by a foreign nation the sovereign power of the U.S.

 

[Naomi25]

OK LOL

Key Maxim: "The Bible is its own interpreter". Knowing our propensity to err, God took it upon Himself to assign the meaning of prophetic symbolism. The movie "Contact" ripped off this concept by explaining the key to unlock the mystery of the alien blueprints was a "primer" found right there within the blueprints themselves.

"Beasts" = kingdoms, government, political power. (Daniel 7:23)
"Sea" = "peoples, multitudes, nations, and tongues" - densely populated regions. (Revelation 17:15)
"Earth" = (by implication, the "earth" would be the antithesis of the "Sea", therefore representative of sparsely populated region)
"Lamb" = Christ. (John 1:29; 1 Corinthians 5:7; Genesis 22:7,8)
"Horn" = king or kingdom; power and strength. (Daniel 7:24; 8:5, 21, 22; Zechariah 1:18, 19; Revelation 17:12)
"Dragon" = Satan and/or his agencies. (Isaiah 27:1; 30:6; Psalms 74:13,14; Revelation 12:7,9; Ezekiel 29:3; Jeremiah 51:34)

The two pillars of Protestantism which stood 300 years from Luther's day until the mid-19th century were salvation by grace through faith and the eschatology of Historicism, the basis of which is the Papacy is the Antichrist, Beast, Little Horn, Whore, etc. of prophecy.

In Revelation 13, as the First Beast receives a deadly wound, the Second Beast is to arise. The Reformers proved Biblically that the reign of the First Beast, which began in 538 A.D., would last 1,260 years until 1798, and Wesley and his contemporaries knew that in their day, the Papal reign was fast coming to a close. Wesley plainly states in his Explanatory Notes that the Second Beast was not far off as the time of the First Beast has almost arrived. The Second Beast was a "lamblike" Christian nation which arose among a veritable wilderness that would end up speaking like Satan and have the muscle to force the entire world to worship the First Beast, and would arise around 1798 which was the year of the first recognition by a foreign nation the sovereign power of the U.S.

Oh. I may have gotten that a little soon had I even the slightest awareness of American history. Dates just slip past me!
It's an interesting idea. And I don't have any objection to your symbolic use of 'beast', 'sea' etc. But I do wonder if the US would fit the analogy of the second beast accurately. We are told it has "two horns like a lamb". That gives us the idea that seeks to be an evil imitation of Christ. But then it speaks like a dragon and causes all the inhabitants to worship the first beast. America has been, by far, the premier country, when it comes to religious freedom. Even though that is dying now, it is still the freest place to worship as you choose.
I wonder if a more adequate analogy would be "the Nero factor". Remember how terrible the Roman Emperor Nero was? He was full well nuts, and he hated Christians...would burn them alive in his palace as torches. When Nero killed himself there was, obviously, relief, but there was a persistent rumor that he "would return". He didn't, but while all the Christians breathed a sign of relief that the 'beast was dead', another Emperor arose to take his place: Domitian. And this guy was just as bad, or even worse. What had seemed dead, had come back.
All throughout history we have seen this pattern repeating. Nations rise, and they do terrible things. They promise power and wealth to those who vote them in, and persecute the minority (usually Christians or Jews) terribly. Finally that nation topples...but another wicked nation rises in it's place. Perhaps it's a nation that comes from the ashes promising to be better...to fix the mistakes of the last one that just burned to the ground in it's own atrocities...but always it turns out the same. Communism, Nazism, Dictators, Warlords....the world has had one after another and burns as it turns. The evil keeps resurrecting. And I think it will continue to do so until Christ completes his victory and puts an end to sin and death.

 

[brakelite]

Brakelite. I suppose that I cannot argue that the Catholic Church has, in times past, used violence to try and force those around them to concede to their views. It's rather shameful, is it not, that in light of what happened to the Savior they worship, and the apostle they admire, they would do such things; following Pharisaical and Roman thought patterns. And while I'm not a 'history buff', I do believe there have been more than a handful of Protestant believers who have felt justified in the same violence. It's a shame upon our faith, I think.
But I was very interested in your point of the mark of the beast, and that, should the RCC be the AC, the mark would, therefore be a mark of the RCC. Not that I agree that the RCC is the AC, but the thought is interesting anyway. Because for so long the Church and State have been divided, and the Church, really, has nothing to do with our ability to buy or sell. What your suggesting is that the RCC, in her role of AC, will become the state, and therefore gain control of such things. As interesting as that might be, intellectually, I can't see that happening, world wide. There are too many non-Catholics out there opposing her for her to gain such authority within the world...don't you think?

In the book of revelation we are presented with a picture of a woman riding a beast. Throughout the Bible a woman is prophetically s symbol of the church. We see that in both old and new testaments. What we also see is that if the woman is somewhat loose in her morals, aka a harlot or an adulteress, she is representative of an apostate church. If a chaste or Pure woman, she is representative of God people. Beasts represent the state Power or government. The picture in revelation 17,18 is of a white riding a beast. The beast is clearly Satan's final manifestation of his own created earthly personna in state form. But Satan also craves worship. For that he needs a counterfeit church to deliver it. To enforce it he needs the state. Throughout history we have witnessed numerous examples of pagan powers that were unions of church and state. In fact, such an arrangement is classically pagan in character, because all pagan kings has at their right hand pagan priests advising, counseling, and directing state affairs. All those beast/powers in Daniel 7, Babylon, Medi-Persia, Greece, and Rome, were pagan church/state unions. The RCC inherited that very same characteristic. She is a union of church and state... The pope is a head of state as well as a religious ruler. That picture in revelation takes that to a global concept. The church, am apostate church, riding or controlling the government. This does not need to be direct dictatorial power, but if a church even just in an advisory mode recommending to the state that certain religious laws should be legislated and enforced, that is a union of church and state. Now in Europe we have the RCC strongly advising government's to pass Sunday laws. In the US we have a strong cartel of religious leaders advising Trump. What if Trump accepts certain counsel and re enacts the old Sunday blue laws... Would that not be the establishment of an image to the beast? (Revelation 13).

Well...if we're not talking about the validity of these things, biblically (which I get...off topic for this thread), and we're only talking about what the RCC believes....all I can say is...as Protestants, we don't care what they believe in these regards. If they want to tell themselves, and others, that we believe in the Trinity and Sunday worship because of Catholic teaching...well, that's nice then, we'll give them a nice little pat on the head to make them feel better. And then go on our way knowing that we came to our own beliefs on those doctrines....out of the bible. You know, the Sola Scriptura thing

Sunday laws and the trinity were both established by force by the Roman church in the centuries following the time of Constantine. They were not established as a result of prayer and Bible study. Protestantism, when it grew to the extent it is today, has gone to great pains to defend those doctrines from scripture, but never from an unbiased view, but with the intention to justify a belief they inherited... Otherwise they would have to admit to surrendering to Roman authority.

No, not really. They still think we're "outside the true Church". And if your out, you're out. I doubt anyone will be considered "in" until they are fully in, the whole kit and caboodle.

ecumenism is admitting anybody and everybody... Hindus... Islam... Even Kenneth Copeland.

We think there are plenty of verses that lead to the very natural conclusion that Jesus is God,

I agree. I have never argued against Christ's divinity. Please consider the following carefully. By the way,i am a person who can be convinced of another way...I used to be a Trinitarian. It wasn't until I deliberately choose to study WHY that I changed my beliefs.
Jesus is the literal Son of God. Just as human children inherit certain traits from their parents, but imperfectly, so has Jesus inherited perfectly the loving compassionate merciful traits that originally inhered with the Father. The Son is a perfect representation of the character of God. In him is all the fullness of the godhead bodily. He is His Father's Son. And it is because He is His Father's Son that we can worship him as God.

 

[APAK]

I appreciate what you are trying to say with all honesty, but you are missing two big points. One: even doing those things, people cannot dismiss certain underlying assumptions they have. It can't be done. You didn't grow up on an Island, or in a vacuum. So even 'taking off your religious garments' will leave you with some things, buried so deep, you won't even realize you have them as foundation. You can deny this, but most rational people recognize it as fact. People are not blank slates.
The other issue is...why do you assume I have not 'dropped my membership at the door'? Do you think I have spent my entire life in the same denomination, eating the food they shoveled me and not thinking or studying for myself? I can assure you it's quite the opposite. I have dropped or adjusted several doctrines that I grew up being taught because I found them to be unbiblical. And I can tell you that the Trinity? I keep it because it jumps off the page to me. Not because the man up the front tells me it does. But because I see it...repeatedly. The Trinity, Christ's divinity. After reading the bible, I can say from my own study, that it's what I see, clearly, logically, truthfully. All the times that Jesus outright claims he is God (yes, I know you deny it), and all the times the Spirit is mentioned in his own right, his own person (again, you won't see it). But I've seen it, and noted it. Maybe I don't have a poster sheet...but I do have a notebook...and that is what I have found. No surprises.

@Naomi25

My story of the trinity….

Raised through middle grade school in a Catholic convent school. I never knew or realized there was a such a thing as a Trinity; never was taught it.

My Dad was a very loyal RCC. He never knew of the Trinity and would have practically shouted you out of room if you said such a thing. He believed God and Jesus were two distinct personalities and not part of any Trinity. I suspect many of his generation with a limited education believed the same thing.

I later was stunned when I went to my first protestant ‘church’ and heard the pledge or creed of loyalty spoke out loud. When I heard God of God etc. I stopped and said that’s not right and never went to that establishment again. I did the same for everyone I found with the same Trinity theory.

They I really discovered the RCC did indeed believe in a Trinity. I was always ignorant about it. I believe there are many, many RCC members that do not realize there is a Trinity, if really pressed to answer.

So, for about 30 plus years later and till today, I decided on which doctrine or teaching was true or not, without attending any ‘church.’

Just 4 years ago I was stunned to find out that there were two congregations that actually believed in at least 60 percent of the core doctrine and teachings that hold true. I never knew of them before. I do not belong to these groups, first because I do not attach to any group, and secondly because I have differences with their teachings as well. They believe that there are not any evil angels etc.no real Satan person, just our own evil from the heart. Need to seriously look this over. They also do not emphasis salvation assurance through grace. They emphasize 'staying in' Christ for salvation which is kind of mainstream anyway. They also over-emphasize full-emersion baptism as being very close to a critical step in salvation.

Anyway Naomi, I wonder if you went through a similar history as myself and never knew of a Trinity until at least into your twenties, would this man-made theory just jump out of scripture? I would bet at least odds of 10:1 it would not.

Someone and other people reinforced this and hard-wired it into your head (not intended to sound frightening), over the years and it stuck.

Bless you, (spelt it right this time)

APAK

 

[Phoneman777]

Oh. I may have gotten that a little soon had I even the slightest awareness of American history. Dates just slip past me!
It's an interesting idea. And I don't have any objection to your symbolic use of 'beast', 'sea' etc. But I do wonder if the US would fit the analogy of the second beast accurately. We are told it has "two horns like a lamb". That gives us the idea that seeks to be an evil imitation of Christ. But then it speaks like a dragon and causes all the inhabitants to worship the first beast. America has been, by far, the premier country, when it comes to religious freedom. Even though that is dying now, it is still the freest place to worship as you choose.
I wonder if a more adequate analogy would be "the Nero factor". Remember how terrible the Roman Emperor Nero was? He was full well nuts, and he hated Christians...would burn them alive in his palace as torches. When Nero killed himself there was, obviously, relief, but there was a persistent rumor that he "would return". He didn't, but while all the Christians breathed a sign of relief that the 'beast was dead', another Emperor arose to take his place: Domitian. And this guy was just as bad, or even worse. What had seemed dead, had come back.
All throughout history we have seen this pattern repeating. Nations rise, and they do terrible things. They promise power and wealth to those who vote them in, and persecute the minority (usually Christians or Jews) terribly. Finally that nation topples...but another wicked nation rises in it's place. Perhaps it's a nation that comes from the ashes promising to be better...to fix the mistakes of the last one that just burned to the ground in it's own atrocities...but always it turns out the same. Communism, Nazism, Dictators, Warlords....the world has had one after another and burns as it turns. The evil keeps resurrecting. And I think it will continue to do so until Christ completes his victory and puts an end to sin and death.

While your facts of history are spot on accurate, the Second Beast is indeed a "beast" and God's assigned meaning to that symbol is a "kingdom", not an individual (Daniel 7:23). Yes, Daniel 7:17 says "these great beasts, which are four, are four kings" but we know that this description does not limit the assigned meaning of "beast" to just an individual king for three reasons:

• Verse 23 eliminates this possibility by expanding the description of a "beast" from "king" to "kingdom"
• the Bible repeatedly uses the names of the kings when referencing their respective kingdoms
• a king cannot exist without a kingdom

I wonder if you are aware that the symbolic reference of Revelation 2:10 "ye shall have tribulation 10 days" which refers not to just days (doesn't make sense that Jesus would speak of only 10 days tribulation to a church continuously in persecution), but 10 literal, horrific years of severe tribulation that can only refer to 303 A.D. to 313 A.D. under Emperor Diocletian...yet...tradition tells us the early church actually prayed for the preservation of the Roman Empire because they understood that once Rome fell, a far far worse "kingdom" would arise and make Rome's persecution of the church pale in comparison to what this next kingdom had in store - which was the Papacy. In a time when global populations were no where near our day, the mere thousands under Rome is nothing compared to what some estimate as 150 million deaths of "heretics" during the reign of the Papacy. So, using the prophetic timeline and tracing the existence of the First Beast from 538 - 1798, this Second Beast must arise sometime around 1798, and the description is unbelievably accurate of the U.S.

We all believe that Jesus is soon to return seeing that the condition of the world is such that for the first time technology is available to enforce Mark of the Beast control over everyone's lives, globalism is the end game of all the world's leaders, there exists the predicted overall absence of morality everywhere, and all around us we see unprecedented things like weather phenomenon, geological phenomenon, wars, rumors of it, disease, famines, etc. It just makes sense to me that in our day the most powerful apostate religious system and the nation with the only military industrial complex so powerful no other nation can hope to resist it - the Papacy and the United States - should be mentioned in prophecy.

 

[bbyrd009]

A reverberation of knowing what you are reading is absolute truth, not just empty words on a page.

ok...be careful what you know, is all i can say there. You set it up and i'll let Scripture knock it down.
Absolute Truth is a false standard for the Book, and Word is Truth right.
So another reason the Bible cannot be Word; we already have a Book of Truth

In fact, I've found the more I'm in the Word, the more I hear the Spirit.

so i guess we are really just using the terms differently, mostly having a semantics discussion prolly.
speaking in tongues

 

[bbyrd009]

Our Brains Automatically Process Opinions We Agree With As If They Are Facts
Our Brains Automatically Process Opinions We Agree With As If They Are Facts

 

[bbyrd009]

Okay...I'm afraid you've totally lost me in the line of our conversation here. Totally. But to comment on it....Why do most of us "identify" with Jacob? Well...firstly, because God picked him. Secondly...sure, the guy was dishonorable (name one biblical character who didn't have his moment under the 'shame' sun)...but was his crime any less than Esau throwing away his birth right...which was huge in that culture...for a pot of soup? Talk about spitting on your parents and your God.

hmm. well, when you see yourself as Esau, the story...comes to life
soup will become more like "red stuff" or something tho, red is the point @ "soup" almost surely