The Journey Home

Your really looking for loopholes now. So we translate his name into Hebrew for you, and call him Yeshua. Is he now your Saviour??
DHK

 

Isa.43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom
I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I
am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour

I like that DHK...it's been awhile since I've read it.
I really like that ! Thanks.

But jis so's you don't go gettin da bighead here, I still say the whole impact of
eternal life hinges on whether we have a savior and what we do about it.

When a new christian goes to God in prayer and says "Forgive me Jesus and make
me whole...give me your spirit and allow me to follow You", he isn't necessarily
making the connection between God and Jesus. There are adults today who are
saved ''by the blood of Jesus'' who accept Him as the propititaion that God sent to
replace our sins with forgiveness. I was one of them for many years and do not
feel any MORE saved for now knowing that Jesus is God. Evidence supports
the Diety, yes, but I don't think God would throw a new believer of Jesus out the
window for not making the connection ......Yet.

Okay....here....I was saved in l976 by the blood of Jesus my savior and didn't make
the connection until maybe 2001. I even received that (geez I hate to say this again)
.....Experience.... in l978 that has helped to empower me to continue to proclaim the
gospel.

By your standards, was I not saved then until 2001 because I didn't acknowledge that
Jesus is God ? Nothing changed, I read the same bible and pray to the same God
and acknowledge the blood of the same Jesus as I did before.

Does a mindset save us? I think not.
A fact saves us. The fact that we hear the word of God and muster (called by God )
the faith to believe that Jesus died for our sins/accept Him/ whatever else you want
to throw in here, and experience Born Again.

We can do all that without knowing Jesus is God....I did. Kelly did.

 

No, I don’t think so. By what you have just written you understood a lot of Biblical doctrine and would be open (as you were to the teaching of the deity of Christ), whereas Kelly openly denies the deity of Christ. If the truth of God is revealed and taught clearly, and then openly rejected, as Kelly has done with the deity of Christ, how can one be saved. That is a fundamental doctrine. It is akin to denying the Resurrection of Christ. The J.W.’s deny that Christ arose from the dead. Can a J.W. be saved and at the same time deny that Christ arose from the dead. I don’t believe they can.
You said, or implied that you understood that:
You were saved by the blood of Jesus Christ,
He was the propitiation for your sins.
I would think that most people who understand the above doctrines would have no problem with the deity of Christ. The very fact that He was able to be the propitiation for our sins would point to His deity. Only God could perform such a task. Acts 20:28 points to the God’s blood that was shed.
But, regardless, the point now is that you accepted what you were taught; Kelly rejected it. Therein lies a big difference.
DHK

 

But, regardless, the point now is that you accepted what you were taught;
Kelly rejected it. Therein lies a big difference

And yet Kelly accepts the shed Blood of Jesus to cover her sins. That's the
sign of a Christian.

We're left to blame the bible itself then for the famous comment found in
John 3:16:

3:16For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life

That statement invites us to believe in the Son, which is necessary unto salvation.
It is not just possible to believe in God and be saved so there must be a difference.
Whatever that verse means about the "devils believe and yet they are not saved"
must point to the fact that believing in God is not enough.


" Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me." John 14:1

Yet, there is much trouble with this statement alone. It causes strife and
separation. We, as learned appliers of the English language would not dare talk
that way and make sense (if we were speaking of one individual).

Consider this:

Matthew 10:33
But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my
Father which is in heaven.

Jesus requires mankind to not deny himself (Jesus) before men.
Kelly does not deny Jesus...so is therefore not denied by Jesus "before my Father".

 

But what Jesus? Not the Jesus of the Bible! She has outright rejected that. When questioned who Jesus is, she rejects the Jesus of the Bible, and says that Jesus is some other person--a created being--Michael the archangel. She denies the trinity. She denies that Christ is God. This is not Christianity. It is a bunch of heresy, by which one cannot be saved. She worships a different Jesus than I, dare I say a demnon-inspired Jesus purposely constructed to lead people astray from the truth.

As explained before, the phrases, "the only begotten son," the son of God," to the Jews were understood as phrases that indicated Christ's divinity and taken as such. He was accused for blasphemy because he said He was the Son of God. It is another term that indicated that He was God. There are those today whom Peter says in his epistle that wrest the Scriptures to their own condemnation. They say that those Scriptures mean something other than they really do.

KELLY DOES DENY JESUS. That is the whole point of this discussion. She does not believe that Christ is God. That is the denial. Ask her. Do you believe that Christ is the one and only most high God. If she answers no, she denies Christ. And she denies Him before a whole host of men, because it will be on this board, on the internet where perhaps hundreds (if not thousands) may read it.

2John:9-11
9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:
11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

The doctrine of Christ is the deity of Christ: that Christ is God. Therefore, if anyone deny this doctrine:
1. He has not God.
2. Therefore don't even bring such a one into your house.
3. If you show such hospitality to such a one, you become partaker of their evil deeds (encouraging them to spread their false doctrines).

Don't encourage her to spread her false doctrine, rather rebuke it.
DHK

 

DHK,

I do not deny the diety of Christ.

He is diety.

But He is NOT the Most High God.

There can only be ONE Most High God.

Jesus is the Son of the Most High God, therefore by inheritance He is diety.

Be that as it may, He is NOT the Most High God.

No amount of rangling will convince any of us that I worship a different Jesus.

I am infuluenced by my study of the Word of God, and nothing else.

There is only ONE Jesus, the Son of God, the Image of the Invisible God, the Word of God incarnate, sacrificed for my sins, by the shedding of His own blood, and His death on the Cross. He was raised from the dead by God after 3 days.

There is no other Jesus.

God Bless,
Kelly

 

I'm sorry, but this is plain old polytheism. It is not, by all present and historical definitions, "Christianity".

 

If Christ is deity, and He is not the Most High God, then by logic you are no better than a Hindu, believing in more than one God--a polytheist. Jesus is a lesser God, and the Father is a Greater God, being called the Most High God. And Yet the Scripture clearly says:

Isaiah 43:10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.

There is only one God, and One Saviour. That God and Saviour is Jesus Christ. He is described here as Jehovah, and in the New Testament as Christ. They are the same person--the most High God.

By son, you mean that He is a created being because he proceeded forth from the father. That has only one meaning. He was born in eternity past or created. He had a beginnig. Thus he is not deity as you say. You are just playing a word game, a game of semantics. You are still denying the deity of Christ.

Then Christ is not God at all, and cannot be considered as deity.

Your very statements right here on this post convince me that you believe a different Jesus. You are a polytheist. You believe in more than one god. A greater god--the Most High God, and a lesser god whom you call Jesus.

Since you come to such irrational conclusions about God, I would say that you are influenced by more than just a study of the Word of God: demons perhaps??

That sounds good, but if He is not the Most High God, existing from eterntiy to eternity you have the wrong Jesus--a demon inspired Jesus.

Oh yes there is. Ask the Muslims. They believe in Jesus. He is just a prophet. If He is the begotten Son of God, then he was physically begotten by Mary and God the Father. Is that your Jesus? You say there is only one??
DHK

 

I'm sorry, but this is plain old polytheism. It is not, by all present and historical definitions, "Christianity". </font>[/QUOTE]That, by itself is, but that is not all I said.

 

I am not a hindu, I do not believe that there is more than one God. Are you going to answer my question? Do you believe in a trinity, or the Oneness doctrine. Your statements lean towards oneness, but I want to hear it from you.

Oneness.

By my saying He proceeded forth from God, is a direct quote of Scripture. He is the LITERAL Son of God, to deny this literal Sonship and Fatherhood is the spirit of ANTICHRIST. To deny the FATHER AND THE SON is ANTICHRIST. Do you not believe that God is the LITERAL Father of His Son Jesus Christ?

Wrong. He is diety by way of His LITERAL Sonship by the Father. Just as a Prince is Royalty by way of their LITERAL sonship by a King. Jesus is the IMAGE of the Invisible God, NOT the Invisible God Himself. How do you deal with that verse? It DOES NOT say that Jesus IS the Invisible God, Yahweh, or Jehovah as you have chosen to call Him?

My statements confirm that I believe in the Jesus of the Bible, because EVERY statement that I have made about Him is FROM the Bible. Like I said, you cannot 'rangle' my words to mean something they don't because MY words are quotes of HIS Words.

I would have to disagree. I am not influenced by anything other than the Bible, and the Spirit of God, so if demons were my influence, then the Bible is a demon inspired book! Is that your opinion? The Word of God is QUICK and POWERFUL, sharper than any two edged sword, piercing EVEN UNTO the DEVIDING asunder of JOINT and MARROW, and is a DISCERNER of the thoughts and intents of my heart! If demons are capable of that, then I would conclude that YOUR ENTIRE DENOMINATION is controlled by demons.

No, I have the Jesus of the Bible, for every word that I wrote is straight FROM the Bible. Again, is the Bible demon inspired?

There is no other Jesus. Read the Bible. Just because man believes in other gods does not mean that they exist. Paul taught that. Read up on eating the animals in the market that have been sacrificed to idols. There is no other God, than God, and there is no other Messiah, Lord, Christ, Only Begotten Son of God, than Jesus. Yeshua the Salvation of Yahweh.

I don't have a fake Jesus.

I have the only Jesus that there is, and He is Lord of my life, and my heart.

Your demon inspired judgments cannot take that away from me.

May God show you the error of your ways.
-Kelly

 

Back to the topic, I love Journey Home

EWTN radio and Catholic Answers are both pretty good programs in my opinion.

What kind of radio programs do they have for baptists and other protestant denominations?

 

Now somebody tell me again how Christ didn't leave us with an infallible teaching office in a visible Church?

(And my question isn't just aimed at you, 3AM, but at about a billion other sola scriptura Christians as well.)

 

That, by itself is, but that is not all I said. </font>[/QUOTE]It's enough. Multiple deities = polytheism, that's simply what the word means. Christianity (and Judaism) is entirely monotheistic, and always has been.

I realize that the concept of the Trinity can be difficult to accept, but it melds perfectly monotheism with the distinctiveness of the Son from the Father. The Son and the Father are distinct, yet they are the same God - there is only one God. You are focused so much on the distinctives, that you are ignoring the fact that scripture is entirely monotheistic. The Trinity is the only solution that doesn't break scripture. Monarchianists ("Jesus-only", "Oneness") err for not recognizing the distinctives. You, like JWs and Mormons, have gone too far in the other direction, not recognizing the oneness. The truth is in the middle, in the Trinity.

I don't know of any specifically Baptist. I know Focus on the Family does a lot of radio, and that some places get "Through the Bible with Dr. J. Vernon McGee", I think Dr. McGee was Presbyterian but the Baptists that I know that listened to him loved him. I've never heard him though.

Is Journey Home available online? How about the other two you mentioned?

 

You don't like to touch those verses in Isaiah do you? I believe in the trinity. There are three persons in one God: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.

[QUOTEJesus is the Son of the Most High God, therefore by inheritance He is diety.[/QUOTE]

1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Tim.6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Both verses speak of Christ.

Typical neo-orthodoxy.
Your statement here is nothing short of perplexing.
By MY saying...is a direct quote of Scripture
That is classic. My saiying is Scripture. Are you God? You have redefined "proceeded forth" on your own terms to make it something different other than what the Bible teaches. To proceed means to come. Christ came from the Father. He was sent by Him. Now, isn't that profound.
He is the literal son of God. Do I believe that? The Muslims do, when you talk of a son. If Christ is a son, they say, then it must be of a phsyical union between a god and a goddess. Is that what you mean by literal? Such heresy!
"To deny the literal sonship is the spirit of antichrist." Give me chapter and verse on that one.

If it is a LITERAL sonship, then he was physically begotten in eternity past. That's heresy. Jesus chose to be the image of the invisible God when He took on the form of a man, and as John says: "we beheld his glory full of grace and truth."
"It does not say that Jesus is Jehovah." The Bible says that He is Jehovah--It is in that nasty Isa.43:10,11 verse that you don't like. Try also Isa. 9:6.

Hardly. You take words and change their meanings to suit your own purposes. You take verses out of their context and change them to suit your own purposes. As Peter said, you wrest the Scriptures to your own destruction.

No, not at all. In fact the demons have a better knowledge of the Bible than most Christians do. James says: "Ye believe in God, ye do well. The devils also believe and tremble." Your statement here about demons only shows your ignorance about them.

Do you? Even a Satanist will use the Bible at times.

There is no other Jesus than the Most High God. He alone is the Lord Jesus Christ. If you cannot ascribe to that then you have the wrong Jesus.
DHK

 

Yes, you can find all the archived shows of Catholic Answers at http://www.catholic.com/radio/calive.asp
and just navigate back through the months.

You can find all the Journey Home shows at
http://www.ewtn.com/vondemand/audio/frmselecrprog.asp?seriesID=-6892289&T1=journey

I found this particular site very uself as well
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN
This has a select amount of Journey Home and Catholic Answers shows from older seasons. I find it a bit more convenient because it has both of the shows on the site and it's categorized nicely.

Well, enjoy!

 

Well, get them while they last.

I probably just broke some kind of baptistboard rule.

 

Shhh...let's all be vewwwy quiet, and nobody will ever know...

 

Yes, yes, we must tread softly.

 

Back to the topic.

Has anyone become Catholic - in spite of knowing at the start, the truth about John 6 and the fact that Christ's own summary refutes the RC position?

Has anyone become Catholic - in spite of knowing at the start about the multi-popes slaughtering each other and calling each other "antiChrist"?

Has anyone become Catholic - knowing at the START - EWTN's position that Billy Graham himself would have been burned at the stake by the RCC If he taught the SAME things he teaches today - during the Dark Ages - the golden age of the RCC?

I mean - do people START out knowing these facts and STILL - join the RCC?

Just curious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Do people still become protestants after knowing some of their tainted histories as well?
It just depends on which one you publicize more.

And EVERY member on EWTN's Journey Home program were and are avid Bible scholars, many on the show were former protestant ministers and preachers. They actually studied the issues and the claims of Christ's Church and found them to be the truth. So they didn't just ignore the issues and join the Church on the spur of the moment, many recount how their conversions took YEARS of study.

Take Scott Hahn for example, he was about as anti-Catholic as they get, but he put aside this bias and seriously considered the Church's claims. Well, he suprised himself.