FACT: "solascriptura" (scripture ALONE" was a heresy invented by the protestant reformers coz they did not want to obey the teaching authority that was given to the Catholic church by JESUS himself when he gaves t KEYS o/t KINGDOM to PETER (1st Pope) Yes, Jesus os the one mediator as opposed to Buddah, Krishna, etc, But that doesn't mean that his mother isn't with him. GOG chose her & JESUS & MARY are not at odds with each other like the prots think
The Bible is a tool, developed by the Holy Catholic Church FOR Catholics, to help them understand the word of God.
Unfortunately, tools can be misused (see Protestant Reformation). The error occurs when the Christian believes himself to be the final interpreter of God's Word and not the Church that Christ created and gave all authority (Matthew 16:18).
Ego is a powerful emotion, and leads the Christian away from Christ and His Church.
@baldonebear Even cahtolics announce to be the "only true" religion, the rest are heretics. The catholics invented the Jihad - crusades against who oppose her doctrine. how many people did she murdered in the 15th century? 10, 000 or more?
Chicken! You are so scared to see the truth, you'd rather list single sided arguments!
When it comes to see a christian debate a catholic apologist you're AFRAID!
Two men well qualified and educated debating scares you!!! LOL You exposed yourself!!! LOL
James White and Dr. Robert Fastiggi are both very qualified to defend their opposing views. Both names I'm sure you are familiar with. Note WHO quotes the church fathers and the scriptures, and who chants dogma!
You continue to prove that catholics have only tradition. I gave you the link to the full version. In which I watched it twice so I wouldn't take anything out of context. The Protestant kicked rear! I was truly disappointed in the catholic, I thought he would have done better. Then again he was arguing from a false theology and non-biblical point of view.
On what point did this schooling happened? There was nothing except pagan dogma the catholic could use.
So if that Protestant did such a bad job, where did he screw up? He's the one that quoted the church fathers he is the one that read most of the scriptures.
I gave you a debate between two very qualified men, excuse me for not filing my computer with paganism. I have been busy learning islam, yes the religion that the catholic church founded. So I have enough paganism in it.
@onemarktwoyou Protestants screw up when they misquote Scripture, perverting it to serve their own ends, like you do. Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, no matter how much you WANT it to be. You have absolutely no authority to make the statements that you do. None whatsoever. The Church Fathers were Catholic through and through - they celebrated the Mass and the Sacraments. They didn't create their own Personal Jesus, they worshiped the authentic one from their Traditions.
@onemarktwoyou It is most biblical, and you know it. Sacred Tradition is how the Bible was "written" in the first place. Jesus founded a Church, not a Bible. Come back when you stop arguing that 2 + 2 = 5.
2, The Protestant did quote the Fathers, but like most anti-Catholics, he took a portion of their text out of its original context; it became the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
3. The CC founded Islam? There is zero rvidence, save the anti-Catholics, to support that. prove it.
Now, in this post alone their are two itmes #1 and #3 that you need to support.
I am also curious what brand of Protestantism you hold?
There are so many brands with severe doctrinal variances. Thus, the term should be Protestantisms.
I am looking for a specific group or theological foundation.
:I am a bible believing Christian" is not an answer wither. All Protestants are bible believing. It is a matter of whose interpretation of the bible they believe.
I find myself unable to find a "true church" mainly thanks to the paganism brought in by the vatican. Try to find a church that doesn't want to celebrate christmas or easter. Then find one that doesn't want idols dripping from every wall. The sad fact is no where can one find a church that doesn't stain itself with inequity. Yes I attend church, unfortunately man's sinful nature corrupts all. So I am seeking one that obeys G-d.
@baldonebear I can not wait to read your answer to this: How am I not a Christian if I am Catholic?
I will come back in to see what this one says also, I sure hope its not the same ole stuff, Yawn, Its getting to be an over & over thing, They say we worship idols, But then they have not one clue as to what art is & what an idol is, They have not one clue as to what the Vicar of Christ truly is, They have this pass it along idea of the Catholic faith & do little research of it.
You wish they were??? I am telling you, as a catholic, and as a former Protestant like yourself, that they are!
1. We do not place anyone between God and us in the manner in which you believe. The sacrament of reconciliation is about restoration, not the priest forgiving, as only God forgives sins.
2. Tell me what Pagan Holidays we celebrate in a pagan manner...be detailed, and I will show you your conjecture.
Lets hit these one at a time. If a priest is not between you and G-d how does this reflect with "Ego te absolvo". Translated "I forgive you". Also as st. alphonsus de liguori stated that a priest forgiveness is equal to Jesus's forgiveness. That saying a man of sin (great chance he is gay and actively so) has the same power to forgive.
For a priest to dare to say a person's sin is forgiven is stating he is divine and has the power to do so and the authority. Heresy!
For your information the Jews spelled words without the vowels.
It wasn't until the 6 century A.D. that they were added mainly to help those that were not versed so well in that language. Also it was to honor the name, and to remind them of who He was and who they were. I found it was easy to humble myself when dealing with His name and not to make a mistake of humanizing Him. Most christians think of G-d as the guy next door and not the Almighty.
I taught OT in a bible college for many years. My mentor in college was Jew who became a Christian. Thus, the reason does not have anything to do with spelling words without vowels. It was based on a centuries old superstition. Thus, you merely practice a useless tradition.
"Ego te absolvo" does not mean "I forgive you". You are showing your ignorance.
The word is "absolve" which means to clear or free from the consequences.
It is based on the visible authority that Jesus left the Church. It is a means of restoration as sin causes harm not only to us, but many times to others.
It is God alone who forgives sins. Not a priest.
Thus IF it was as you state, then yes...THAT would be heresy.
You show your arrogance, your ignorance and your level of maturity with this statement.
To be clear, the priest does not forgive sins. That is a fact, regardless of your warped understanding based on conjecture, and your willful ignorance on this matter.
Shall i post all the Church documents on this to substantiate clearly?
One "arrogance" I ran across something that stated the vatican recognized 1/3 of its priests were gay(from the vatican not a third party). Second the Jews started not to write or say G-d's name out loud as it was to Holy. YOU can call their "respect" as superstitious. Lets not get to the term "holy father". Lets stay on topic! "ego te absolvo" Does translate as "I forgive you" as in its usage. And how can a pedophile forgive sin??? Answer that!
You would have to show the source; document it, that states 1/3 of priests were gay...that does not match the statistics. I am curious what site you have pulled that from? Less than 1% of priests in the USA have been accused...a number that is far lower than Protestant Clergy.
Ego te absolvo...absolvo is transliterated as absolve. I gave the correct de and the explanation of its correct usage.
I know why it is spelled G_d...my mentor was a Jew.
Move to the next topic??? You wanted to answer them?
How can a priest absolve a person's sin? This is where I was going with the homo priests, when in fact they are doing what G-d calls an abomination? They are not divine and no church can absolve sins for anyone. Only G-d can grant salvation and forgiveness. How can confession to a man who himself is a worse sinner forgive anything on behalf of G-d? Then have the "arrogance" to state it as if it was true???
The Apostolic Father speak much about the authority of the Church.
Let's start with the foundation:
Binding and loosing. This deals with authority, and was a Rabbinical practice on Judicial and Legislative matters.
Matt 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Cont...Jesus Gives Simon the New name/title Peter. He gives him the Keys, the authority to Bind (forbid) and Loose (permit).
In Matthew 18:18 we see this again. This text is dealing with a brother in sin, and what and the steps to take. After it is brought to the church, they make the final decision, either to bind or loose.
Before I go on with more...tell, do you think we only go to a priest to confess?
Tell... what is the purpose of the priest stating "Ego te absolvo". If it isn't declaration that actually expunged the sins?
If you think that your going to pull the Peter was the rock, a priest isn't sitting on the throne in Rome. G-d turned his back on many of the temple priests for sins far less transgressive.
You're going to argue in a circle? You can not make a priest divine by man. It is sent down though bloodlines. Just answer my question "Why does a priest says "ego te absolvo" if he isn't forgiving sin? Which NO man on earth can. Peter did not hand down anything to anyone! If he did it would have been though his bloodline.
And I am attempting to answer your question...I paused, as I also stated in Part 3 below, because I need to know your beliefs on the subject...see were you are at; if you even have the correct understanding.
Where does my belief come into it when your going to give the same answer no matter what I say? All I asked was "WHY DOES THE PRIEST SAY "ego te absolvo"??? If he isn't expunging/forgiving/removing/cleansing the sin? You said you'd explain? Now you are avoiding the explanation! Let's make this simple, if you're not going to answer that, then do you believe the priest can forgive sin? My personal beliefs are scriptural, I am a "solo scripturalist".
I was half way through explaining authority of the Church. Jesus by giving Simon the keys and the ability to bind and loose, was giving him authority.
Paul says that the house of God "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
No, a Priest can not forgive sins, only God forgives sins.
Confession is about restoration in the Church, not about forgiveness.
You still avoid the primary question! Why is the phase "ego te abslovo" used?
Straw man fallacies??? What!!! Did we not start with the first question? I keep asking the same question that you claim you're answering, yet nothing!
You claim I'm creating "straw men". You know that I have rejected the catholic church as Peter's rock. I get how you're creating the dots. From Peter to pope to priest. Yet the early church did not do this either which voids this argument.
I can only shake my head and smile...how many times did I ask you to tell me your understanding of confessions and why we go? Very simple...very direct.
You are correct...I will not answer your questions as I am asking something of you. I made this very clear.
I explained in detail that I was establishing the case for authority, and needed to stop to get your complete understanding.
Here is the last portion of my post from 3 days ago:
Part 3
In Matthew 18:18 we see this again. This text is dealing with a brother in sin, and what and the steps to take. After it is brought to the church, they make the final decision, either to bind or loose.
Before I go on with more...tell, do you think we only go to a priest to confess?
You keep avoiding the term "ego te absolve", which in context does mean 'I forgive you'!
"I forgive(absolve) you" is heresy. A priest can not be Jesus in persona! There is no divinity in a priest, and if there was it would not be of the Lord.
For the first eleven hundred years the church did not need confession which voids the RC churches argument that it is needed.
So why did they start the practice? If I couldn't guess, I think a stack of Ben Franklins could tell me.
What have I avoided? I have answered you directly each time.
It is you, my friend, who will not answer questions. Even Par 2 from my last posting, which was a re-posting of my post from 3 days prior to that, you have ignored one again. Ego te absolve means I absolve you. Part of what a priest might say is "I absolve you from every bond of excommunication and interdict"
It is restoring us to the Church. Interdict means we are back in communion.
I will start with no.4 of your post. The answer is a priest.
Ch.18 you should read in context. You read the verses before and the verses after.
The ignorance is yours my friend. I can't believe you point to that verse. Most actually pick a different one. Again why does a priest say "I" if only G-d forgives. And if repentance is enough why would a priest have to recite a specific statement for it be confirmed? "In persona Christi" NOT!
Hahahahahahahaa....context is much more than verse before and after.
I am talking about the passage that deals with a brother in sin. I know the context. I was a pastor and bible college instructor for many years, Please do not be so arrogant by assuming.
The text shows the authority of the church to bind and loose. This was a rabbinical practice of decisions: what was allowed or not allowed.
I see you using phrasing that you do not understand.
Once again...I have answered you in a very detailed manner.
The priest is a representative of Christ and the church. It is by the authority given by Christ to his church that he says this. Have you not read anything that I have posted?
Btw, I am still waiting for your sources, with author and title, for you to substantiate that confession was started 1100 years later.
HAHaHA?? I see, you are a pick which ever fits your thinking, even if it isn't even close.
As I stated 1100 years came from a priest! Or do you not read. I am not going to print his name on here for everyone to look at! He was to nice as to answer questions for me to do that to him. You have not shown anything that comes close to prove a priest or any man with sin can do what G-d gave to Peter.
No, I do not "pick" a choose. I know the scriptures. I was a Prot pastor for many years. I understand context. I understand the employment of the textual, historical, cultural and sociological aspects of the scriptures.
I see. So you can not document the source...just as I thought.
For the record, 1100 yeas deals with the phrase Sacrament of Reconciliation.
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock”, is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra. Many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built....
The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Do you want more??? I have plenty.
Realize, that while these individuals do not accept the Papacy, they know what the text is saying, and its historical substantiation
"I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life"
Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107. He was a student of the Apostle John. Do his words sound like your Church?.
Catholic literally means "from the same". In English we translate it as universal,
As Protestant Early Church Historian points out that the word was used to speak of the unity of all the congregations, and as Gnosticism spread, the term was used to describe the true church from the heretics.
The adjective "Roman" was not used until the 11th century, after the political schism of the Eastern and Western Church.
I realized that I did not add the Historians name. It is JND Kelly.
Other well know Protestant historians that also attest to this are FF Bruce, and Bruce Shelley.
Bruce Shelly's book "Church History in Plain Language" is one of the best on the market. He is a Protestant, but he delivers the history in a non-bias manner...stating facts from the primary sources.
Yours is ignorance. You have refused to answer anything. If its not dogma based off of paganism then you don't like it. BLAH BLAH BLAH , that's all you have said.
I gave you very detailed straight answers. It is not my problem that you will not accept them as such.
Concerning the history of Popes. Yes, there were a handful that were correupt. How does that make the CC not from God based on the abuse of an office?
I think you should read the OT. How many High Priests were corrupt? during the intertestiment period, the High Priesthood went to the highest bidder.
@onemarktwoyou It is Christ who gave Peter the Authority, not us. By the mere fact that the Christ is the King and gave the Keys to Peter, shows the authority Christ intended Peter to have. Even as he forgives ours sins, he gave the apostles that authority as well, just as he healed the paraplegic so that you will know men can forgive sin. It is teachings of men that have watered down his word, mainly protestant tradition.
Show me where they are passed down to men through a popularity vote.
The fact is every example in the bible says covenants are passed in a blood line.
And it is catholic traditions that watered down the "Word" of G-d. They are based solely on paganism. The protestants started out to try to regain true Christianity.
@onemarktwoyou 1. Are you saying the new covenant is only passed down by blood relations? No, because it wouldn't include the gentiles. Bloodline has nothing to do with covenant, Jesus Blood took care of that. that is why we are all priest in the order of melchizedek 2. They are based on the Traditions handed down by the Apostles, it is Protestants who deny them. 3. From the early writings it is clear that all doctrine or dogma was handed down since the first century.
@onemarktwoyou First of all, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, a timeless and everlasting image. That’s why the image of the rock was chosen. That’s how rocks are. They’re there to stay. Then in Matthew 16 Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have an eternal dimension. He holds the keys to the Kingdom of God and the gates of hell will never prevail against it.
@onemarktwoyou cont... Finally, the image of the shepherd, as we have seen, is an eternal one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd. If the rock, the steward, and the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still have been eternal?
@wealththinkers and finally, the very nature of the Kingdom of David. whereby there were offices held, such as the stewart and it's keys are handed down until Christ comes again. It is also clear that the authority is handed down by the laying on of hands. The authority to bind and loose on earth continues and not ended with the Apostles themselves.
Maybe you should read the old testament. At least the first five books.
I still can't believe you people try to connect these dots the way you do.
Simply looking at the history of the popes should confirm to anyone G-d is not in the RC church. Don't worry I'm not a hypocrite with this, I don't believe G-d dwells or empowers any of them. In fact I believe "the Loretto chapel" was blessed by divinity, only because of the prayers and faith of the people.
@onemarktwoyou I apologize, but I don't get your answer? The concept of the Kingdom is routed in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah, The Kingdom is eternal, not 1,000 years like many protestants believe. Understanding the Old Testament is the key to understanding the New. And understanding through Jewish eyes, help clarify the New Testament. Maybe you can explain your answer better? Is Christ Divine? Is he God and Man? Is he the 2nd person in the Holy Trinity, One God?
Kings, did G-d really want to give the Hebrews kings? The bible is about kingdoms. Earthly ones and a heavenly one. Which is eternal? And who will be King?
Also what is the "church", needs to be answered. It is not a building nor is it preachers and priests. The church is the embodiment of the Holy Ghost.
Who has the power to remove demons. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit in them.
@onemarktwoyou I understand you point now. Partially correct in the sense that the Kingdom is Heaven and is spriritual, but it is also physical, Are you saying that the Kingdom of David was an accident. There are not accidents, it was planned by God. When Christ sent the disciples out he told them to preach that the Kingdom was at hand. He had the authority to give the keys and re-establish it on earth. Read what Christ says about the steward. The kingdom is visible......
@onemarktwoyou Mt 5:14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
@onemarktwoyou Read above the kingdom is visible. It was lit by the light of Christ into men's hearts and is visible to the world. All God's Glory. The Kingdom is re-established on earth, not be hidden, but to be the city on the hill. How fitting is this after Christ give his law in the beatitudes. Hope that helps.
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. No Accident! But the plan of God.
Jewish eyes? Jesus proclaimed himself the "I AM", the punishment for this could have been a stoning. Nowhere did they ever thought that G-d would come to earth as a man. No one ever thought they could lay their eyes on him. His whereabouts were know, his mother was know. They did not understand that for G-d to release us from Adam and Eve's transgressions that G-d needed a sacrifice and it was to great for man himself to do.
@onemarktwoyou We agree there. Also Mary knew from conception who he is, and it was clear he inherited the Kingdom of his father David. The Keys were his to give to whom he wanted to. And in the Kingdom of David there were office held. Such as the Queen Mother. Why do you think Mary is referred to as the Queen Mother? She is the Mother of God, the King, Our Lord. See why the understanding the Kingdom through the Jews eye is important. We agree!
Wow I deny mariology completely. But please don't give a lot of verses at once without explanation of how and what dots you are wish to connect. Example 2Samuel 7:16. I believe I understand, but there is a lot that can be connected with that. Please first state what you wish to bring to light so we don't have two different questions between us. Lets wait on mariology, there already is to much ground. There is plenty of time.
@onemarktwoyou But do you deny Mary is the Virgin Mother of our king? Forget the term mariology, Do you call Mary the Blessed Mother of God? Like the Bible says you should? Luke 1: 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Fair enough if you don't want to talk about it. but what about calling Catholics not Christian? They are the original Chirstians.
Catholics are not the original "Christians", The originals followed Him. In the lands where His feet stood and His words were heard. Those are the first Christians, those were privileged enough to see and here Him.
The reason I don't like mariology is it parallels all the offices of Jesus. And you were going to make a point about something else. I shall await for it.
@onemarktwoyou The term Catholic is Greek, katholikos. It was well used about the Church in the late 1st century and 2nd Century. Now the Church is Apostolic and started by Christ when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose on earth. The first time we have the term in manuscript is from Ignatius of Antioch, where they were first called Christians. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle. Can't get any closer than that. cont....
@onemarktwoyou I would then argue that the original Christians are in existence today via apostolic tradition. These Apostle have transferred not only there power to share in the ministry of reconciliation to all believers but also the authority through Christ and his Church to bind and loose, to forgive sin. Read John's Gospel, when Jesus breathed on them they received this power. The original Christians are alive today in Heaven and share a communion with us on earth.
@onemarktwoyou 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
I could simply reply"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Which holds my belief that the Holy Spirit is the church and all that dwell in it is his kingdom. Also Christians, namely the RC has warped binding and loosening. It meant only what was acceptable, not against God's laws. Its power is great, but very limit to what christians think.
@onemarktwoyou you are distorting that it is not what scripture says. The power to forgive sin and bind and loose is what is. nothing less. That verse doesn't say what you want it to say. yes, the the Holy Spirit is part of the Church, which is the Kingdom on earth, That is the invisible part, The people are the visible. You diving into other issues too. Maybe we should start with some basics. Do you believe That Christ is Divine, and Both God and man?
@onemarktwoyou Yes, the KJV, is acceptable in a sense that there is a high level of accuracy when compared to the DRA. Is the KJV what you like to use?
Again you have placed so much out that the scope to argue can't be done reasonably.
Also I do believe Mary gave birth to Jesus and she was blessed.But lets argue over one thing at a time. apostolic tradition alone is a very large subject. Peter as the rock is a completely different range.Related yes, but the footings are not the same as the walls and floors.Since we are not face to face lets keep it simple so we don't get confused what the other has to say.
@onemarktwoyou you are right, we can have a better discussion if we keep it basic for now, one thing at a time. I already asked one basic question. here is the second one, Do you believe that Christ is one with the Father and Holy Spirit? And that Christ is not any other entity such as an archangel?
What you are asking, am I a JW or a Mormon? No. I believe that Jesus is divine, he is the embodiment of G-d. I do not believe in the trinity. I do not believe G-d is three. So yes I believe the Lord , Jesus , and the Holy Spirit is one. What I deny is that they are three. But the issue, I remind you, is RC church. If you wish to have the common ground that the trinity is part of it, I shall accept. I think I see you are going to use Jesus' divinity to start with?
@onemarktwoyou Ok hold on here, Do you believe in One God? Is Christ God?, Is The Father God? Is the Holy Spirit God? Explain How you can only except 2 of the three? Because quite frankly I would say the minimum to be considered a Christian is to except Christ and Divine , One with the Father and Holy Ghost. All those who deny are not Christian. Bare minimum!
The trinity was not the question at hand. I said G-d was embodied in a man and born to a virgin.
The triune beliefs encompassed the surrounding areas of the Greek and Semitic lands.
Example: Plato wrote 300 b.c. about Greek triune god(s).
Plato's first term for the Trinity was in Greek 1. To Agathon, the supreme God or Father. 2. The Logos, which is the Greek term for the Word. And, 3. Psyche, which the Greek Lexicon defines to mean "soul, spirit or ghost".
@onemarktwoyou Forget Plato, We agree on the incarnation, Christ being fully God and Fully Man. good.,,, Now is Christ one with the Father, or not? Is the the Holy Spirit God? Do you believe in One God? Now come on this is very strait forward, and don't bring up topics that are outside of scripture, unless you deny sola scriptura. You wanted to keep this simple. A yes or no answer to these question with simple followup would be desirable.
@onemarktwoyou cont from below... Here I will answer first, 1 one with the father, yes 2 Holy Spirit God, yes 3 ONe God , yes, What part of this don't you agree with if the answer is no? Remember you asked me to stay on one subject, and if I do it, please honor your own request. Forget Plato!
Forget Plato and I will assume all the other examples as well? Okay.
But, I am confused as to who is jumping. Mariology now the trinity. I thought the question was RC church as Peter's rock? You wanted to argue over the authority of the RC church.
I will make this simple. You believe in the trinity where three parts are one. I believe one god who is G-d, but no separation.
If you want to argue the trinity from the bible alone, you have an uphill battle.
@onemarktwoyou Who said there was a separation? They are one! What happened to the answer to the specific question? I answered yes, yes and yes. Now what say you? However, our Lord Christ was separated from the Father on this earth, even though he is one with the Father, isn't that true? how then could Christ not know the time and place of the end? Yea, I think we should discuss it. Based on what you say we should just use the word God, not christ, the father, or Spirit
@onemarktwoyou First let's say this was huge argument in the early church, but it is a mystery, and the fact is that we a mere men can never really fully understand God. But understand this those that denied the trinity, also denied the incarnation, the two are linked together. The trinity is a term not used in the bible to describe the relationship of the father, Son, and Spirit. They God but scriptue is clear that they are always together, but they are One and the same..
@onemarktwoyou cont.. you are basically saying that you believe they are one, but they do not have the ability to separate when needed. And from scripture is is clear that they do separate. Yet, only One God.
You're going to argue against Jesus' divinity with this approach.
You should have been taught 'that Jesus' man side didn't know what his G-d side knew.' That would be an argument for either of our view points. I could bring up that you believe Jesus existed from the beginning. That G-d knows what was and what will be. Thus Jesus on earth should have known what the future would bring.
@onemarktwoyou this point is nuts, Doesn't scripture say He is God with us? How did he know the thoughts and hearts of People? He was God became flesh. Why did he pray to the Father? Because when he was separated from the Father, However, he is still one with the Father. This is a truth in scripture. Now you say he did not know his God side? False. How could he say this? If he did not know? cont.. above
@onemarktwoyou 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
I am not sure if you are denying God's power to be absolute.
Lets say I am sitting and writing a letter. I reach over and grab a tissue to blow my nose. At the same time my one foot is scratching the other. I do not stop writing. Am I three then? Or do I have the ability to do more than one task at a time.
@onemarktwoyou What happened to answering the simple three questions? This is not even close, you are comparing yourself to God? You are having a tough time saying yes to those three questions. How bout this one Did Christ choose to do the will of the Father?
@onemarktwoyou No, I am being strait forward. Here is what I said, "Here I will answer first, 1 one with the father, yes 2 Holy Spirit God, yes 3 ONe God , yes, What part of this don't you agree with if the answer is no?" My answer is yes, yes and yes, What is stopping you from agreeing with me here? So far we agree that there is one God and we disagree that they can be separated, is that correct? yes or no. Stop reading into these simple questions, cover details later.
@onemarktwoyou I haven;t received an answer yet and I have a feeling you are unwilling to answer directly. Ok, try this, Was Christ separated from the Father at times? Was he separated from the Holy Spirit at time? I will glad to answer first, Yes and Yes. Your turn.
You never responded on my reply to Matt24:36. Did you agree with it? That the physical shell didn't know the vast knowledge of the spirit that dwelt in it? Thus Jesus was noted to have said in Matt27:46,"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" I believe on this we should agree. Just want to know what if any common ground we have. If you can be so kind as to give me feed-back so I know where we stand.
@onemarktwoyou Holy Macaroni! So you are saying Christ is not one with the Father!, 2 The Holy Spirit is not God, 3 You believe in more than one God.,,, Are you really saying that or do not understand the question? with regard to "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" He was forsaken, abandoned. By God The Father! Now where in the Bible does it say the physical shell, did not know the vast knowledge of the spirit? This basically denies Christ being God in the Flesh. Fully God! cont.
@wealththinkers First of all, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all referred to as God. 2. There is only one God. The Scripture is clear, anything taught to the contrary is False. Let's start with Christ, Is he not the word that existed in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt amoung us. Yes or No.
I said Jesus was G-d how many times? Each time you completely twist it.
You change the subject until you think you have one you are comfortable with arguing about. In all manner you have not done nothing but marched to a tune that you have been given my man sinful nature.
@onemarktwoyou You are saying I am giving you the run around, but you apparently are not willing to give a simple answer. Give it one more try here. Jesus is God, OK we agree, Now is the Father God? Is the Holy Spirit God? Is there One God? My answer is Yes, Yes, and Yes. Now, you already answered no to question 2 and 3 unless you didn't understand the question. It is a simple question, now give me a simple answer please.
I have said Jesus was G_d, the Father was G_d, and the Holy Spirit was G_d.
On all these we agree. Except you believe(per the catholic doctrine) that G-d is 3-in-1, while I believe He is 1-in-1.
Are you like me a father, a brother, and an uncle? Three different titles for the same person. I believe the trinity removes the absolute power of G-d, and is an attempted to humanize Him.
@onemarktwoyou You said no, you must not of understood, It was a simple direct question but I think you trying to read into everything with out giving me a yes or a no. Ok I'm glad we agree Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God. Ok let me read the rest of comments here.
As with Marcian of pontus, early pagan converts had a hard time with connecting G-d from the old and new testaments. How could they be so different? It was a lot easier to say that they had two natures than to ask why was Jesus needed, or why was His death was needed. In fact it was a lot easier for them to incorporate the triune accepted belief of the pagan's that surrounded them. They understood the concept and made it easier to convert pagans.
@onemarktwoyou hardly easier, We know why his sacrifice was needed because Man could not keep from sin. and that God desires a relationship with us. The problem here is you are trying to compare finite being with infinite being. It doesn't work. Sure I am an uncle, father, husband, son. but I have no power to separate myself, and still be one. While God is not limited to the finite material world. It is clear from the Gospel that Jesus is God, and separated from the Father
@onemarktwoyou Scripture is Clear Christ is God from the moment of conception, and yet we don't see the Father, Holy Spirit, together until his baptism. But we know they were together before creation, as Genesis refers to God in the plural. So really how can you come to the conclusion of God being One with titles rather than the triune God. I really like to hear you backing this in scripture? Also let me know if you follow sola scriptura and fide?
El_him first part of Gensis1:1? Plural? NO! Majestic yes. Note to be plural you need any of the following, a plural suffix; a plural verb; or a plural adjective. In this case it is singular.
In Exodus 7:1; note the usage of El_him here. This shows a majestic usage.
Note; Exodus 20:3 it is in the plural(gods).
Also "master" Strong's #113 Isaiah 19:4. The word "masters" is a majestic for the king. While G-d's usage "master" is singular. Why not plural for G-d?CONT
I showed the usage of El_him in Genesis 1:1 is majestic. Confirmed the usage by the term with Moses Exodus 7:1. Showed the usage of plural in Exodus 20:3 in the ten commandments. Showed another place where a king is referred in a majestic while in the same verse G-d was described in a singular. Yes majestic uses did exist. This shows that most preachers who talk about this didn't listen to the right person(s).
@onemarktwoyou Elohim in its plural form points to the Triune Godhead and denotes God’s unlimited power. Though there are several examples in Scripture where Elohim is used as a singular (Exodus 7:1, Psalm 45:6), this does not make null and void the fact that Elohim is mostly used as a plural. The Bible clearly states refers to three persons as One God. Show me where it says they are not? cont. above.....
@onemarktwoyou 1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This is taken from the protestant KJV. Your view is not only incorrect but in the minority when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, whether Protestant or Catholic. The Church Fathers argued it and the Holy Spirit clearly guided the outcome.
I showed that El_him was singular, including Exodus 7:1 where it was implied to Moses. You stated "Elohim is mostly used as a plural". Examine where El_him is used in the plural. I gave the example of exodus 20:3; "no other 'gods' before me". I also showed you that a majestic was also used in another area to show that it was a practice that was used.
You are arguing from silence when you asked "show me where it says he is not".
Does G_d have to say he ISN'T three? It does not say he is three.
If you have studied 1John5:7, then you'd know it is considered an addition. Some bibles place it in brackets while others omit it and some place footnotes to said verse. Does sola scriptura mean accepting 100% that the bible is perfect? Or could it mean everything is to be balanced to scripture?
@onemarktwoyou are kidding? I just gave you a verse that is plain as day. You need to read that over again. 1 Jn 5:7 There is not mistaking it. Either you don't believe in scripture, or your making things up.
I personally fall from the pure thought and acknowledge that there was early heretics that added and removed G-d's words. I give the example of Erasmus while translating the story of the adulteress(wasn't his idea). Even so I would claim they are titles in Heaven for the same person. As the ending of each verse as with 5:8.
@onemarktwoyou So then obviously you don't baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? All you need to do is say God, is that your practice? Christ and Father are one is that correct, and yet Christ was separated from the Father. Scripture is clear and yet you deny it.
@onemarktwoyou cont. There is not need to make a distinction, unless they are distinct persons. Christ is baptized, The Holy Spirit comes in the form of a dove, and we here the Fathers voice. By your logic, not held by any legitimate Christian, it would have said God was there, or Yahweh was there. There is not need to point to the separate names if your theory is correct.
@onemarktwoyou God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”
@onemarktwoyou Peter traces salvation to the triunal source: ‘destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 1:2). The apostolic benediction: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14), sums up apostolic teaching, interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity, the saving grace of the Son access to love of the Father and to communion of the Spirit.
@onemarktwoyou The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. cont.
@onemarktwoyou cont. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity. To suggest that the only use is one of majestic is false.
1)You really don't understand the Hebrew language do you? I will state it again, a plural noun must have; a plural suffix, a plural verb, a plural adjective. It is singular in the sentence of Genesis 1:1. It is plural form in exodus 20:3 because it has a plural adjective or verb which makes it so. How can you argue if a sentence in Hebrew is plural or singular if you don't even understand what besides the ending of a word makes it so?
You didn't examine my argument with use of El_him. You should study the verses I noted.
I could show you singular uses of "Echad" in the bible. But I think the context needs to be looked at first. Look at Deu. 6:4(I assume this is what you quoted). Deu. ch.5 is a listing of the 10 commandments. Deu.6:14 "no other gods. Why did 6:4 state this here and what was meant by it.
It was letting the Israelites know who G-d was. In context to who the gods of the area was.
NOTE the usage of Exodus 7:1 when Moses became an Elohim to pharaoh. This also is a singular plural. It is not denoting G_d, but it is referring to Moses as a god to respect to pharaoh. So this shows it out of context to G_d.
Isaiah 19:4 the term 'masters' was also a singular plural for 'a' king, but a singular noun for G-d in this same verse.
excuse typo
MsCynthia56 3 weeks ago
FACT: "solascriptura" (scripture ALONE" was a heresy invented by the protestant reformers coz they did not want to obey the teaching authority that was given to the Catholic church by JESUS himself when he gaves t KEYS o/t KINGDOM to PETER (1st Pope) Yes, Jesus os the one mediator as opposed to Buddah, Krishna, etc, But that doesn't mean that his mother isn't with him. GOG chose her & JESUS & MARY are not at odds with each other like the prots think
MsCynthia56 3 weeks ago
Great work Steve
88kmitchell 1 month ago
The Bible is a tool, developed by the Holy Catholic Church FOR Catholics, to help them understand the word of God.
Unfortunately, tools can be misused (see Protestant Reformation). The error occurs when the Christian believes himself to be the final interpreter of God's Word and not the Church that Christ created and gave all authority (Matthew 16:18).
Ego is a powerful emotion, and leads the Christian away from Christ and His Church.
drdst17 1 month ago
@baldonebear Even cahtolics announce to be the "only true" religion, the rest are heretics. The catholics invented the Jihad - crusades against who oppose her doctrine. how many people did she murdered in the 15th century? 10, 000 or more?
minescore 2 months ago
Pagan Mother and child worship.
In Hinduism Yashoda and Krishna;
In Buddhism Maya and Sidhart Gautama Buddha;
Egyptianology Isis and Huros;
Ancient Babylon Semiramis and Tammuz;
Ancient Greece Aphrodite and Eros;
and so many examples
Roman Mary and Roman Jesus are totally different from the Historical-Biblical accounts.
minescore 2 months ago
@minescore
part 1
Mother and son...yes, there are cultures that mirror this, as Satan is an Angel of light.
Guess what? Jesus' mother is Mary. However, in Christianity, Mary is not given worship.
There is no connection to the pagans.
baldonebear 2 months ago
@baldonebear
Chicken! You are so scared to see the truth, you'd rather list single sided arguments!
When it comes to see a christian debate a catholic apologist you're AFRAID!
Two men well qualified and educated debating scares you!!! LOL You exposed yourself!!! LOL
James White and Dr. Robert Fastiggi are both very qualified to defend their opposing views. Both names I'm sure you are familiar with. Note WHO quotes the church fathers and the scriptures, and who chants dogma!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
You should sit down and have a cup of tea.
Every Catholic Apologist quotes the scriptures and the CF.
The video you mention is in many parts. You failed to watch the one where the Catholic schools the Protestant.
I love your name calling and your assumption that I am afraid. You continue to expose who you are.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
You continue to prove that catholics have only tradition. I gave you the link to the full version. In which I watched it twice so I wouldn't take anything out of context. The Protestant kicked rear! I was truly disappointed in the catholic, I thought he would have done better. Then again he was arguing from a false theology and non-biblical point of view.
On what point did this schooling happened? There was nothing except pagan dogma the catholic could use.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
There are several videos with different points in the debate. Re-read what I said.
Yes, as Catholics, we hold to Sacred Tradition, the living history of the Church passed down from the Apostles.
We have Sacred the Scripture, the Holy Word of God.
Both form one deposit of truth.
Before there was a NT, there was Sacred Tradition.
Name the two main types of tradition if you can?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
Honestly, youtube videos are not a source that proves anything substantial
I can make a video showing a debate that gives a Catholic the edge...others can make one where the Protestant has the edge. So what?
The substantial evidence lies in the biblical and historical documentation.
The Church Fathers taught what was believed. The Apostolic Fathers, Like Ignatius of Antioch, was a student of the Apostle John.
There words are credible/
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Did you want scripture and apostolic succession?
Should be Sola Scriptura and Scriptura Sola.
So if that Protestant did such a bad job, where did he screw up? He's the one that quoted the church fathers he is the one that read most of the scriptures.
I gave you a debate between two very qualified men, excuse me for not filing my computer with paganism. I have been busy learning islam, yes the religion that the catholic church founded. So I have enough paganism in it.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou Protestants screw up when they misquote Scripture, perverting it to serve their own ends, like you do. Sola Scriptura is not in the Bible, no matter how much you WANT it to be. You have absolutely no authority to make the statements that you do. None whatsoever. The Church Fathers were Catholic through and through - they celebrated the Mass and the Sacraments. They didn't create their own Personal Jesus, they worshiped the authentic one from their Traditions.
drdst17 1 month ago
@drdst17
The trinity, co-redemptrix, the pope are not biblical.
Scripture? or paganism? Which will I decide on? SCRIPTURE!!!
That was an easy decision! So your going to with go with the pagan converts theology?
I love how tradition of pagans over rule scripture for you. I can at least say you are a good catholic.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou It is most biblical, and you know it. Sacred Tradition is how the Bible was "written" in the first place. Jesus founded a Church, not a Bible. Come back when you stop arguing that 2 + 2 = 5.
drdst17 1 month ago
@drdst17
Are you arguing for pagan traditions as biblical?
I think its your math that is screwed up.
Lets see? christmas, now who gave us that???
Oh' how about easter??? another pagan holiday.
I love how you guys don't even care how or who gave you your "traditions"!!!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
1. Show me Sola Scriptura in scripture.
2, The Protestant did quote the Fathers, but like most anti-Catholics, he took a portion of their text out of its original context; it became the proverbial square peg in a round hole.
3. The CC founded Islam? There is zero rvidence, save the anti-Catholics, to support that. prove it.
Now, in this post alone their are two itmes #1 and #3 that you need to support.
I am most interested in #1 first.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
I am also curious what brand of Protestantism you hold?
There are so many brands with severe doctrinal variances. Thus, the term should be Protestantisms.
I am looking for a specific group or theological foundation.
:I am a bible believing Christian" is not an answer wither. All Protestants are bible believing. It is a matter of whose interpretation of the bible they believe.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Are you thinking of becoming a Christian? That's great!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
I am a Christian. Please answer the question as asked: What brand of Protestantism do you hold?
Why avoid this?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Your not christian if you're catholic.
I find myself unable to find a "true church" mainly thanks to the paganism brought in by the vatican. Try to find a church that doesn't want to celebrate christmas or easter. Then find one that doesn't want idols dripping from every wall. The sad fact is no where can one find a church that doesn't stain itself with inequity. Yes I attend church, unfortunately man's sinful nature corrupts all. So I am seeking one that obeys G-d.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Thank you for your answer.
I can not wait to read your answer to this: How am I not a Christian if I am Catholic?
baldonebear 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@baldonebear I can not wait to read your answer to this: How am I not a Christian if I am Catholic?
I will come back in to see what this one says also, I sure hope its not the same ole stuff, Yawn, Its getting to be an over & over thing, They say we worship idols, But then they have not one clue as to what art is & what an idol is, They have not one clue as to what the Vicar of Christ truly is, They have this pass it along idea of the Catholic faith & do little research of it.
Seekerr1 1 month ago
@baldonebear
catholics place a priest between G-d and them, and think a priest has anything to do with forgiveness of sins(paganism).
They celebrate and worship pagan holidays in a pagan manner.
They take Mary as another G-d even though they claim it as veneration(polytheism).
Unbiblically elect a man that usually is a heretic to rule them.
Pray to crosses and statues(idols). YES YOU DO!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Everything in your post in 100% incorrect.
Would you like to know the truth, or are you comfortable with your conjecture and continual bearing of false witness?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
I wish they were!
But, go for it!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
You wish they were??? I am telling you, as a catholic, and as a former Protestant like yourself, that they are!
1. We do not place anyone between God and us in the manner in which you believe. The sacrament of reconciliation is about restoration, not the priest forgiving, as only God forgives sins.
2. Tell me what Pagan Holidays we celebrate in a pagan manner...be detailed, and I will show you your conjecture.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Lets hit these one at a time. If a priest is not between you and G-d how does this reflect with "Ego te absolvo". Translated "I forgive you". Also as st. alphonsus de liguori stated that a priest forgiveness is equal to Jesus's forgiveness. That saying a man of sin (great chance he is gay and actively so) has the same power to forgive.
For a priest to dare to say a person's sin is forgiven is stating he is divine and has the power to do so and the authority. Heresy!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
part2
For your information the Jews spelled words without the vowels.
It wasn't until the 6 century A.D. that they were added mainly to help those that were not versed so well in that language. Also it was to honor the name, and to remind them of who He was and who they were. I found it was easy to humble myself when dealing with His name and not to make a mistake of humanizing Him. Most christians think of G-d as the guy next door and not the Almighty.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
I taught OT in a bible college for many years. My mentor in college was Jew who became a Christian. Thus, the reason does not have anything to do with spelling words without vowels. It was based on a centuries old superstition. Thus, you merely practice a useless tradition.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
part 2
"Ego te absolvo" does not mean "I forgive you". You are showing your ignorance.
The word is "absolve" which means to clear or free from the consequences.
It is based on the visible authority that Jesus left the Church. It is a means of restoration as sin causes harm not only to us, but many times to others.
It is God alone who forgives sins. Not a priest.
Thus IF it was as you state, then yes...THAT would be heresy.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 3
"great chance he is gay and actively so"
You show your arrogance, your ignorance and your level of maturity with this statement.
To be clear, the priest does not forgive sins. That is a fact, regardless of your warped understanding based on conjecture, and your willful ignorance on this matter.
Shall i post all the Church documents on this to substantiate clearly?
Next...
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
part1
One "arrogance" I ran across something that stated the vatican recognized 1/3 of its priests were gay(from the vatican not a third party). Second the Jews started not to write or say G-d's name out loud as it was to Holy. YOU can call their "respect" as superstitious. Lets not get to the term "holy father". Lets stay on topic! "ego te absolvo" Does translate as "I forgive you" as in its usage. And how can a pedophile forgive sin??? Answer that!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
You would have to show the source; document it, that states 1/3 of priests were gay...that does not match the statistics. I am curious what site you have pulled that from? Less than 1% of priests in the USA have been accused...a number that is far lower than Protestant Clergy.
Ego te absolvo...absolvo is transliterated as absolve. I gave the correct de and the explanation of its correct usage.
I know why it is spelled G_d...my mentor was a Jew.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 3
Let's move on to the next topic.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Move to the next topic??? You wanted to answer them?
How can a priest absolve a person's sin? This is where I was going with the homo priests, when in fact they are doing what G-d calls an abomination? They are not divine and no church can absolve sins for anyone. Only G-d can grant salvation and forgiveness. How can confession to a man who himself is a worse sinner forgive anything on behalf of G-d? Then have the "arrogance" to state it as if it was true???
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
It is interesting that you speak with such absolutes and authority, yet where does that authority have its foundation.
It is obvious that you have not read my posts with clarity.
I have said, twice, that only God forgives sins. The Latin phrase you post does not mean "I forgive you".
I also find it interesting that you fell that you can tell me what we believe, when that is not what we believe.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
The Apostolic Father speak much about the authority of the Church.
Let's start with the foundation:
Binding and loosing. This deals with authority, and was a Rabbinical practice on Judicial and Legislative matters.
Matt 16:19: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Cont...
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 3
Cont...Jesus Gives Simon the New name/title Peter. He gives him the Keys, the authority to Bind (forbid) and Loose (permit).
In Matthew 18:18 we see this again. This text is dealing with a brother in sin, and what and the steps to take. After it is brought to the church, they make the final decision, either to bind or loose.
Before I go on with more...tell, do you think we only go to a priest to confess?
What is the purpose of confession in the CC?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Tell... what is the purpose of the priest stating "Ego te absolvo". If it isn't declaration that actually expunged the sins?
If you think that your going to pull the Peter was the rock, a priest isn't sitting on the throne in Rome. G-d turned his back on many of the temple priests for sins far less transgressive.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Please answer the questions I asked in Part 3 before you ask more questions. That is avoidance.
At the moment I am talking about the authority that was given, and Paul speaks of more, and the Apostolic Father substantiate.
Please answer the two questions,then I will continue.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
You're going to argue in a circle? You can not make a priest divine by man. It is sent down though bloodlines. Just answer my question "Why does a priest says "ego te absolvo" if he isn't forgiving sin? Which NO man on earth can. Peter did not hand down anything to anyone! If he did it would have been though his bloodline.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
I am being very direct.
Please answer the direct questions in Part 3 below.
Very simple...very direct...no circular reasoning here on my part.
As stated, after you actually answer I will continue to answer your questions in full.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
And I am attempting to answer your question...I paused, as I also stated in Part 3 below, because I need to know your beliefs on the subject...see were you are at; if you even have the correct understanding.
Please answer.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Where does my belief come into it when your going to give the same answer no matter what I say? All I asked was "WHY DOES THE PRIEST SAY "ego te absolvo"??? If he isn't expunging/forgiving/removing/cleansing the sin? You said you'd explain? Now you are avoiding the explanation! Let's make this simple, if you're not going to answer that, then do you believe the priest can forgive sin? My personal beliefs are scriptural, I am a "solo scripturalist".
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
No, I am not !!! I explained that I needed to understand your perspective in order to give you the best explanation.
You are the one who has not answered 2 very simple direct questions...how hard can that be?
You will not answer, yet you keep asking me questions.
When i taught in a bible college, I had students like you. I did not allow them to create straw man fallacies by avoiding answers.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
I was half way through explaining authority of the Church. Jesus by giving Simon the keys and the ability to bind and loose, was giving him authority.
Paul says that the house of God "which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."
No, a Priest can not forgive sins, only God forgives sins.
Confession is about restoration in the Church, not about forgiveness.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
You still avoid the primary question! Why is the phase "ego te abslovo" used?
Straw man fallacies??? What!!! Did we not start with the first question? I keep asking the same question that you claim you're answering, yet nothing!
You claim I'm creating "straw men". You know that I have rejected the catholic church as Peter's rock. I get how you're creating the dots. From Peter to pope to priest. Yet the early church did not do this either which voids this argument.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
I can only shake my head and smile...how many times did I ask you to tell me your understanding of confessions and why we go? Very simple...very direct.
You are correct...I will not answer your questions as I am asking something of you. I made this very clear.
I explained in detail that I was establishing the case for authority, and needed to stop to get your complete understanding.
Do you even realize what you doing?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
Here is the last portion of my post from 3 days ago:
Part 3
In Matthew 18:18 we see this again. This text is dealing with a brother in sin, and what and the steps to take. After it is brought to the church, they make the final decision, either to bind or loose.
Before I go on with more...tell, do you think we only go to a priest to confess?
What is the purpose of confession in the CC?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
part 3
The simple truth is...you do not know!
It would profit you to learn what you are posting against.
The Latin phrase means to "absolve" not forgive. Only God, through the blood of Christ can forgive sins.
Confession restores us back into the Church. When we sin, it does not only cause harm to us, but others.
Only God forgives sins
We do not go to confession because we spit on the side walk. Are you ready to actually understand what this means or not?
baldonebear 1 month ago
Comment removed
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@baldonebear
You keep avoiding the term "ego te absolve", which in context does mean 'I forgive you'!
"I forgive(absolve) you" is heresy. A priest can not be Jesus in persona! There is no divinity in a priest, and if there was it would not be of the Lord.
For the first eleven hundred years the church did not need confession which voids the RC churches argument that it is needed.
So why did they start the practice? If I couldn't guess, I think a stack of Ben Franklins could tell me.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
What have I avoided? I have answered you directly each time.
It is you, my friend, who will not answer questions. Even Par 2 from my last posting, which was a re-posting of my post from 3 days prior to that, you have ignored one again. Ego te absolve means I absolve you. Part of what a priest might say is "I absolve you from every bond of excommunication and interdict"
It is restoring us to the Church. Interdict means we are back in communion.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
So, since it is God who alone forgives sins, the priest absolves us from the breaking of communion with the Church.
You do realize in the Early Church that those who were sinning were confronted and not allowed to fellowship until the repented?
Sorry, but the Early Church saw the need for confession and its practice, as we see in the Apostolic and Patristic Fathers writings.
You think its about money? Your ignorance shines.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
The tradition of a need for a priest to here confessions started 1100 years after the fact.
Repentance is needed for sin by the scriptures and never rejected until the RC church removed it from G-d to them.
Part1 of your reply you state "restoring us to the Church", again your language removes G-d from your equations.
Excommunication, the RC church can do this for the church, but nothing to do with the Heavenly Kingdom. Nor sin can be "absolved" by the church.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
I am simply amazed at your choice to remain ignorant.
1. ONLY GOD forgives sins. No one else. I confess sins daily.
2. The Church was established and given authority by Christ himself. Absolution is dealing with the Church community. have you never read Matthew 18?
3. The heavenly kingdom is affected by a person who has known unrepentant sin.
4. It would be a good idea for you to post the sources substantiating your position of 1100 years.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
And still...no answer from you on the two questions.....
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
I will start with no.4 of your post. The answer is a priest.
Ch.18 you should read in context. You read the verses before and the verses after.
The ignorance is yours my friend. I can't believe you point to that verse. Most actually pick a different one. Again why does a priest say "I" if only G-d forgives. And if repentance is enough why would a priest have to recite a specific statement for it be confirmed? "In persona Christi" NOT!
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
Hahahahahahahaa....context is much more than verse before and after.
I am talking about the passage that deals with a brother in sin. I know the context. I was a pastor and bible college instructor for many years, Please do not be so arrogant by assuming.
The text shows the authority of the church to bind and loose. This was a rabbinical practice of decisions: what was allowed or not allowed.
I see you using phrasing that you do not understand.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
Once again...I have answered you in a very detailed manner.
The priest is a representative of Christ and the church. It is by the authority given by Christ to his church that he says this. Have you not read anything that I have posted?
Btw, I am still waiting for your sources, with author and title, for you to substantiate that confession was started 1100 years later.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
HAHaHA?? I see, you are a pick which ever fits your thinking, even if it isn't even close.
As I stated 1100 years came from a priest! Or do you not read. I am not going to print his name on here for everyone to look at! He was to nice as to answer questions for me to do that to him. You have not shown anything that comes close to prove a priest or any man with sin can do what G-d gave to Peter.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Yes, I laughed...literally.
No, I do not "pick" a choose. I know the scriptures. I was a Prot pastor for many years. I understand context. I understand the employment of the textual, historical, cultural and sociological aspects of the scriptures.
I see. So you can not document the source...just as I thought.
For the record, 1100 yeas deals with the phrase Sacrament of Reconciliation.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 2
I gave you a very detailed explanation on the authority of the Church; historically accurate. Thus, your personal perspective matters very little.
Peter was given authority.
The Terms Petros and Petra in the Koine are the same; one is masculine and the other feminine.
They come from the Aramaic, which Jesus spoke, and that word is "Kepha"...in Aramaic, the same word is used for both.
It is where we get the transliteration "Cephas".
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 3
Jesus is establishing leadership with Peter (Cephas) and giving him the title Rock, as Petra and Petros can describe a man who stands firm.
With the giving of the Keys of the Kingdom and the ability to bind and loose, Jesus is employing a Rabbinic practice of giving authority.
As a Protestant, while not accepting the Pope, through research I figured this out.
Allow me to share some Protestant theologians and their take on this.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 4
Donald Carson
Baptist, Trinity Evangelical Seminary
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock”, is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra. Many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 5
John Peter LangeGerman Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun.... The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.
Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 6
DA. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary
Part 1/2
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built....
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 7
DA Hanger
Part 2/2
The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock... seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.
Do you want more??? I have plenty.
Realize, that while these individuals do not accept the Papacy, they know what the text is saying, and its historical substantiation
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
I am not arguing from the point if or if not he is the "rock".
I deny the RC church can inherit this.
Given the early history of the vatican.
The fact that you can't connect Peter's authority to the church shows that your there is only dogma.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
I can not connect it to the Church? How so?
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
All you want to do is say anytime "church" comes up it means the vatican.
There is nothing that proves RC is the church. In fact the bible at every turn rejects catholicism.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 1
1. The bible enforces Catholicism. It is your skewed, warped perception that is under the delusion that they reject.
2. There is overwhelming historical evidence that the CC is the first Church.
3. Church does not mean Vatican. That is yet one more item that continues to show your complete ignorance.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Here are some documented historical sources.
"I desire the Bread of God, the heavenly Bread, the Bread of Life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; I wish the drink of God, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life"
Ignatius of Antioch in AD 107. He was a student of the Apostle John. Do his words sound like your Church?.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 3
Catholic literally means "from the same". In English we translate it as universal,
As Protestant Early Church Historian points out that the word was used to speak of the unity of all the congregations, and as Gnosticism spread, the term was used to describe the true church from the heretics.
The adjective "Roman" was not used until the 11th century, after the political schism of the Eastern and Western Church.
Educate yourself.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Part 4
I realized that I did not add the Historians name. It is JND Kelly.
Other well know Protestant historians that also attest to this are FF Bruce, and Bruce Shelley.
Bruce Shelly's book "Church History in Plain Language" is one of the best on the market. He is a Protestant, but he delivers the history in a non-bias manner...stating facts from the primary sources.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Yours is ignorance. You have refused to answer anything. If its not dogma based off of paganism then you don't like it. BLAH BLAH BLAH , that's all you have said.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
Allow me to be blunt...are you really that foolish? I have answered you in detail, on each point.
What is taking place is that you do not have anything substantial to refute, thus you post as you do.
You simply refuse to accept credible, documented sources.
I know your kind, and it makes me glad that I am not one.
baldonebear 1 month ago
@baldonebear
Like wise. If I had to place dogma over scripture then I feel my soul would be in danger.
What you and most fail is that the church is not a steeple-house.
You avoided any straight answers.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou
I gave you very detailed straight answers. It is not my problem that you will not accept them as such.
Concerning the history of Popes. Yes, there were a handful that were correupt. How does that make the CC not from God based on the abuse of an office?
I think you should read the OT. How many High Priests were corrupt? during the intertestiment period, the High Priesthood went to the highest bidder.
Did it cease to be God ordained? No!
baldonebear 4 weeks ago
@baldonebear
NO! You avoided questions then say that you answered them.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou
What did I not answer????????
If you remember; if you are honest, you did not answer my question on confession. I asked several times, and I even re-posted the original.
I not only answered your questions, I gave you Greek semantics and primary sources to substantiate everything.
What have you given? Your opinion.
baldonebear 4 weeks ago
@baldonebear
I can't remember you answering anything. It was blah blah blah. You gave answers to questions not at hand.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@baldonebear onemark only believes in his own dogmas he creates... example..".the bible is the only authority."
stevesilvia 1 month ago
@stevesilvia
A few make me scratch my head. This is one.
baldonebear 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou It is Christ who gave Peter the Authority, not us. By the mere fact that the Christ is the King and gave the Keys to Peter, shows the authority Christ intended Peter to have. Even as he forgives ours sins, he gave the apostles that authority as well, just as he healed the paraplegic so that you will know men can forgive sin. It is teachings of men that have watered down his word, mainly protestant tradition.
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@wealththinkers
Not arguing that Peter was given the keys.
Show me where they are passed down to men through a popularity vote.
The fact is every example in the bible says covenants are passed in a blood line.
And it is catholic traditions that watered down the "Word" of G-d. They are based solely on paganism. The protestants started out to try to regain true Christianity.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou 1. Are you saying the new covenant is only passed down by blood relations? No, because it wouldn't include the gentiles. Bloodline has nothing to do with covenant, Jesus Blood took care of that. that is why we are all priest in the order of melchizedek 2. They are based on the Traditions handed down by the Apostles, it is Protestants who deny them. 3. From the early writings it is clear that all doctrine or dogma was handed down since the first century.
wealththinkers 1 month ago
Comment removed
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou First of all, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, a timeless and everlasting image. That’s why the image of the rock was chosen. That’s how rocks are. They’re there to stay. Then in Matthew 16 Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have an eternal dimension. He holds the keys to the Kingdom of God and the gates of hell will never prevail against it.
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou cont... Finally, the image of the shepherd, as we have seen, is an eternal one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd. If the rock, the steward, and the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still have been eternal?
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@wealththinkers and finally, the very nature of the Kingdom of David. whereby there were offices held, such as the stewart and it's keys are handed down until Christ comes again. It is also clear that the authority is handed down by the laying on of hands. The authority to bind and loose on earth continues and not ended with the Apostles themselves.
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@wealththinkers
Maybe you should read the old testament. At least the first five books.
I still can't believe you people try to connect these dots the way you do.
Simply looking at the history of the popes should confirm to anyone G-d is not in the RC church. Don't worry I'm not a hypocrite with this, I don't believe G-d dwells or empowers any of them. In fact I believe "the Loretto chapel" was blessed by divinity, only because of the prayers and faith of the people.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou I apologize, but I don't get your answer? The concept of the Kingdom is routed in the Old Testament, especially Isaiah, The Kingdom is eternal, not 1,000 years like many protestants believe. Understanding the Old Testament is the key to understanding the New. And understanding through Jewish eyes, help clarify the New Testament. Maybe you can explain your answer better? Is Christ Divine? Is he God and Man? Is he the 2nd person in the Holy Trinity, One God?
wealththinkers 1 month ago
@wealththinkers
Kings, did G-d really want to give the Hebrews kings? The bible is about kingdoms. Earthly ones and a heavenly one. Which is eternal? And who will be King?
Also what is the "church", needs to be answered. It is not a building nor is it preachers and priests. The church is the embodiment of the Holy Ghost.
Who has the power to remove demons. Anyone who has the Holy Spirit in them.
Cont.
onemarktwoyou 1 month ago
@onemarktwoyou I understand you point now. Partially correct in the sense that the Kingdom is Heaven and is spriritual, but it is also physical, Are you saying that the Kingdom of David was an accident. There are not accidents, it was planned by God. When Christ sent the disciples out he told them to preach that the Kingdom was at hand. He had the authority to give the keys and re-establish it on earth. Read what Christ says about the steward. The kingdom is visible......
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Mt 5:14Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
I never stated Jesus wasn't the embodiment of G-d.
So where you're going with Matt 5:14 I am not sure.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Read above the kingdom is visible. It was lit by the light of Christ into men's hearts and is visible to the world. All God's Glory. The Kingdom is re-established on earth, not be hidden, but to be the city on the hill. How fitting is this after Christ give his law in the beatitudes. Hope that helps.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou 2 Samuel 7:16
And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever.Luke 1:33 And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. No Accident! But the plan of God.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Jewish eyes? Jesus proclaimed himself the "I AM", the punishment for this could have been a stoning. Nowhere did they ever thought that G-d would come to earth as a man. No one ever thought they could lay their eyes on him. His whereabouts were know, his mother was know. They did not understand that for G-d to release us from Adam and Eve's transgressions that G-d needed a sacrifice and it was to great for man himself to do.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou We agree there. Also Mary knew from conception who he is, and it was clear he inherited the Kingdom of his father David. The Keys were his to give to whom he wanted to. And in the Kingdom of David there were office held. Such as the Queen Mother. Why do you think Mary is referred to as the Queen Mother? She is the Mother of God, the King, Our Lord. See why the understanding the Kingdom through the Jews eye is important. We agree!
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Wow I deny mariology completely. But please don't give a lot of verses at once without explanation of how and what dots you are wish to connect. Example 2Samuel 7:16. I believe I understand, but there is a lot that can be connected with that. Please first state what you wish to bring to light so we don't have two different questions between us. Lets wait on mariology, there already is to much ground. There is plenty of time.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou But do you deny Mary is the Virgin Mother of our king? Forget the term mariology, Do you call Mary the Blessed Mother of God? Like the Bible says you should? Luke 1: 48 For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Fair enough if you don't want to talk about it. but what about calling Catholics not Christian? They are the original Chirstians.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Catholics are not the original "Christians", The originals followed Him. In the lands where His feet stood and His words were heard. Those are the first Christians, those were privileged enough to see and here Him.
The reason I don't like mariology is it parallels all the offices of Jesus. And you were going to make a point about something else. I shall await for it.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou The term Catholic is Greek, katholikos. It was well used about the Church in the late 1st century and 2nd Century. Now the Church is Apostolic and started by Christ when he gave the Apostles the power to bind and loose on earth. The first time we have the term in manuscript is from Ignatius of Antioch, where they were first called Christians. Ignatius was a disciple of John the Apostle. Can't get any closer than that. cont....
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou I would then argue that the original Christians are in existence today via apostolic tradition. These Apostle have transferred not only there power to share in the ministry of reconciliation to all believers but also the authority through Christ and his Church to bind and loose, to forgive sin. Read John's Gospel, when Jesus breathed on them they received this power. The original Christians are alive today in Heaven and share a communion with us on earth.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou 22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: 23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
I believe you copied from the KJV.
I could simply reply"For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother." Which holds my belief that the Holy Spirit is the church and all that dwell in it is his kingdom. Also Christians, namely the RC has warped binding and loosening. It meant only what was acceptable, not against God's laws. Its power is great, but very limit to what christians think.
CONT.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou you are distorting that it is not what scripture says. The power to forgive sin and bind and loose is what is. nothing less. That verse doesn't say what you want it to say. yes, the the Holy Spirit is part of the Church, which is the Kingdom on earth, That is the invisible part, The people are the visible. You diving into other issues too. Maybe we should start with some basics. Do you believe That Christ is Divine, and Both God and man?
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Yes, the KJV, is acceptable in a sense that there is a high level of accuracy when compared to the DRA. Is the KJV what you like to use?
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
CONT.
Again you have placed so much out that the scope to argue can't be done reasonably.
Also I do believe Mary gave birth to Jesus and she was blessed.But lets argue over one thing at a time. apostolic tradition alone is a very large subject. Peter as the rock is a completely different range.Related yes, but the footings are not the same as the walls and floors.Since we are not face to face lets keep it simple so we don't get confused what the other has to say.
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou you are right, we can have a better discussion if we keep it basic for now, one thing at a time. I already asked one basic question. here is the second one, Do you believe that Christ is one with the Father and Holy Spirit? And that Christ is not any other entity such as an archangel?
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
What you are asking, am I a JW or a Mormon? No. I believe that Jesus is divine, he is the embodiment of G-d. I do not believe in the trinity. I do not believe G-d is three. So yes I believe the Lord , Jesus , and the Holy Spirit is one. What I deny is that they are three. But the issue, I remind you, is RC church. If you wish to have the common ground that the trinity is part of it, I shall accept. I think I see you are going to use Jesus' divinity to start with?
onemarktwoyou 4 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Ok hold on here, Do you believe in One God? Is Christ God?, Is The Father God? Is the Holy Spirit God? Explain How you can only except 2 of the three? Because quite frankly I would say the minimum to be considered a Christian is to except Christ and Divine , One with the Father and Holy Ghost. All those who deny are not Christian. Bare minimum!
wealththinkers 4 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
The trinity was not the question at hand. I said G-d was embodied in a man and born to a virgin.
The triune beliefs encompassed the surrounding areas of the Greek and Semitic lands.
Example: Plato wrote 300 b.c. about Greek triune god(s).
Plato's first term for the Trinity was in Greek 1. To Agathon, the supreme God or Father. 2. The Logos, which is the Greek term for the Word. And, 3. Psyche, which the Greek Lexicon defines to mean "soul, spirit or ghost".
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Forget Plato, We agree on the incarnation, Christ being fully God and Fully Man. good.,,, Now is Christ one with the Father, or not? Is the the Holy Spirit God? Do you believe in One God? Now come on this is very strait forward, and don't bring up topics that are outside of scripture, unless you deny sola scriptura. You wanted to keep this simple. A yes or no answer to these question with simple followup would be desirable.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou cont from below... Here I will answer first, 1 one with the father, yes 2 Holy Spirit God, yes 3 ONe God , yes, What part of this don't you agree with if the answer is no? Remember you asked me to stay on one subject, and if I do it, please honor your own request. Forget Plato!
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Forget Plato and I will assume all the other examples as well? Okay.
But, I am confused as to who is jumping. Mariology now the trinity. I thought the question was RC church as Peter's rock? You wanted to argue over the authority of the RC church.
I will make this simple. You believe in the trinity where three parts are one. I believe one god who is G-d, but no separation.
If you want to argue the trinity from the bible alone, you have an uphill battle.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Who said there was a separation? They are one! What happened to the answer to the specific question? I answered yes, yes and yes. Now what say you? However, our Lord Christ was separated from the Father on this earth, even though he is one with the Father, isn't that true? how then could Christ not know the time and place of the end? Yea, I think we should discuss it. Based on what you say we should just use the word God, not christ, the father, or Spirit
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou First let's say this was huge argument in the early church, but it is a mystery, and the fact is that we a mere men can never really fully understand God. But understand this those that denied the trinity, also denied the incarnation, the two are linked together. The trinity is a term not used in the bible to describe the relationship of the father, Son, and Spirit. They God but scriptue is clear that they are always together, but they are One and the same..
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou cont.. you are basically saying that you believe they are one, but they do not have the ability to separate when needed. And from scripture is is clear that they do separate. Yet, only One God.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
You're going to argue against Jesus' divinity with this approach.
You should have been taught 'that Jesus' man side didn't know what his G-d side knew.' That would be an argument for either of our view points. I could bring up that you believe Jesus existed from the beginning. That G-d knows what was and what will be. Thus Jesus on earth should have known what the future would bring.
---He came to earth as a man, to die as a man.
cont.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou this point is nuts, Doesn't scripture say He is God with us? How did he know the thoughts and hearts of People? He was God became flesh. Why did he pray to the Father? Because when he was separated from the Father, However, he is still one with the Father. This is a truth in scripture. Now you say he did not know his God side? False. How could he say this? If he did not know? cont.. above
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou 56Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.
So much for him not knowing his God side.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Cont.
I am not sure if you are denying God's power to be absolute.
Lets say I am sitting and writing a letter. I reach over and grab a tissue to blow my nose. At the same time my one foot is scratching the other. I do not stop writing. Am I three then? Or do I have the ability to do more than one task at a time.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou What happened to answering the simple three questions? This is not even close, you are comparing yourself to God? You are having a tough time saying yes to those three questions. How bout this one Did Christ choose to do the will of the Father?
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Which questions? You're hopping around more than a crack head running from a cop.
Are you back to the RC thing or trinity?
Just paste the questions back so we can get started.
I answered my opinion on the trinity. So what questions are left on that subject, or are we back to the RC thing?
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@onemarktwoyou No, I am being strait forward. Here is what I said, "Here I will answer first, 1 one with the father, yes 2 Holy Spirit God, yes 3 ONe God , yes, What part of this don't you agree with if the answer is no?" My answer is yes, yes and yes, What is stopping you from agreeing with me here? So far we agree that there is one God and we disagree that they can be separated, is that correct? yes or no. Stop reading into these simple questions, cover details later.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou I haven;t received an answer yet and I have a feeling you are unwilling to answer directly. Ok, try this, Was Christ separated from the Father at times? Was he separated from the Holy Spirit at time? I will glad to answer first, Yes and Yes. Your turn.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Answer was no, no, and no.
You never responded on my reply to Matt24:36. Did you agree with it? That the physical shell didn't know the vast knowledge of the spirit that dwelt in it? Thus Jesus was noted to have said in Matt27:46,"Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" I believe on this we should agree. Just want to know what if any common ground we have. If you can be so kind as to give me feed-back so I know where we stand.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Holy Macaroni! So you are saying Christ is not one with the Father!, 2 The Holy Spirit is not God, 3 You believe in more than one God.,,, Are you really saying that or do not understand the question? with regard to "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" He was forsaken, abandoned. By God The Father! Now where in the Bible does it say the physical shell, did not know the vast knowledge of the spirit? This basically denies Christ being God in the Flesh. Fully God! cont.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers First of all, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all referred to as God. 2. There is only one God. The Scripture is clear, anything taught to the contrary is False. Let's start with Christ, Is he not the word that existed in the beginning, and became flesh and dwelt amoung us. Yes or No.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
??? Do read anything in context?
I said Jesus was G-d how many times? Each time you completely twist it.
You change the subject until you think you have one you are comfortable with arguing about. In all manner you have not done nothing but marched to a tune that you have been given my man sinful nature.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Then why did you answer NO, NO, NO?
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou You are saying I am giving you the run around, but you apparently are not willing to give a simple answer. Give it one more try here. Jesus is God, OK we agree, Now is the Father God? Is the Holy Spirit God? Is there One God? My answer is Yes, Yes, and Yes. Now, you already answered no to question 2 and 3 unless you didn't understand the question. It is a simple question, now give me a simple answer please.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
When did I say G-d and holy spirit wasn't G-d?
I have said Jesus was G_d, the Father was G_d, and the Holy Spirit was G_d.
On all these we agree. Except you believe(per the catholic doctrine) that G-d is 3-in-1, while I believe He is 1-in-1.
Are you like me a father, a brother, and an uncle? Three different titles for the same person. I believe the trinity removes the absolute power of G-d, and is an attempted to humanize Him.
cont.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou You said no, you must not of understood, It was a simple direct question but I think you trying to read into everything with out giving me a yes or a no. Ok I'm glad we agree Holy Spirit is God, and the Father is God. Ok let me read the rest of comments here.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
cont.
As with Marcian of pontus, early pagan converts had a hard time with connecting G-d from the old and new testaments. How could they be so different? It was a lot easier to say that they had two natures than to ask why was Jesus needed, or why was His death was needed. In fact it was a lot easier for them to incorporate the triune accepted belief of the pagan's that surrounded them. They understood the concept and made it easier to convert pagans.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou hardly easier, We know why his sacrifice was needed because Man could not keep from sin. and that God desires a relationship with us. The problem here is you are trying to compare finite being with infinite being. It doesn't work. Sure I am an uncle, father, husband, son. but I have no power to separate myself, and still be one. While God is not limited to the finite material world. It is clear from the Gospel that Jesus is God, and separated from the Father
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Scripture is Clear Christ is God from the moment of conception, and yet we don't see the Father, Holy Spirit, together until his baptism. But we know they were together before creation, as Genesis refers to God in the plural. So really how can you come to the conclusion of God being One with titles rather than the triune God. I really like to hear you backing this in scripture? Also let me know if you follow sola scriptura and fide?
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
El_him first part of Gensis1:1? Plural? NO! Majestic yes. Note to be plural you need any of the following, a plural suffix; a plural verb; or a plural adjective. In this case it is singular.
In Exodus 7:1; note the usage of El_him here. This shows a majestic usage.
Note; Exodus 20:3 it is in the plural(gods).
Also "master" Strong's #113 Isaiah 19:4. The word "masters" is a majestic for the king. While G-d's usage "master" is singular. Why not plural for G-d?CONT
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
Cont.
I showed the usage of El_him in Genesis 1:1 is majestic. Confirmed the usage by the term with Moses Exodus 7:1. Showed the usage of plural in Exodus 20:3 in the ten commandments. Showed another place where a king is referred in a majestic while in the same verse G-d was described in a singular. Yes majestic uses did exist. This shows that most preachers who talk about this didn't listen to the right person(s).
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Elohim in its plural form points to the Triune Godhead and denotes God’s unlimited power. Though there are several examples in Scripture where Elohim is used as a singular (Exodus 7:1, Psalm 45:6), this does not make null and void the fact that Elohim is mostly used as a plural. The Bible clearly states refers to three persons as One God. Show me where it says they are not? cont. above.....
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou 1 Jn 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. This is taken from the protestant KJV. Your view is not only incorrect but in the minority when it comes to the interpretation of the Bible, whether Protestant or Catholic. The Church Fathers argued it and the Holy Spirit clearly guided the outcome.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
I showed that El_him was singular, including Exodus 7:1 where it was implied to Moses. You stated "Elohim is mostly used as a plural". Examine where El_him is used in the plural. I gave the example of exodus 20:3; "no other 'gods' before me". I also showed you that a majestic was also used in another area to show that it was a practice that was used.
You are arguing from silence when you asked "show me where it says he is not".
cont.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
cont.
Does G_d have to say he ISN'T three? It does not say he is three.
If you have studied 1John5:7, then you'd know it is considered an addition. Some bibles place it in brackets while others omit it and some place footnotes to said verse. Does sola scriptura mean accepting 100% that the bible is perfect? Or could it mean everything is to be balanced to scripture?
cont cont.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou are kidding? I just gave you a verse that is plain as day. You need to read that over again. 1 Jn 5:7 There is not mistaking it. Either you don't believe in scripture, or your making things up.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
cont. cont.
I personally fall from the pure thought and acknowledge that there was early heretics that added and removed G-d's words. I give the example of Erasmus while translating the story of the adulteress(wasn't his idea). Even so I would claim they are titles in Heaven for the same person. As the ending of each verse as with 5:8.
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Mostly later especially the 7 books that Christ quoted from.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou So then obviously you don't baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost? All you need to do is say God, is that your practice? Christ and Father are one is that correct, and yet Christ was separated from the Father. Scripture is clear and yet you deny it.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou cont. There is not need to make a distinction, unless they are distinct persons. Christ is baptized, The Holy Spirit comes in the form of a dove, and we here the Fathers voice. By your logic, not held by any legitimate Christian, it would have said God was there, or Yahweh was there. There is not need to point to the separate names if your theory is correct.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou God has communicated to men truly though not exhaustively. Moses expressed this to us in Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law.”
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou Peter traces salvation to the triunal source: ‘destined by God the Father and sanctified by the Spirit for obedience to Jesus Christ’ (1 Pet. 1:2). The apostolic benediction: ‘The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all’ (2 Cor. 13:14), sums up apostolic teaching, interprets the deeper meaning of the Trinity, the saving grace of the Son access to love of the Father and to communion of the Spirit.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou The Trinity consists of three Persons (Genesis 1:1, 26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8, 48:16, 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17, 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14). In Genesis 1:1, the Hebrew plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for “us” is used. cont.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou cont. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun “us” are plural forms, definitely referring in the Hebrew language to more than two. While this is not an explicit argument for the Trinity, it does denote the aspect of plurality in God. The Hebrew word for "God," "Elohim," definitely allows for the Trinity. To suggest that the only use is one of majestic is false.
wealththinkers 3 weeks ago
@wealththinkers
1)You really don't understand the Hebrew language do you? I will state it again, a plural noun must have; a plural suffix, a plural verb, a plural adjective. It is singular in the sentence of Genesis 1:1. It is plural form in exodus 20:3 because it has a plural adjective or verb which makes it so. How can you argue if a sentence in Hebrew is plural or singular if you don't even understand what besides the ending of a word makes it so?
onemarktwoyou 3 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou: I think u have not understood!
Would the plural noun have a plural verb it would be not special. But because ELOHIM is PLURAL and CREATES is singular makes it specials.
In the Beginning GODS (Plural FORM) created (SINGULAR VERB) exactly what the Trinity is: ONE GOD but THREE PERSONS.
God is Plural but when He acts - HE IS SINGULAR because GOD IS ONE (ECHAD)
adamantis4657 2 weeks ago
@adamantis4657
1)
You didn't examine my argument with use of El_him. You should study the verses I noted.
I could show you singular uses of "Echad" in the bible. But I think the context needs to be looked at first. Look at Deu. 6:4(I assume this is what you quoted). Deu. ch.5 is a listing of the 10 commandments. Deu.6:14 "no other gods. Why did 6:4 state this here and what was meant by it.
It was letting the Israelites know who G-d was. In context to who the gods of the area was.
onemarktwoyou 2 weeks ago
@onemarktwoyou: ECHAD
In Genesis it states: When a man and a women comes together - they are ONE (ECHAD) FLesh. So two can be ONE.
Is not the confession of Israel:
O HEAR ISRAEL thy GOD the LORD IS ECHAD (ONE) GOD.
Many Rabbis have seen that it is a confession of the Trinity: GOD LORD GOD and ONE.
Christ said: I AND THE FATHER ARE ECHAD ONE
adamantis4657 2 weeks ago
@adamantis4657
1)
You did not look at my comments with El_him!
Genesis 1:1 singular plural.
Exodus 20:3 plural.
NOTE the usage of Exodus 7:1 when Moses became an Elohim to pharaoh. This also is a singular plural. It is not denoting G_d, but it is referring to Moses as a god to respect to pharaoh. So this shows it out of context to G_d.
Isaiah 19:4 the term 'masters' was also a singular plural for 'a' king, but a singular noun for G-d in this same verse.
onemarktwoyou 2 weeks ago