The Journey Home

Hmmm....seems some people like to rewrite scripture to make their life and bliefs easier and to get away with not being called a blasphemer...

 

I, for one, don't see the wrong in considering Jesus as the Son of God.
Yes, He definitely said so...that cannot be denied. He also quoted the scriptures
that have been presented that cause us to believe that He IS God.

This verse reveals to me that very truth:

Saint John 14:9
"Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet
hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen
the Father; and how sayest thou [then], Shew us the Father?

What else could it mean?

I appreciate Kelly's study and presentation. Why wouldn't it be okay to say that
"Jesus is the Son of God" and "Jesus is God". Scripture would support both views
as Jesus made both statements.

He who has the Son has life (salvation). Having the Son is not reliant on who we
believe He is. It is wrought from being in the state of belief itself. I don't feel
anyone can insist that we have to believe Jesus is God in order for His spirit to
indwell us. "Whosoever believes in Me" (Jesus) doesn't demand that we believe
that He was / is God himself.


I grew up in the group (2x2s) who never use the word Trinity and most wouldn't
deny it if it were explained to them....they just don't address the theory in their study.
This group, I can thank for giving me a basis of salvation (bring up your children in the ways of the Lord etc). When I accepted the Lord, salvation was granted to me regardless of whether I had the mysteries of the bible all figured out or not.

My guess is that those who stand on the "Jesus is God" theory also are bothered
by all the biblical emphasis on "Jesus is the SON of God. (And vice versa) !

For myself, I was saved; not understanding the difference. They just remain
mysteries. I personally don't think it matters, but if God saves me because I
consider Jesus as God or because I consider Jesus as the Son of God......
What's the difference ?I'M STILL SAVED !!

Is it wrong to say He's the Son of God...? NO
Is it wrong to say He's God...................? NO

He gave us reason to believe both ways.

Personally I can't get this verse out of my craw.

"He that hath seen me hath seen the Father" John 14:9

 

thessalonian,

You said on this topic and I think on page one that ' . . . but that you came up with whatever you have on your own,' with reference to finding out spiritual truth.

We as Christians do not find out things exclusively through human research. 'The Spirit of truth' [John 14:17] is our Guide as we compare Scripture with Scripture. The key is that the Spirit of God speaks, guides, and causes us to study words even if we have to look to the Hebrew and Greek languages. Lay persons can do this with reference books which generally speaking explain things rather well. Jesus told His people that He would teach us all things and would bring things to our recollection. [John 14:26] I am sure you have had this experience too.

To be totally candid I am still studying the issue of water baptism. I know most of the arguments on both sides. One thing that people who insist on immersion don't understand is that not everyone lived close to the Jordan River at the time of their conversion to Christ. Water was difficult to come by in that culture, and surely there was not enough of water to fill a container that would immerse the entire body at one time.

Another thing is that Romans 6:3-5 does not have one drop of water in it. God speaking through the Apostle Paul is speaking, most clearly, about our baptism into the Holy Spirit at the time of our faith experience in Jesus Christ.

I'm off subject but wanted to say that I am still learning more and more truth.

 

Okay Kelly, let's play your game..

Whatever, you're neo-pagan

Words mean things, and we should use them accordingly. Pagan denotes heathen, which is:

heathen \he-then\ n, pl heathens or heathen 1 : an unconverted member of a people or nation that does not acknowledge the God of the Bible 2 : an uncivilized or irreligious person heathen adj heathendom n heathenish adj heathenism n

I am certainly a converted member of a people that acknowledges the God of the Bible; this would rule out any accusation that I'm a "pagan".

If the Bible was clear that Jesus is the Most High God, there wouldn't be hundreds of thousands of Christians worldwide believing that He is not the Most High God.

You must put the "hundreds of thousands" into perspective alongside the billions who confess that Jesus Christ is God.

In the BEGINNING, Jesus was still IN GOD, meaning He had not yet PROCEEDED FORTH from God, therefore He, being IN God, WAS God.

How can Jesus (a person) be in God (a person; we believe in a personal God; we aren't deists) and there be only one person?

I studied the Bible harder than I ever have before, and found you, and your church to be wrong, and mine, at the time, as well!

How often do you switch religions? Every half-moon?

Yeah, and just think, Judas sat at the feet of Jesus.

So, from your rationale, the Gospel of John is bunk because he merely sat at the feet of Jesus just like Judas?

I learned these truths through the guidance of the Spirit of God, by reading the Bible.

Just like everyone else, who flatly disagrees with you on numerous points of doctrine, eh?

Carson: If Jesus Christ isn't God, then he must be created. Kelly: Wrong.

So, you're now a pantheist? Or what do you confess exactly? That God is meshed with his creation? If Jesus isn't God, then he can only be of one other order: creation.

Scripture emphatically tells us that the Word was God. God can't unbecome himself. He is eternal.

Jesus is the Firstborn of all Creation. You want to deny that, that is your business

Now you're employing classic Arian texts. Of course I don't deny that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation. Scripture says that Jesus is the firstborn, not the firstcreated. One which is born of the Father shares the same nature as the Father; that is what fatherhood is - sharing one's life. In the eternal life of the Blessed Trinity, God the Son is eternally begotten by the Father. And if you knew what the "firstborn" was in the Old Testament, you would know that the "firstborn" was called to be a minister (or a priest) to others. This passage is saying that Jesus, the eternally begotten Son of God is priest and minister to all of creation.

[ July 03, 2003, 10:28 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Ray Berrian,

I tried to answer your PM regarding this thread, but your box was full....

 

There sure do! So then, perhaps you should quit calling me Arian? Your church is a mixture of 'classic' pagan theology, and Christianity. Would you prefer psuedo-pagan?

No it wouldn't. If you have ANY traits of paganism, which YOU DO, then according to YOUR game I can call you neopagan, since you think you can call me neoarian.

Yeah, Carson, I forgot, there's that 'Billions of Christians' who follow their mother. I guess if the WORLD is doing it, it's ok right? Remember who the majority was when the Flood came?

Because, just like YOU were still in your father before you 'came out' of Him, Jesus, the Word was still in His Father before He proceeded forth and came from God. The Bible supports this idea. The Whole Bible, the WORD of God, in it's History, and prophecy ALL points to the Kingdom of God, and the Family in Heaven. The Bible as a whole lays out the past, present, and future of the Kingdom of God, and that Heavenly Family.

YOUR preconcieved ideas are what is stopping you from fully understanding the Godhead. Do not forget that I used to 'believe' in a trinity! You should remember that!

You're so funny! That's your problem, Carson. You are complacent. You 'think' that you have arrived at ultimate truth, and you have hardened your heart as in the days of rebellion. You are not open to anything that God wants to give you, because you think that you know it all. I feel sorrow for your state of mind. Where I am in my walk, is a process that I have left in the hands of God. I am not going to limit myself to a denomation, and therefore limit God's movement in my life.

NO! I am referring to that guy, Ignatius that you claim should hold as much weight as John just because he followed John!

Are you trying to claim that all that you believe is based on guidance of the Spirit of Truth from your personal study of the Bible alone? Give me a break.

Why do you feel so compelled to place labels on people? Now I am a pantheist? You are completely aware of what I confess! Your own limited thought is what makes no sense! There is NOT only 2 choices! Jesus is who the Bible says He is! The Son of God, who proceeded forth, OUT OF God, at some point prior to creation. He is the firstborn of all creation, just as the Bible says. If you think that means that Jesus is a creation, then you can't exactly argue that point, because it is in the Bible! I personally do not believe that it means that Jesus is a mere creation, but rather that He is the literal only begotten Son of God, something that no creation can claim.

Huh? There is no question that Jesus, as the Word, prior to His earthly birth, was IN God. He CAME OUT of God, in the Form of the Word of God. Literally, as God spoke, the Word proceeded forth and came out of God. He, you say, as if, there is ONE person, who can't 'unbecome' Himself. Who are you talking about? God? The Son? 'He' as if 'He' is referring to a person? You have 3 God's, or persons as you call them, meshed into a monstrosity of trinity! It is YOU who is meshing here, not me! There is only ONE God. Jesus is His Son.

Your point? Again, with the labels. I am not employing classic arian ANYTHING. I am quoting Scripture! I have never said that Jesus is the firstcreated, I said, just as the Bible does that He is the Firstborn of all Creation. You wan't to throw that verse out?

So then you are in your father still? You are a coequal, same aged person with your father?

Yes, I am aware of the heresy that exists within the confines of the false doctrine of the trinity.

No, only the firstborn son of a Levite was called to the ministry. The firstborn son of a King was called to the throne. Does that mean that the Son of the King, was the same age as the King? Does that mean that the Son of the King had all the same power as the King FROM BIRTH? NO.

Yeah, change the Bible, so it will suit your doctrines. That is CLASSIC Catholic tactics. That passage says that He is the firstborn of all Creation. Another passage states that He proceeded forth and came from God, proceeded forth, meaning was BORN.

You can take it or leave it. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, that He proceeded forth and came from God, and that He is the Firstborn over all Creation.

That's what I'm going with, the Bible.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Because, just like YOU were still in your father before you 'came out' of Him

I did not exist before I was born; accordingly, you are confessing that Jesus Christ did not exist before he was begotten. For you, Jesus is not eternally begotten, and therefore, he is created, for only God is uncreated.

There are two orders of being: the uncreated and the created.

You 'think' that you have arrived at ultimate truth, and you have hardened your heart as in the days of rebellion.

As I place a mirror in front of myself, I would direct the accusation right back at you, Kelly. Perhaps you are the one who "think" you have "arrived at ultimate truth" and "you have hardened your heart as in the days of rebellion". Sometimes, Kelly, we dislike in others what is most true of ourselves.

NO! I am referring to that guy, Ignatius that you claim should hold as much weight as John just because he followed John!

And why not? John explained the apostolic faith to his disciple, who become an overseer of one of the largest churches in the tail end of the first century. This witness and martyr for the faith confesses that Jesus Christ is God, just as the Gospel of John does.

Why are you hardening your heart?
Why do you think you know more than John and Ignatius?
Why are you so closed?

Perhaps you should listen to your own advice.

Are you trying to claim that all that you believe is based on guidance of the Spirit of Truth from your personal study of the Bible alone?

Not at all. What I believe is the apostolic faith - not my personal innovation derived from my personal interpretation of Scriptures 20 centuries removed from my culture and time. I interpret Scripture - not according to my whim - but according to the Apostolic Tradition, which alone is the appropriate lens through which to view and interpret Scripture.

Jesus is who the Bible says He is! The Son of God, who proceeded forth, OUT OF God, at some point prior to creation.

Before creation, there was no time; time is a creature feature. The Son sure did proceed out of God before creation. I agree wholeheartedly that he did. And he's still proceeding out from God at present because God is not bound by time. His procession is eternal.

There is no question that Jesus, as the Word, prior to His earthly birth, was IN God.

By your own words, you must admit that before Jesus' earthly birth, there were two persons in God: (God and Jesus who is in God) Either that, or Jesus was never "in God" to begin with and you're just giving lip service, changing the Scriptur, which says "the Word was God". John doesn't say "the Word was in God". John says "the Word was God".

You have 3 God's, or persons as you call them, meshed into a monstrosity of trinity!

No, I do not confess 3 Gods. I confess three persons in one God. This is a divine a mystery that far surpasses our rational knowledge; we can't understand how this is with our created intellects, and it is your rationalism that causes you to continue to assert that I confess 3 Gods. You can't see with the light of your intellect how this can be, and neither can I. I accept it on faith. You deny it by reason.

I am not employing classic arian ANYTHING.

Of course you are. You don't think you are because you are ignorant of the Great Heresies in the history of the Christian church.

So then you are in your father still? You are a coequal, same aged person with your father?

God is not within time. His divinity is eternal; therefore, there is no age with regard to the Father and the Son. Neither is there any within the Godhead - only relation. The eternal relation between the Father and the Son involves no "age".

No, only the firstborn son of a Levite was called to the ministry.

You're ignorant of Scripture, Kelly. All of the firstborn sons of Israel were consecrated in the blood of the Paschal Lamb as priests to serve the nation of Israel, and Israel was considered the firstborn Son of God b/c it was Israel's vocation to minister to the rest of the nations as priest. In Ex 32, the firstborn sons and the rest of Israel were laicized and the Levites replaced the ministry of the firstborn sons - that is the reason for the census in the beginning of Numbers - to show how the Levites replaced the firstborn sons as the priests of Israel.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God

Amen

that He proceeded forth and came from God

Amen

and that He is the Firstborn over all Creation.

Amen

John 20:28, "Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"

Amen

 

That is "never" the case in non-RC circles. At least not in any I have been to - and I humbly submit that I have been to a few more non-RC circles than the average Catholic.

The non-RC position is "That the Spirit of truth will guide YOU into all truth" John 16

The non-RC position is the NEW COVENANT "they shall NOT say each one to his neighbor KNOW the Lord for ALL shall know Me" Heb 8.

Yes - for the non-RC it is the NEW COVENANT - not the "traditions of the RCC" that determine "what is Truth".

Are you referring to the RC notion that Protestants are "saved" EVEN without the NEW Covenant???

(Since the RCC limits the NEW Covenant to the RC MASS - by insisting "THis is the NC in my blood" is a reference to the RC mass ALONE).

INSTEAD of saying "God's Word is optional" the non-RC position is "SOLA SCRIPTURA" and "ALL scripture is given by inspiration from God AND is to be used for Doctrine".

In FACT the non-RC position is to "Study the Scriptures DAILY to See IF those things spoken to them by church leaders ARE SO" Acts 17:11

ahhhh - there is nothing like "the light of day" - eh Thess??

Christians - as in those who place their faith in Jesus Christ - as the Messiah - the Son of God - would mean that EVEN the Apostles in Matt 16 - PRE-Cross are "Christian" even if they are not yet Trinitarian, NOR do they YET know that Christ will die for their sins as the atoning sacrifice stated clearly in 1John 2:2.

So "yes" - non-Trinitarian "believers in Christ" are Christian. Though they are in error on that point.

Hmmm I have an idea - why not TRUST the Holy Spirit - the Spirit of TRUTH to tell us? Or should we ask the wicked Popes of the dark ages that were torturing their Cardinals to death and then tossing them over the sides of their papal warships?? Hmmm seems like a tough choice now that you put it that way - eh?

Here is the really interesting part --

This thread on "the Journey Home" is now to be turned to a discussion about Kelly?

And the thread on JW's and RC's is "really" a discussion on what Kelly believes??

And the thread on "Will Catholics be Left Behind" is NOW a study on "what Kelly believes"???

"What Kelly believes" is turning into a very interesting theme so far.

I would have thought that Catholics would have found it more interesting to talk about "what the Pope believes". Who knew that Kelly would be exaulted to such a high status by comparison??



In Christ,

Bob

 

So let me get this straight. You argue that IF we do not condemnd the Apostles and all the OT Jews to hell - THEN Christ might as well be believed to be "the devil incarnate"????

This is the FIRST I have heard this from an RC source Thess.

ALL I said was that EVEN the pre-Cross APOSTLES did not HAVE the CORRECT view of Christ. Your wild-eyed response that this places Christ as the devil incarnate - is well - unbalanced to say the "least".

Did I say "unbalanced"? I meant - something a bit more ill tempered. Are you just posting to let off steam - or do you actually have a serious point to make??

Where do you get that stuff???

Huh???

I am thinking that in your view - you are the center of your universe - and everyone elses.

As it turns out - the evangelism of the world by serious Christians - IS able to point out what the Bible says about world history and prophecy WITHOUT requiring the RCC to come up with "more bad doctrine". In fact nothing would please me more than to see the RCC reform some of its errors.

As the "Great Schism" (The RCC term for its OWN divisions) points out - the RCC wrote the book on "division".

And as for Protestantism, it is ITSELF the brain child of Catholic theologians and teachers.

EVEN Martin Luther for all his calling the Pope the antiChrist was ONLY following the long standing tradition of the POPES in calling their fellow Popes - "AntiChrist" - Luther was following - not leading - in that regard.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Thess,

Clearly my posts are upsetting you in some way. Would you rather talk about something more in the day of common ground?

This thread is about the Christians that were Catholic and finally came home to non-Catholic churches or were non-Catholic and finally landed in Catholic churches.

Either way - there are some doctrines that are not likely to have changed.

One of them might well be the Trinity.

Another one might be the virgin birth.

On the other hand - if they left Catholicism they might now accept the creation account just as God gave it in Genesis 1-3.

oops - that might be a "difference".

In Christ,

Bob

 

In response to the first posting: I wonder what men do in Scotland? Do they wear kilts or pants. Are kilts any different than dresses that women wear?

I can remember years ago my granmother telling me that on the farm she wore dresses and womens style shoes to work in. She also told me that it was improper for a woman's anles to be seen. Some of you may know that it wasn't all that long ago that it was illegal for men to swim without a top on.

 

Ok, I thought YOU for sure would agree that you existed before you were born, you being so involved in ProLife stuff! You call me ignorant of scripture, yet you act as if you don't know what I am referring to! Look at the context of this verse: Heb 7:10 For he was yet in the loins of his father, when Melchisedec met him.
You show me a verse which states that Jesus is eternally BEING begotten, and I will agree.

So you say. The mystery of Christ being begotten of God, and literally being His Son, is not required to rest within the confines of your definitions. It is YOU who makes the 'it must' restrictions, not the Bible. The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, who was begotten of God. That means something. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is His Father!

How wrong you are! I am totally open to further leading of the Spirit of Truth, which you OPENLY admit that you do not listen to. I am going to stay open to the leading of God, until the day I go to sleep with my fathers. I have never professed to believe that I have arrived, nor have I exibited any behavior that would make someone think so. I am always open to learning more, so long as the Bible agrees.

No, it doesn't and any man who tells me that I should disobey God, IMMEDIATELY loses my respect, and loyalty. I will not believe ANYTHING that this man says, unless I see it SO PLAINLY in Scripture, and there is no controvercy. Ignatius was a lawless man. He told people to disobey God. He has no weight as far as I am concerned.

I do not think I know more than them. John was the Apostle that Jesus loved, called by God, as a prophet and leader within the Church. Ignatius is not mentioned in Scripture. Why is that? John wrote Revelation while exiled and died shortly after that. IF Ignatius was his 'right hand man' as you claim, then why isn't he mentioned as someone we should listen to? What proof do you have that he was faithful to John?

You too. Why are you so closed? Tradition. Mar 7:13 Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye.

That is so sad. You truly believe that? WOW. You would rather follow men, than trust the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God, the leading of God's own Spirit and the Spirit of Christ, the very WORD of God. It's almost as if you ENJOY walking in darkness.

Ok, so then when did God create the Angels? If time is something that only creatures can feel, then 'when' did God CREATE the Angels? Hmmm Also, show me in the Bible where it says that Jesus is 'eternally proceeding'.

No. I didn't say that. It was prior to 'when' He proceeded forth from God. God spoke, and the Word of God (Jesus) came out, or was born of God. When exactly did that happen? The Bible says 'in the beginning'.

Ok, firstly, Jesus was in God. He still is. Through the 'oneness' of the Spirit. And God is in Him. And also by that same Spirit, we are in Christ, and therefore in God. The same as Jesus, so as a side note, if that 'oneness' with God, makes Jesus God, then SO ARE WE. Secondly, in John 1 the verse in question the words are 'In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.' I am not referring to the 'Word was God' part when I say that He was IN God, I am pointing to the part that in the KJV it says 'the Word was WITH God'. In the Greek it says 'kai ho Logos en pros tonTheon', which literally translated states '(kai|2532|and) (ho|3588|the) (Logos|3056|Word) (en|2258|was) (pros|4314|with) (tonTheon|2316|God) The key word there 'pros' which has MORE than one meaning! Look it up, GSN:4314 can mean 'within', 'unto', 'by', and not only that, but WHAT does 'tonTheon' mean? I don't have a listing for that in the Strongs! Do you know?

You confess 3 God's. You can't have your cake and eat it too, Carson. You cannot call Jesus God, and the Father God, without having more than one God. Just doesn't work. Either confess that there is One God, and renounce your trinity, or admit that you have three God's. You can't have both.

Ok, you 'can't' understand it, yet you are telling me I should believe it? I thought that you didn't believe in sola fide!

I deny it because there is not ample proof from the Bible for me to base my faith on! Faith comes from the WORD. If the Word does not supply evidence, then no FAITH can come of it. You believe this because you have been deceived into believing that man has the power to tell you what to believe, rather than trusting God to show you. Plain and simple.

Carson, get real. Do you honestly think I don't know who Arius was? I do not follow the writings of men. I follow the Word of God. I don't care what Arius taught, I believe the Bible.

Where is that in the Bible? There is only one in the Godhead, unless you have a three headed God. Oh, wait there's your pagan roots showing again!

No, I know about all that, I just didn't think of it that way, I was thinking of how the system was carried out for thousands of years. What difference does that make? The firstborn son, is the priest. Jesus is the firstborn Son. He has to have BEEN BORN to be a Priest. Was He only a priest AFTER His 'physical' birth through Mary? That would be a change! Jesus is the SAME yesterday, today and forever. Think about that. If His 'birth' made Him a priest, then He changed. Also note, that there is a mention of 'time' there on Him with the yesterday/today/forever passage.

I'm so glad you brought that up! Thomas. A man, who through unfaithfulness, Christ reveals Himself to him. I would like to, if I may, remind you that Christ was in heaven before He came to earth as a man, and He was also in heaven when Lucifer fell, and Michael (Jesus) and His Angels fought Lucifer and his angels and then they were cast out. Where did they go? Earth. When those angels encountered Jesus, who did they, again, may I remind you, that they knew Him BEFORE He ever left Heaven, say that He was?

Let's look:
Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Mar 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

They, who knew Him from Heaven, had NO PROBLEM recalling WHO He was.

The SON of God.
The Son of the MOST HIGH GOD.

Don't you think that if He was GOD, they would have said so?

Amen?

Also, look at the account of the Temptation of Christ in Matt 4 and Luke 4 and notice what Satan tempted Him with. IF you are.......

God Bless,
Kelly

[ July 04, 2003, 02:43 AM: Message edited by: 3AngelsMom ]

 

I cast the pearls in the hope that there are some on the other side with enough objectivity left to consider the points and weigh them objectively.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Hi Kelly,

You wrote, "Ok, I thought YOU for sure would agree that you existed before you were born, you being so involved in ProLife stuff!"

Of course not. Hence, the expression, "Life begins at conception". My soul and body were created at the moment of my conception; I did not exist before that.

You show me a verse which states that Jesus is eternally BEING begotten, and I will agree.

This truth is taught in John 1:1,14 where we read, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. . . . And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us." Here the Word (i.e., the second person of the Trinity) is pictured as having his identity as the Word from all eternity. Thus, from all eternity the Word of God proceeded from God, just as speech proceeds from a speaker; similarly, a Son proceeds from his Father. Under both metaphors, whether as the Son of God or the Word of God, the second person of the Trinity is depicted as eternally proceeding from the first person of the Trinity.

The mystery of Christ being begotten of God, and literally being His Son

Amen.

The Bible says that Jesus is the Son of God, who was begotten of God.

Amen.

That means something. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Jesus is the Son of God, and that God is His Father!

Amen.

I am totally open to further leading of the Spirit of Truth, which you OPENLY admit that you do not listen to.

You are incorrect, and you are bearing false witness against me. I do follow the leading of the Holy Spirit and I openly admit that I do.

There is the great possibility of error in your discernment as to whether you and I are being led by the Holy Spirit. I test what I believe the Holy Spirit is leading me to against the content of divine revelation. For instance, if I "felt" that the Holy Spirit was telling me to throw 5 books of the Bible out because I "felt" that they weren't inspired, what would keep me from doing that?

Paul tells me to "stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter", and apparently, the Holy Spirit uses men as instruments of his teaching, and so I am bound, in discernment, to accept those apostolic teachings handed down in the Church.

Paul told Timothy, "and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2). I'm sure he also said to Timothy, "and teach your congregation to be open to the movements of the Holy Spirit". You see, holding fast to the deposit of faith and being open to the Holy Spirit are not contradictory actions. They go hand in hand.

I am always open to learning more, so long as the Bible agrees.

You are "tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine" (Eph 4:14). You can never have a firm foundation because the next day, it may be tugged out from under you, according to "what the Spirit says today". I would say that you're more married to the Spirit of the Age than you are to the Spirit of Christ.

Ignatius was a lawless man. He told people to disobey God. He has no weight as far as I am concerned.

I'm sorry, but I must have missed this incident. Where does Ignatius tell people to disobey God? Or, are you saying that anyone who interprets Scripture (even if they got their interpretation from the very author of the Scripture!) apart from your take on Scripture is commanding you to disobey God? You see, Kelly, there is a big difference between telling you that your interpretation doesn't match up with the author's intent (and Ignatius is in a pretty darn good spot to tell us what John meant) and telling you to disobey God. To equate the two is a bit presumptuous; it essentially tells me that you believe you are personally without error in your interpretation, irregardless of the evidence contrary to what you think.

Ignatius is not mentioned in Scripture. Why is that?

So what if Ignatius isn't mentioned in Scripture? I'm not claiming that he is mentioned in Scripture. I'm claiming that he is a disciple of John and therefore, he would be an excellent source to turn to when interpreting John's Gospel. This is to place the Scripture in its historical context, which makes it truly Scripture. You're wrenching Scripture out of its natural setting and interpreting it to your whim with irreverence towards those who learned at the feet of the Apostles and know the sound doctrine taught by the Apostles firsthand, with the ringing of the Apostles' preaching still in their ears.

You are unable to humble yourself this least bit in your pride and arrogance. You have set yourself above Scripture as the final authority, as the final arbitrator, apart from any recourse to sound reasoning, to sound guidance by the disciples of the Apostles.

What proof do you have that he was faithful to John?

What proof do you have that he was unfaithful to John? Ignatius is innocent until he is proven guilty. And, let's see here.. he threw himself to the Lions in the Roman Colisseum. This is what we call a "martyr", or "witness".

You would rather follow men, than trust the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God

Kelly, listen to yourself. I say that I follow the Word of God, found in both Scripture and Tradition, and you say that this is a failure in trusting the Spirit of Truth. Well, why don't you just throw away the Bible, which is merely reading the words of men? Why don't you run off and create your own religion according to the Spirit of Truth, the Spirit of God? Why do you bind yourself to the mere writings of mere mortals when you can listen to the infallible, immortal Spirit of God, who leads you into all truth? Or, is there a false dichotomy that you are creating between the Word of God and the leading of the Spirit?

Ok, so then when did God create the Angels?

The angels are a part of creation; they were created "in time". They are a part of "the heavens":

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1).

Any Jew will confirm this.

God spoke, and the Word of God (Jesus) came out, or was born of God.

That not what John 1:1 says. John says:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"

The Word was God. Period. Not "the Word was in God". No. The Word was God. Why is this so hard to accept?

I am pointing to the part that in the KJV it says 'the Word was WITH God' ... The key word there 'pros' which has MORE than one meaning! Look it up

Strong's does not allow for this novel interpretation of yours: "The Word was in God"

It displays pros as:

pros {pros}

AV - unto 340, to 203, with 43, for 25, against 24, among 20, at 11,

1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to

Do you see "in" or "within" above? I see "the Word was 'among or with or near' God".

You confess 3 God's.

No, I do not. You are bearing false witness.

You cannot call Jesus God, and the Father God, without having more than one God.

Now you are elevating reason above faith. You cannot see with the light of your intellect (and neither can I), how there can be plurality within one God, and so you reject revelation.

John clearly calls the Father God and the Word God, and instead of accepting this, you try to explain it away (albeit unsuccessfully) and then accuse me of polytheism, when my theology is derived straight from St. John.

Ok, you 'can't' understand it, yet you are telling me I should believe it?

Absolutely.. in the same way that you can't understand how the Son of God is begotten from God without being created and without being God (whatever that is supposed to mean) yet are telling me that I should believe it.

The doctrine of the Trinity goes beyond reason but doesn't conflict with it; your doctrine is irrational because it slurs the distinction between Creator and created, the eternal and the finite, God and his creation.

I thought that you didn't believe in sola fide!

Kelly, you're speaking outside the realm of your personal theological knowledge. You don't even know the terms that you're using.

Sola Fide refers to "faith alone" apart from the theological virtues of hope and charity; this refers to an argument concerning justification stemming from the Reformation.

Fideism is an entirely separate phenomenon from Sola Fide, which is what you are accusing me of, and understandably so because you do not understand how faith elevates reason without resulting in blind fideism. Your conception of divine revelation and human reason is faulty from a philosophical standpoint.

I deny it because there is not ample proof from the Bible for me to base my faith on!

Of course there is. You change the meaning of these passage to suit your reason.

Faith comes from the WORD. If the Word does not supply evidence, then no FAITH can come of it.

Such ample evidence does exist, as I have shown and will continue to show. You choose to ignore or alter its content by warping it because you cannot accept the revelation on faith.

You believe this because you have been deceived into believing that man has the power to tell you what to believe, rather than trusting God to show you. Plain and simple.

Do you honestly think I don't know who Arius was?

Oh no, I'm sure that you know who he was. I believe that you do not know the arguments and the prooftexts involved in the Arian controversy - by way of deduction from your responses so far - because you are warping the same passages in the same way as the Arians.

If His 'birth' made Him a priest, then He changed.

Kelly, you're using faulty reasoning. I could just as well show all of the growth developments in Jesus and say, "then He changed!!!". That's illogical.

"And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and man" (Luke 2:52).

Any change involved in Jesus pertains to his human, not his divine nature.

I would like to, if I may, remind you that Christ was in heaven before He came to earth as a man, and He was also in heaven when Lucifer fell, and Michael (Jesus) and His Angels fought Lucifer and his angels and then they were cast out.

*ding, ding, ding*... Ladies and gentlemen, we have a Jehovah's Witness!

If the Jehovah's Witnesses have any trouble explaining any particular doctrine, it will be this one. Even JWs will admit that if one were to have walked up to any of the apostles or disciples of Christ and asked them who Jesus was, they would not have said, "Well, he’s Michael the Archangel!" Not only was the very idea was unheard of before Charles Taze Russell (the founder of the Watch Tower Society), but the Bible explicitly rejects the possibility of it.

For example, the author of Hebrews states:

"To which of the angels did God ever say, ‘You are my son? ... Let all the angels of God worship him ... Your throne, O God, stands firm forever ... O Lord, you established the earth, and the heavens are the works of your hands’ ... to which of the angels has he ever said ‘Sit at my right hand ... ’" (Heb. 1).

Here, the author of Hebrews separates Jesus from angels, and commands the angels to worship him (cf. Rev. 5:13-14,14:6-7). The obvious problem is this: Archangels are creatures, but the Bible forbids any creature to worship another creature. Thus, either the Bible is in error by commanding the angels to worship an archangel, or Jesus is uncreated and cannot be an archangel. Since this gave the Jehovah's Witnesses a tremendous problem, they even had to change their own Bible translation and called the New World Translation (NWT) to eliminate the references to worshipping Christ. (The 1950, 1961, and 1970 editions of the NWT read "worship" in Hebrews 1:6.)

Beyond this, Jesus has the power to forgive sins and give eternal life, but no angel has this capacity.

[ July 04, 2003, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,

You skipped this:

I'm so glad you brought that up! Thomas. A man, who through unfaithfulness, Christ reveals Himself to him. I would like to, if I may, remind you that Christ was in heaven before He came to earth as a man, and He was also in heaven when Lucifer fell, and Michael (Jesus) and His Angels fought Lucifer and his angels and then they were cast out. Where did they go? Earth. When those angels encountered Jesus, who did they, again, may I remind you, that they knew Him BEFORE He ever left Heaven, say that He was?

Let's look:
Mat 8:29 And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God? art thou come hither to torment us before the time?
Mar 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? I adjure thee by God, that thou torment me not.
Mar 3:11 And unclean spirits, when they saw him, fell down before him, and cried, saying, Thou art the Son of God.
Luk 8:28 When he saw Jesus, he cried out, and fell down before him, and with a loud voice said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of God most high? I beseech thee, torment me not.

They, who knew Him from Heaven, had NO PROBLEM recalling WHO He was.

The SON of God.
The Son of the MOST HIGH GOD.

Don't you think that if He was GOD, they would have said so?

Amen?

Also, look at the account of the Temptation of Christ in Matt 4 and Luke 4 and notice what Satan tempted Him with. IF you are.......

God Bless,
Kelly

 

Hi Kelly,

You skipped this:

And you skipped my entire response, including the last portion, which demonstrates that the Bible rejects the possibility of this assertion, which was unheard of before the likes of Charles Taze Russell.

They, who knew Him from Heaven, had NO PROBLEM recalling WHO He was.

Your assumption is that the spirits are somehow "remembering" who Jesus was back in the good ol' days when they both were in heaven. Perhaps they were simply pointing out who Jesus is because they are fallen angelic spirits, which have the ability to recognize Jesus' divine sonship, veiled as it is through his humanity (albeit revealed in the Transfiguration and the Resurrection).

Don't you think that if He was GOD, they would have said so?

They did. They recognized Jesus as the Son of God (which, btw, is a Davidic title of Kingship; see my paper at http://carson.boerne.com/catholic/kingdom_ecclesiology.html ), which means that he is God the Son, the eternally begotten Son of God.

It's your assumption that Son of God somehow means Jesus isn't God that drives you to accept this invention of the Watch Tower Society.

Now, enough of this "but you didn't respond to me" evasion. Listen, consider, and assent to my response above, esp. to the portion dealing with this absurd, novel idea that Jesus is Michael the Archangel. What's next? Jesus is really the angel Gabriel? No, wait.. how about Abraham reincarnated?

Why do you swallow these novelties so easily (like a spoonful of sugar), yet have such a difficult time accepting the witness of St. John the Apostle's disciple, St. Ignatius of Antioch who confirmed his devotion and steadfastness in Gospel truth by throwing himself to the teeth of Roman lions like wheat ground into flour?

Here's a hint: it's your persistent Anti-Catholic prejudice.

Of course, I think that the issue is a deeper, spiritual matter pertaining to the realm spoken of in Lewis' Screwtape Letters. This is only the facade.

[ July 05, 2003, 02:10 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

No I didn't, I just wanted you to answer my entire post before I addressed your answers.

Uh, YEAH! Of course they remember Jesus from heaven. What, you think they were able to say Jesus is the Son of God without ALREADY knowing it? Surely you don't think that they were empowered by the Spirit to proclaim such things!

Ok, they DID NOT. They said SON OF GOD. <---period.

I've never even read any of their literature, Carson, so come off it! You're wasting your time, and mine with this relentless attempt to find a label for me. CALL ME a... Berean. That's what I am. I don't believe anything unless I study it from the Bible without the aid of MEN telling me what the Bible should mean.

Don't try to act like it is some kind of suprise to you that a professed member of the SDA Church believes that Michael is Jesus! You know good and well that we believe that, and we have already gone round and round on that topic, to no avail, so what is your point?

Firstly, I don't swallow anything easily. It takes me MONTHS of study to decide if something is so. I do not accept the 'witness' of Ignatius because he teaches people to disobey God's HOLY Commandments. So what if he was a martyr. There are lots of martyrs, does that mean I should believe EVERYTHING that EVERY martyr teaches?

Oh PULEEEEZZZZ! Carson, you think you know me? You think that I a prejudiced against you? You poor thing.

Yeah, Carson, sling some mud. When you've run out of legitimate ways to argue, that's what you do.

Let's see, I study the BIBLE and seek guidance from God through prayer over the course of several weeks, praying, reading, reading and praying, and come to the conclusion that I am at RIGHT NOW, and you want to try and tell me that DEMONS are responsible?

Singer??????

Perhaps we shouldn't study the Bible and pray to God for guidance.