[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Pray to The Father for understanding, and then think about these things:
[/quote]
I did, he’s been telling me for the past 22 years that the true Church is the Church founded by Jesus on the Apostles and Jesus as the cornerstone. Also known as the Catholic Church.[/quote]Way to hijack the thread Christopher. Here we’ve been on topic for days with JP’s total inability to stay on topic and here you go off topic about the Catholic(big C) church again.
[/quote]
Except, this is exactly on topic. This thread is about bad religion. Well, specifically a book called bad religion.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
It’s people like you, who have rejected the teachings of the church [the body of Christ][/quote]
That’s called disobedience. A sin if I remember.[/quote]
Keep your words out of my quotes. The Catholic church is not the body of Christ, it is the body of the Beast.[/quote]
Actually, the Church is the body of Christ. The orthodox and the Church were nicknamed Catholic sometime before 107 AD when Ignatius of Antioch called the one Church, the Catholic Church.
The true Church is the body of Christ. The true church needs no buildings, territories, or cities. It is simply the followers of the Truth of the Father as spoken through Christ.
The Catholic church puts the words of Paul before those of Christ. Period. There is no refuting this simple fact. I have already pointed out how the words and actions of Paul are contradictory to Christ’s teachings.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The true Church is the body of Christ. The true church needs no buildings, territories, or cities. It is simply the followers of the Truth of the Father as spoken through Christ.
The Catholic church puts the words of Paul before those of Christ. Period. There is no refuting this simple fact. I have already pointed out how the words and actions of Paul are contradictory to Christ’s teachings.[/quote]
Refuting this ‘simple’ fact…I think you confused the words fact and opinion. And, I can refute it because it’s not true.
And, you’re making a false dichotomy. The true Church is the Catholic Church. That’s a fact and you can try and "refute’ that fact, but you’re wrong.
Second I’d love to see you prove that Paul is put above Jesus. And, I’d love to see how Paul goes against Christ.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
The true Church is the body of Christ. The true church needs no buildings, territories, or cities. It is simply the followers of the Truth of the Father as spoken through Christ.
The Catholic church puts the words of Paul before those of Christ. Period. There is no refuting this simple fact. I have already pointed out how the words and actions of Paul are contradictory to Christ’s teachings.[/quote]
Refuting this ‘simple’ fact…I think you confused the words fact and opinion. And, I can refute it because it’s not true.
And, you’re making a false dichotomy. The true Church is the Catholic Church. That’s a fact and you can try and "refute’ that fact, but you’re wrong.
Second I’d love to see you prove that Paul is put above Jesus. And, I’d love to see how Paul goes against Christ.
[/quote]
I have been out all day and am going to dinner with my wife, so I won’t be back until later. For now, I’ll just say - Chris, you’ve been gone a few days. He put up his supposed evidence (i.e., gross misinterpretations) of Paul’s words in several earlier posts. It’s only courteous that you read those and not ask him to repeat EVERYTHING he has already said. That wouldn’t be fair.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
as best I can ascertain from history you should avoid anyone that tells you their church is the “true” anything…[/quote]
I disagree. If you look at history, you can draw a lot of straight lines from the church to the Antichrist.
Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast and the description of the ‘different horn’ and John’s vision of the second beast describe the church to a T.
[quote]storey420 wrote:
as best I can ascertain from history you should avoid anyone that tells you their church is the “true” anything…[/quote]
I disagree. If you look at history, you can draw a lot of straight lines from the church to the Antichrist.
Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast and the description of the ‘different horn’ and John’s vision of the second beast describe the church to a T.[/quote]
[quote]storey420 wrote:
as best I can ascertain from history you should avoid anyone that tells you their church is the “true” anything…[/quote]
I disagree. If you look at history, you can draw a lot of straight lines from the church to the Antichrist.
Daniel’s vision of the fourth beast and the description of the ‘different horn’ and John’s vision of the second beast describe the church to a T.[/quote]
Please draw these lines.[/quote][quote]KingKai25 wrote:<<< I have been out all day and am going to dinner with my wife, so I won’t be back until later. For now, I’ll just say - Chris, you’ve been gone a few days. He put up his supposed evidence (i.e., gross misinterpretations) of Paul’s words in several earlier posts. It’s only courteous that you read those and not ask him to repeat EVERYTHING he has already said. That wouldn’t be fair. [/quote]
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
He said he revealed himself as God Almighty, but not his name Yahweh. He also never refers to himself as The Father.
The apostle John said that “The One and Only Son- the One who is at the Father’s side- He has revealed Him”. One might argue that it was Jesus that Jacob wrestled, but most texts actually read “the only begotten Son, who is at the Father’s side”, which denotes that The Father was revealed by Christ after He was born on Earth.[/quote]
God Almighty is a title, not a name. Yahweh is God’s name. You seem to think it’s irrelevant how the original human author (as opposed to the divine one - a distinction you are once again stealing from Christian theology, not Scripture) and the original recipients would have understood Gen. 32:29, but in this case, it pertains DIRECTLY to the meaning of the passage. The denizens of the ancient Near Eastern believed that knowing the name of a god/demon/spirit gave you power over that being. Thus, the refusal of the being who wrestles with Jacob to give his name indicates nothing other than a refusal to allow Jacob that kind of control over him. In fact, that is what is so amazing about Yahweh sharing his name with the Israelites - by doing so, he further pledges himself to be there God, to answer those who call upon him (with certain stipulations, of course).
As far as your quotation of John 1:18 is concerned, you are mistaken.
You claim that "more texts actually read “the only begotten Son” than read “The one and only Son.” I can only assume you mean more manuscripts. However, this claim is completely false - this is another instance where knowledge of Greek would keep you from making mistakes, because the two translations don’t reflect two different manuscripts; rather, those are two translations of the very same word, the word monogenes. And the fact is that “one and only” is a better translation than “only begotten” - in every use of the adjective monogenes in the Septuagint and the New Testament, the word clearly denotes “the only one” or “alone.” It really doesn’t have much to do with someone’s status as “begotten” (i.e., given a physical form); even when monogenes is applied to children in the NT and LXX, it only highlights there status as “the only children of X.” That’s why the word shows up in Psalm 21:21 LXX (X) (Ps. 21:20 in the MT) in the Psalmist’s description of his own life - “deliver my soul from the sword and my only (monogenes) life from the power of the dog.” “Only begotten” is the translation derived from the KJV (and before it, the Vulgate), which for the hundredth time is highly misleading.
And just in case you meant translations rather than manuscripts, that’s false too - most translations interpret is as “one and only” or “only”, including all the most up-to-date translations.
Your analogy here is faulty. First of all, it holds only in the BROADEST of senses - you claim that just as God allowed Job to be afflicted, God allowed the church to be afflicted. There’s a difference, however, in that the book of Job is very careful to keep God from getting his hands dirty. In Job, Satan does all the work; God only ALLOWS Job to suffer and be deceived. But you said (for the umpteenth time) that “the Father” wrote the whole bible through the hands of men, which means that if “the Father” is the ultimate author of the WHOLE BIBLE, and the vast majority of the Bible deceives (i.e., was penned largely by the hands of the deceived, proclaims falsehoods, and thus deceives), then “the Father” is DIRECTLY responsible for the deception. He, in fact, orchestrated the whole. So either “the Father” didn’t write the WHOLE BIBLE and Satan did, OR “the Father” wrote the WHOLE BIBLE and actively deceived everyone.
Secondly, the analogy fails on all the key particulars. In Job, God ALLOWS Job to suffer at the hands of Satan in order to TEST JOB’s faithfulness, and God rewards JOB in the end. In Paul’s case (as you laid it out in the first post of your argument - if you wish to take back what you said at the beginning based on new revelations since, feel free to do so), God ACTIVELY BLINDS Paul in order to WARN (not TEST) the APOSTLES (not PAUL), and then God decides… to reward PAUL, the DECEIVER, by giving him back his sight? That’s NOT an analogue situation. It’s one thing for God to allow someone’s suffering to test that person; it’s a different story when God causes one person’s suffering as a warning to someone else.
And that brings me to the third problem. You have argued several times that Jesus is a healer, not an afflicter, and thus that blinding Paul is not in Christ’s character. However, you have NOT provided evidence that confirms your hypothesis that such actions would be out of Christ’s character. Did he not violently drive the money changers out of the temple (Matt. 21:12-13)? Did God not strike Ananias and Sapphira DEAD (this is BEFORE Paul ever “infiltrated and deceived” the church) simply for lying about whether or not they gave the entire amount of money they received for selling some land (Acts 5:1-11)? Was a man not born blind under the providence of God simply so that God could heal him (John 9:1-3)? Unless you are going to deny that Jesus is God… Even then I can still say that, since Jesus only and perfectly reflected the character of God, what God would do, Jesus would do too.
As for your strange quotes from Job 41:3 and 41:34, YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO CONTEXT. Seriously, man. Who is God talking about in that passage? Paul? NO - LEVIATHAN (41:1), one of the monsters the ancient Near Easterners believed swam in the endless oceans of chaos surrounding the world.
Or do you not need to pay attention to context because God gave you more special revelation? In that case, you should be able to understand why your arguments are unconvincing - they are all based on YOUR claims to authority, not on any sort of logical, coherent reading of texts. That’s the real issue, Jay - authority. On what grounds should I believe YOU? If ALL the passages “the Father” shows you must be taken out of context to mean what you claim they mean, then you have NO WAY of convincing another thinking human being. They just have to trust that YOU are the prophet of a new age, because your interpretations require the suspension of all logical interpretive tools.
Do you understand the irony here? Do you understand that you are using every resource available to you to argue against the very thing you claim to believe?
The Bible is the tale about how the Devil has fooled the world into worshiping him instead of the Father; and even when Christ, the Saviour and Revealer, the Word of Truth, tried to warn us we still didn’t listen.
I am no prophet. I have no authority. I never claimed either of these things. I am simply trying to share what I understand.
The bible is the divinely revealed proclamation of the all powerful, all victorious, all triumphant, all sovereign and majestic God who IS love and LORD in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself. The devil, along with everyONE and everyTHING else is an instrument to that end. Man is allowed to participate in bringing much glory to this God by his being brought from death to life, darkness to light, in defeat of all of this God’s enemies declaring Him to be King and Lord of all that is.
You don’t seem like a deliberately malicious guy JP, but the bottom line is, you simply do not know this God or His Word. Written or living. (though the written Word certainly lives as well)
Are you ultimiatly saying ALL Catholics are going to Hell or sumthin’?
Luther was no Saint either, and he’s responsible for fragmenting Christainty
into Thousands of Denominations, each one claiming to have a corner on the Truth.
Then again, What IS Truth?
I’m sure when Jesus, Paul Or John said something, they meant it in one way,
and not in thousands of different ways.
Confusing, ain’t it?
[quote]storey420 wrote:
as best I can ascertain from history you should avoid anyone that tells you their church is the “true” anything…[/quote]
Lol. So, because some aren’t true, all aren’t true? [/quote]
Yeah that is the point. The earth is compromised of many decomposed bodies of men murdered, tortured, and otherwise in the name of their “true” church and/or the victim of the ideology of someone else’s. Anyone that goes on about how they got it right and their church is the “true” one seems to be missing the point of God’s message to me.
