The Holy Roman Catholic Church...

[RockRambler]

Matt, I understand the position you are espousing, but for the price of $2800 the first marriage could be annulled by the church and then communion could be received and she could rejoin the choir.

Principles shouldn't be for sale.

 

[RockRambler]

Of course a friend of mine who is divorced says she'll never divorce again...if she can't get along with her husband she said she would just kill him...because murderers have an easier time being forgiven than divorcees!!! (She just kidding, I think!!)

 

[Matt Black]

I agree that the fee smacks of the abuse of indulgences; I don't mind an admin fee being charged I suppose but that sounds a bit steep.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Okay, JCF, I'll answer some of your rebuttals:

These are not my arguments they're God's. He is the one who sets the standard.

But how do your know yours is the correct interpretation? Myriads of sects claim they are going by God's standard but their different interpretations of this standard are mutually contradictory. How are we to decide whose (if any) interpretation is correct? (Without replying, "Well it's mine/my group's, of course", which continues to beg the question)

But Paul also commands us to follow the apostolic traditions which are from God passed down in the church by the apostles(1 Cor 11:2, 2 Thess 2:15, and 2 Thess 3:6) (bolded comments being mine from my previous post)

Yes, the God ordained apostolic traditions.

Right. This Apostolic Tradition is how the Church determined which books (among the many circulating) actually belong in the Canon, and how to interpret the books in the Canon. One could say the Bible is the core (or the summit) of this Tradition, but it does not exist in an interpretive (or historical) vacuum.

If you read it carefully you would see that God says not to call anyone "Father" in His place . Nothing to do with my earthly father.

And you have asserted, without proving, that Catholics, Orthodox, and Anglicans are calling their clergy "father" in place of God which is not true.

But the Church has been worshipping on the Lord's Day, Sunday, from the beginning since that is the Day Christ rose from the dead.

You can worship on anyday you want but you can't call anyday the Sabbath.

The Church worships on the Lord's Day which is not the same as the Sabbath.

You mean like the images of the cherubim on the ark of the covenant or of the cherubim, oxen, and lions in the Temple (1 Kings 7:28)? Or is it possible that not all imagery (icons) used in worship is necessarily idolatrous?

No images or statues to be used in worship, in other words, to give them a place deity, power and reverence.

Who's giving icons the place of deity? They're windows into heaven and are treated reverently because of Whom they represent.

Are you referring to Psalm 136, for example, in which the phrase "for His mercy endures forever" is repeated 26 times? Or is not all repetition necessarily "vain"?

God's mercy does endure forever and needs to shouted from the roof tops. God says no vain repetitions of prayer. If you look up the verses that follow this statement you will find the Lord's prayer. It's like a slap in the face of God and a mockery when it's repeated time and time and time again as seen in the rosary.

So Psalms 136 is not prayer? Or is it not vain repetition? Me thinks you are engaging in special pleading to allow folks to repeat the same Psalms (which were and are used liturgically) but not the say the Lord's Prayer on a regular basis.

Yes. Luke 1:48: "Henceforth all generations will call me blessed". If the Angel Gabriel can declare her blessed among women and highly favored (v.28), why can't we? Why should we not exalt those whom God has exalted? And who else among the daughters of Eve has God so exalted by choosing her to be His mother?

Being blessed of God is one thing but being exalted to a place of worship is another. This woman in the crowd with Jesus was not just stating that Mary was blessed she was doing more than that and Jesus knew it and corrected her.

Mary is not exalted to a place of worship which is reserved for God alone, but she is honored with the highest praise among God's saints for her unique role in our salvation as the Theotokos. She is in real sense our spiritual mother as she brought our Salvation into the world. As Eve was the "mother of all living", so Mary is the new Eve who is the mother of all living in Christ. (see John 19:26-27)

As to Jesus correcting the woman in question, I agree but not in the way you suggest. The Greek word translated "rather" can also be translated "indeed, truly, or really", in which case Christ would have been emphasizing Mary's obedience which is an example for us to follow. Those who keep God's Word, like Mary, are indeed a part of his family.

Without personal sin, "yes". Without ancestral (or original sin), "no". Of course, God (and therefore Christ) is Mary's Savior.

The wages of sin is death. Did Mary die?

Did Enoch and Elijah die? If not, does that mean they were completely sinless? (Also, note that I was answering that Mary was born without personal sin) Also, the Church--Eastern and Western--has believed that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her life, but that she "fell asleep" first (the Dormition). But even if she did not "fall asleep", why couldn't Mary have been translated into Heaven like Enoch and Elijah?

The word "until" doesn't prove anything either way about her virginal status subsequent to giving birth to Christ. Just as "'Sit at My right hand till I make Your enemies Your footstool'" (Matt 22:44) does not prove that after Christ's enemies are defeated He will no longer sit at the Father's right hand.

I'm not sure what you're saying but according to God's word, Mary is no longer a virgin and there is nothing wrong or unholy about that.

It's obvious you're not sure what I'm saying because my point was that it was not clear from God's word that Mary ceased being a Virgin. Read my paragraph again--"until" does not imply one way or another a change in status subsequent to it's object (event) taking place. (Read the verse I quoted again)

The earliest tradition is that these children were Joseph's by a previous marriage, as Joseph was an older widower.

WOW! where do you draw the line in resisting the truth?

How am I resisting the truth? Nowhere in Scriptures does it specifically say that Jesus' "brothers" were the biological children of Mary or that she herself had any other children.

It's both, unless you are by implication advocating a form of the Arian heresy.

Jesus was given the title (God, judge) because of His obedience to His Father's will even unto death.

So Jesus was not God Incarnate from conception? Jesus was not the Eternal Logos who became flesh and dwelt among us? If you are suggesting He was not, then you're a heretic. Jesus was not merely given the title "god", He was and is and always will be GOD.

And which Catholic teaching has denied the Father and the Son?

When you deny that Jesus was a man anointed of God and teach a co-eternal, co-equal godman then you deny the Father and Son relationship.

If you deny that the Son is the Co-eternal Word who is of the same essence of the Father, then you are an Arian heretic.

Yes, read your Bible, but by all means read it in context. This includes the grammatical, historical, and ecclesiastical context.

The bible as a whole speaks for itself.

Obviously not, since it can be misinterpreted in dozens of self-contradictory ways when one leaves the Apostolic Tradition and embraces private interpretation.

 

[Matt Black]

jcf, may I ask what denomination you are? Your profile leaves me none the wiser. If you are part of a body that denies the Deity of Christ, as your post suggests you do, then unfortunately I cannot consider you to be a Christian.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
jcf, may I ask what denomination you are? Your profile leaves me none the wiser. If you are part of a body that denies the Deity of Christ, as your post suggests you do, then unfortunately I cannot consider you to be a Christian.

Yours in Christ

Matt

I guess your're a beliver in the curse of the Nicene Creed where those who don't receive the eternally begotten Son or the beginingless beginging God the Son.

 

[following-Him]

And you still didn't answer Matt's question...

Sheila

 

[Matt Black]

"The curse of the Nicene Creed", eh? So you're not Trinitarian, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
"The curse of the Nicene Creed", eh? So you're not Trinitarian, then?

Yours in Christ

Matt

I believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God.

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
jcf, may I ask what denomination you are? Your profile leaves me none the wiser. If you are part of a body that denies the Deity of Christ, as your post suggests you do, then unfortunately I cannot consider you to be a Christian.

Yours in Christ

Matt

Hi Matt,

I am non-denominational and believe that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God, one with His Father in the same way He desires us to be one with Him and His Father.

Jhn 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

Jesus was divine in nature in the same way we can be partakers of that same divine nature.

2Pe 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

 

[billwald]

Yes, the Roman Bishop probably erred when he pulled his see out of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Will God condemn every Catholic because of this?

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by billwald:
Yes, the Roman Bishop probably erred when he pulled his see out of the Orthodox Catholic Church. Will God condemn every Catholic because of this?

Hi billwald,

God is not saving denominations, He's saving people. John 1:12-13 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

 

[Matt Black]

Jcf, do you believe Jesus is not merely Son of God, but God the Son -

"και θηοσ ην 'ο λογοσ "?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
Jcf, do you believe Jesus is not merely Son of God, but God the Son -

"και θηοσ ην 'ο λογοσ "?

Yours in Christ

Matt

Hi Matt,

Luke 9:20-21 Jesus said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Peter answering said, The Christ of God. And Jesus strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one,

I guess I can tell you. Jesus is the Christ of God, the Messiah of YAHWEH.

There is a multitude of verses that teach Jesus to be the Son of God, the Messiah, the Christ.

Can you give chapter and verse that says Jesus is God the Son, co-eternal, co-equal, immortal, omnipotant, omiscience, self exsisting. There should be many clear teachings of this if it's of God, but if it's man made you will find confusion, verse twisting and changing.

2 Peter 3:16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.

 

[Matt Black]

I have already given you one example of chapter and verse with my quote from John 1:1 in my last post. Here's another one: John 20:28

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[jcf]

Originally posted by Matt Black:
I have already given you one example of chapter and verse with my quote from John 1:1 in my last post. Here's another one: John 20:28

Yours in Christ

Matt

Hi Matt,

To use John 1:1 to prove Jesus is YAHWEH will mislead and cause distruction. Do your research into John 1:1 you will find much verse twisting and changing. The only thing John 1:1 says clearly is that God's word is who He is and it expresses His will. By the word of His power He created all that is. This same word dwelt in Jesus and Jesus was obedient to it.

Hebrews 10:7 Then I said, `Behold, I have come in the volume of the book it is written of Me to do Your will, O God.' ''

Regarding John 20:28, anytime you find some trying to equate Jesus with YAHWEH Jesus corrects them. If you read a little further in the verses you will not only find Jesus correcting Thomas but you will also find that the book of John was not written to prove Jesus is YAHWEH but rather the Son of YAHWEH.

John 20:28-31 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed. And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book: But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

 

[Matt Black]

I have done my research into John 1:1 - I even quoted the critical section in the original κοινη Greek. I think, with respect, that it is you who are twisting the verses here: it goes on to say not that the Word dwelt in Jesus (as you would have it) but that "the Word became flesh and dwelt among us"; there's a massive difference.

No correction is issued from Jesus in John 20:28! Here's another, put forward by Jesus Himself: John 8:58-59 - what more proof do you need than Jesus' Own use of the Tetragrammaton to describe Himself!

I find it someone ironic that a person who professes an heretical belief outwith Christian Trinitarian orthodoxy can accuse the Catholics of being heretical..."those who live in glasshouses" and all that...

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

[Doubting Thomas]

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation, taking the form of a servant, and coming in the likeness of men." (Phil 2:5-7)

Jcf, I submit that the Jesus you worship doesn't quite fit into what is described in this passage. And, as Matt has shown, it's you who seem to be twisting the clear meanings of John 1:1, 14.

 

[Phillip]

Matt and Thomas, I think it is funny that if we take verses literally and they disagree with someone's denominational belief, then we are "twisting" that verse. How many times have you heard that arguement?

 

[BobRyan]

In John 1:1-3 we find that evolutionism is DEAD - because JESUS IS The CREATOR who creates ALL THINGS!!

In John 1 THIS is the foundation and BASIS for the Gospel.

In Rev 14 we are told to WORSHIP the one who CREATED ALL THINGS on earth!

EVEN by the standards of the non-trinitarians this would make Jesus fully God!

I don't know any of them that deny that GOD ALONE is to be worshipped!

In Christ,

Bob