I caught my co-worker reading a Jehova witness book which explains how to understand the bible. He said its good reading but he does not believe anything that they write cause they twists the words to their liking. I asked " What did he mean by that?"
He said in this book it says that God created Jesus Christ and he said he did not create Jesus Christ. He said that God was Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit.
My opinion is that God is Jesus Christ Father as Jesus Christ is his son. So is the Holy Spirit God too or is God and Jesus Christ the Holy Spirit. I would like your opinion on this matter. I am an open minded person.
PARATED2K POSTS:
KFC posts:
Wait a minute, KFC...not so fast....is that what Parated2k said?
Note the highlighted.
In other discussions, Parated2k has said that Jesus is a God....and here, though not in those exact words, is exactly what he has written here.
I know you know there is a big difference between saying "Jesus is God" and "Jesus is a God."
parated2K posts:
kfc posts:
Your discussion about "Jehovah God" brought me back to Suhay's opening statement...
I always thought that the term "Jehovah God" came from the Jehovah Witnesses'.
In the Old Testament, the name of God held most sacred among the Jews during their priest and Temple days, was JHVH designated as a the tetragramon by Josephus. It was uttered once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kipper day and when he offered amale lamb for sacrifice, as an atonement for the sins of Isreal. Individual Jews were forbidden to utter the sacred JHVH.
As far as the term or word "Jehovah", it originated in the 1500s from Petrus Galtinus who got that by punctuating JHVH with vowels creating a hybrid word, Je-Ho-Vah. Which let's be crystal clear....is not the Hebrew lost name of the God of ancient Isreal.
But what do we know for sure....from Exodus 3:14, the most exact and comprehensive name of God is "I AM WHO AM".
The meaning of "I AM WHO AM" is I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, infinite, without beginning,end or change, and the source of all other beings.
Scripture also tells us that "I AM WHO AM" is the term by which Jesus designated Himself when He told the Jews of His existence before Abraham was born. So, there you have it.
God is "I AM WHO AM" and Jesus said He is "I AM WHO AM".
Do the math, ah er, do the language....
That is true. (Except that the name is not really "lost".)
This seems odd to me given that there are dozens of normal Hebrew names that contain the name.
Lulapilgrim, so take what you said and reconcile it with the fact that Jesus Christ also said things like, "not me, be Him who sent me" and prayed to The Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, and above all else, cried out on the cross, "My God My God Why hath thou forsaken me"?
The Holy Bible is ours to understand. It isn't a book of mysteries meant to be contradictory or confusing. If we find it contradictions or confusions it is because we lack understanding.
For us to understand the nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, we can't pick and choose what scriptures support our "undestanding" and ignore the ones that don't. Through the Holy Bible, God wasn't us to understand His messages and His will for us. He wanted us to know Him through the words of scripture, through prayer and through the gift of the Holy Ghost.
So, if you don't think Jesus and The Father are separate, why do you think Jesus said so many things that showed them as separate?
Please explain your understanding of how Christ could forsake Himself. I don't ask this to be facetious or to challenge your beleifs, I ask to better understand where you are coming from with your belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.
I said that because the ancient Hebrew language was "lost" in that it was no longer spoken or read by Jews. That's why the Hebrew Bible had to be translated into the Greek Septuagint during the thrid century before the Christian era.
What I said is that God revealed that He is One, not three Gods and that Catholics believe in but One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; but that He functions as Three distinct Persons, ----Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
I also quoted the Scriptural passage in which we learn that with God all things are possible. In theological language, God is One Divine Being possessing One Divine Nature as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.
God the Father possesses a Divine Nature. Jesus, the Christ, in virtue of His Divine Nature possessed in union with and equally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit. Jesus is not only the Eternal Son of God; He is God the Eternal Son.
We cannot take a verse or passage from here or there and conclude that Jesus and the Father are separate Gods. The Blessed Trinity permeates the NT. When the whole Scripture is taken into account, we can come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.
This is found in St.Matt. 27: 46. It, as the other passages, do not prove that Christ is a separate God from God the Father.
In light of the Trinity, how do we understand St.John 14:28, when Christ said, "The Father is greater than I"?
Here, the Eternal Son of God after the Incarnation, possesses two natures, the uncreated Divine Nature (that I've described above) and the human nature born of the Virgin Mary. When Christ said, "I and the Father are one", He referred to His Divine Nature. When He said, "The Father is greater than I" He referred to the human nature.
All those expressions that Christ said: for example, "I came to do the will of the MY Father." or "The words I speak are not mine, but His that sent Me", were proper to Christ in His Mission on earth and in the virtue of His human nature in which He fulfilled that mission. And interestingly, they do not exclude Christ's Divine Nature, nor His claim to be God.
Parated2k posts:
Remember God is Infinitely and Perfectly Just. And remember too, that after crying out these words, Christ died.
Since mankind had forsaken God by sin, it was Perfect Justice that mankind should be forsaken by God. But the Eternal Son of God took a human nature in which to expiate man's sin. On the Cross, ladened with the sins of the world, He allowed Himself to experience the bitter sense of dereliction by God, therefore, from the human point of view, He cried "My God, My God, Why hath Thou forsaken me"? This sense of dereliction and anguish ended from the confidence in our Lord's later words, "Father into Thy hands I commend My Spirit."
This was an experience Christ went through in His human nature and it had to be. God could have exercised His Mercy only and condoned our sins without extracting expiation on the part of the human race. But if God wished to satisfy the claims of Perfect Justice even while exercising His mercy, the the Incarnation and death of Christ were necessary. Jesus freely chose to offer Himself in sacrifice (as the Lamb of God), and that sacrifice was the logical necessity consequent upon His choice.
Perfect Justice can only be satisfied by Perfect Atonement. Christ's sacrifice was not purely a purely human sacrifice. The atonement was made by God becasue the Person, whose human nature was nailed to the Cross was God. The Person, and not the nature under the control of that Person, is the terminus of attribution. The human nature which who was nailed to the Cross was His Who was and is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. What's that mean? Well, the sacrifice though directly involving the death of human nature, derived its dignity from the Person to whom it belonged. It was therefore, an atonement of infinite value derived from the infinite dignity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.
One may or may not agree with my explanation, I say my, but really mean the Catholic Church's explanation.
The Hebrew language was always spoken in religious ceremonies and in trade world-wide during the last 2000 years. Every Jew also learns (and traditionally learned) how to read it.
The Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek so that non-Jews could read it. The Jewish vernacular at the time was not Greek but Aramaic.
Well let's go over what we know Scripture does say.
1. God is one (shema). There are not three gods.
2. Jesus is God.
3. Jesus and the Father are not the same
4. The Holy Spirit is also God and is not the same as either the Father or The Son.
The way these facts were put together was thru the doctrine of the Trinity. The actual word didn't come into being until about 200 A.D. first coined by Tertullian. The core of this teaching is a mystery so any human attempt to come to terms with this teaching is beyong us. Try as we will we can never completely understand the divine depth of this truth.
The NT does not give us a clear explanation but does give us data which was later used to make an explanation of how there can be three beings but only one God. The one God is the bottom line.
We need to understand that not all of God became incarnate. The Father did not become incarnate in Jesus. This is the data which the NT gives us but it does not tell us how to explain it. We have facts, but not a theory to explain the facts.
Hey Leauki...tried to sign up today for a learn to read Hebrew class but didn't work out. Ended up signing up for dance lessons instead. Going to learn the Foxtrot and Cha Cha along with other dances. Should be fun.
There are different ways to get closer to G-d.
Lulapilgrim: The more you write, the more I am convinced that The Father, Jesus Christ and The Holy Ghost are one in purpose and mission, but separate in being. Christ cried out on the cross because, for the first time in Jesus' existence, The Father was not there for Him. I understand that you accept the Nicean Creed, to reject it would be to reject Catholicism at its core. However, the Nicean creed was the result of a large group of very learned and spiritual men who disagreed constantly throughout the time the council was convened. Many voted against the doctrine of the Trinity, but of course, many more voted to include it in the creed. Were the Catholic leaders who voted against it any less "Catholic" or spiritual than those who voted for it? Since they did vote on it, would it mean that Catholics were to accept the doctrine of the Godhead instead?
Of course, that requires nothing but speculation since the vote obviously went the way it did. In good form, the entire council did put on a "united front", and accepted the doctrine as resolved. I would expect, any Catholic to preach the doctrine of the Trinity, as it is the proper thing for Catholics to do. If a person claiming to be Catholic couldn't accept the doctrine, I'd say their heart is not in the church in the first place.
However, it is a doctrine that was decided by popular vote. As we've demonstrated, the scriptures can be used to back both doctrines, but since they are mutually exclusive, both can't be true. However, any apparent contradiction in the Holy Bible is from our own lack of understanding, not the Bible's lack of truth.
Lula posts: 14
lula posts: 25
LULA POSTS 26
#50
#51
Really? Hmmmm...interesting....I thought I was clear.
Well, just to be clear...In God there are three Persons in one Divine Essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, really distinct, equal, and of one substance. The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Father and the Son.
The dogma of the Trinity was revealed by Jesus Christ Who alone could teach us concerning the intimate life of God. St.Matt. 11:27. It is taught throughout the New testament, and has been handed down together with the INcarnation, by the Catholic Chruch's Aposotlic Divine Tradition as a doctrine which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.
The Trinity is set forth explicitly in the Christian Baptismal formula given by Christ, and handed down by the Apostles and their legitimate successors as per the Book of Acts. Therefore the Trinity was known as early as the time of Christ and His Apostles and their successors, and in all the early Fathers especially of the 3rd and 4th centuries when the doctrine was denied and attacked from every possible viewpoint.
Hence, the Council set the doctrine once for all.
Yes, the Catholic Chruch at the Nicean Council in 325 defined the Christian doctrine of the Blessed Trinity.
In order to adequately answer your question, we must back up to the first Catholic Council...the Council of Jerusalem 49 AD, as recounted in the Book of Acts chapter 15; 16:4.
The Councils are part of Apostolic Sacred Tradition and note the similiarities and what takes place.
There, too, at the Council of Jerusalem, was a group of learned and spiritual men (v. 6 tells us they were the Apostles and the ancients) to discuss a controversery that had been raised. The question at issue was whether the Gentiles were bound to obey the Mosaic Law. Saints Paul, Barnabas, James and the rest were present as teachers and judges, just as Bishops were present at the later Church Councils...as St. Peter was the head and abiter, so was the Pope at the time of the Nicean Council.
St.Peter spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly declaring that the Gentile converts were not bound by the Mosaic Law. He claimed to exercise authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles. v. 7, and he severely rebuked those who held the held the opposite view v. 10. After he had spoken v. 12 tells us "all the multitude held their peace." Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision mentioning like Sts. Paul and Barnabas the miracles wroght by God on their missionary journeys, or suggesting like St. James, that the Gentiles respect the scruples of the Jewish converts by asbstaining from the things they detested. v. 20-21.
Acts. 15:28, tells us that the decree is attributed to the Council assisted by the Holy Spirit. "For it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things: " In other words, it was a ex cathedra decision of the Church (made with the assistance and guidance of the Holy Spirit) that will remain with the Chruch until the end of time.
I will answer your question, 'Were the Catholic leaders who voted against it any less "Catholic" or spiritual than those who voted for it?" with No.....no less "Catholic" than were those at the first Jerusalem Council any less "Catholic" or spiritual who initially had opposing views. The point is with the guidance of the Holy Ghost, they came together in unity.
The important thing to recognize is that although they went into the Council with different views, becasue they were assisted by the one Holy Spirit, they came out of the Council of Jerusalem united in doctrine....unity in the one Holy Spirit; one faith, one baptism, etc. as per Eph. 4:4-6.
Acts. 16:4-5, "And as they passed through the cities, they delivered unto them the decrees for to keep, that were decreed by the apostles and ancients who were at Jerusalem. And the churches were confirmed in faith, and increased in number daily."
Is there anything in actual Christian scripture (excluding here the Book of Mormon) that defines it?
In Jewish scripture we have this very repetitive "G-d is one", "G-d is one", "G-d is one", "G-d is one" going on. It really looks as if somebody was trying to say: "Dudes, G-d is one. Not two, not three, not 4096, ONE. Get that into your heads, dudes!".
Is there anything in Christian scripture that makes it at least equally clear, where the author CLEARLY wanted to convey the message: "Dudes, G-d is three. Not one, not two, not 2048, THREE. Accept it, dudes!".
I accept that the Church defined at the Nicean Council that G-d is three. But where does scripture say so?
lula posts:
leauki posts:
Accept what you will, but this is not what the Nicean Council defined.
God is One, not God is three as in three Gods.
The Church Councils are a part of Sacred Tradition..... who, under the infallible guidance of the Holy Spirit, make ex cathedra decisions and define matters of faith and morals.
Christ didn't leave us orphans. In order to receive the fullness of truth, we learn from St.Paul that the teachings of Christ are not from the Bible alone, but also from Christ's teaching Church through oral or unwritten Sacred Tradition. "Hold the form of sound words, which thou hast heard of me, ...keep the goods things committed to thy trust by the Holy Ghost who dwelletih in us."
From 30 t0 33AD, Christ revealed the doctrine of the Trinity to His Apostles and plainly taught that they were to teach and preach all that He had commanded until the end of the world. In other discussions, KFC and I provided Scriptural proof texts and discussed these with you at length.
The Blessed Trinity is revealed by Christ in Sacred Scripture and explained in more detail in Apostolic Sacred Tradition.
St.John 21:15-17 tells us of Christ's appointment of St. Peter as the head of the teaching Church, was given power (grace and guidance from the Holy Spirit) to feed His flock with Divine truth. At the Last Supper Christ emphasises the infallibility of the Apostle's perpetual preaching under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. 14:16-17; 25-26; 15: 26-27; 16:13.
The teaching Chruch with the guidance of the Holy Spirit wasn't for the Apostles alone, but for their legitimate successors who were to be received as Christ Himself..."He who hears you, hears Me...." St.Luke 10:16. The Book of Acts tells us that the Apostles appointed and ordained successors to themselves and ordered them in turn to appoint others "fit to teach" and preach.
The Nicean Councll met in 325....what was going on from the time of Apostolic preaching and teaching to 325 when the Council convened and settled the matter of the Blessed Trinity?
We know from the very beginning of the Church, men had their own heretical opinions about Christ and His and the Apostles teachings and in this way they spread many false teachings regarding the Trinity, the Incarnation, Original Sin, and so forth. In each case the dissident movement began either in a denial of the teachings of the CC or in a rebellion against her authority. Both aspects were always ultimately involved. Those who began by rejecting the teachings of the Chruch soon found themselves in rebellion against her authority; while those who rebelled against her authority, soon found themselves denying her doctrines. By 325, the Gnostics, Manichaeans, Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians began with doctrinal error and ended by defying the Church altogether.
In 318, at the Synod of ALexandria, the Patriarch of that city gave a discourse (teaching) on the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity. (This was Sacred Tradition in progress). A man named Arius was one such dissident turned heretic. Arius declared that the Patriarch was teaching error and proceeded to set out his own ideas. Arius denied that Christ was really the Eternal Son of God, equally sharing in the Divine Nature with the Father. According to him, the Person of Christ existed before all other created things, and was nobler then them all. God had created that Person of Christ in eternity and later through Him created the Personality of Christ became man for the redemption of the human race.
In 320, a second synod of Alexandria condemned the Arian doctrine as heretical becasue it made the eternal Son of God a mere man, denying that He was equally the uncreated God with the Father and Holy Ghost. Arius would not submit but went on teaching publicly spreading his errors, and securing many followers and causing immense distrubance within the Church.
This is when the Council of Nicea was called to settle the matter. And they did....they condemned the teachings of Arius becasue it denied the Deity of Christ. Arius was excommunicated. Unitarianism and Mormonism are revived forms of Arianism at least by their denial of the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity and that Jesus Christ is God.
Lula is right on this Leauki. The council never said there were three gods. The Christians never believed that. There has only been one God revealed in three but not three Gods. Did you read my answer back in #58 when I put down what scripture does say?
Where I do disagree with Lula is when she said this:
That was never called a "Catholic Council" that I'm aware of but always called the "Jerusalem Council." It's just another RCC deception. This council was made up of all Jews. Not one Roman or Gentile was there or at least as far as we know.
X is three does not mean that there are three Xs.
Anyway, if G-d is one, G-d is no trinity (and not a duality either).
Zoroastrianism started as strict monotheism and later developed a duality. It was still one god, but it appeared as two entities.
Similarly Hinduism features one view that there is only one god which has lots of appearances (the Hindu deities).
Both Zoroastrianism and that particular view of Hinduism constitute monotheistic religion, but it's not Judaism's view of G-d. The Jewish Bible doesn't mention a trinity (or a duality) and the entire story about the trinity only developed some time after Jesus' death. Early Christianity didn't speak of a trinity, which is why non-Trinitarian Christianity was still popular for hundreds of years and why Islam doesn't know of the Trinity either.
(And you guys really must stop pretending that I ever said that the trinity was about "three gods". I never ever said such a thing and I consider the pretense that I did a logical fallacy designed to avoid the discussion. Surely your faith in the Trinity must be stronger than that!)
Acts 15:6 has it that the Apostles were there...St.Luke was not a Jew was he? Anyway, those who were there had been converted and baptized into the one Christian Faith...the one Christian Faith of the New and Everlasting Covenant is known as Catholicism.
Going back to 9:31, we read "So the Chruch throoughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it (ie the Chruch) was multiplied."
Notice the singular Chruch, not churches which points to the singular quality of the ekklesia our Lord had established on St.Peter. St. Matt. 16:18. Christ did not an amorphour collection of believers who are not united in faith or doctrine. No, Christ established a particular Chruch that is the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church....the only Church that fits Epshesians 4:3-6 to a "T".
No, Luke was not a Jew. But can you show me where he was an Apostle?
for all your words Lula...the first council in Jerusalem was NEVER called a Catholic Council. It's always been called the Jerusalem Council. Your anti-semitism is showing...even tho I don't think you're really aware of it.
So Lula, I have three questions for you to put this to rest. This is for your benefit.
1. Can you show me where Luke was an Apostle?
2. Can you show me anywhere in the bible where the word "Catholic" was ever used?
3. Can you show me either in scripture or any of the first century fathers where the Council in Acts 15 was called anything but the Jerusalem Council?
kfc posts 66
There is no deception...from me or the Church. I clearly called it the Council of Jerusalem .....and that it was the first Catholic Council is true. History bears this out.
In 49AD, Jerusalem is where the first Council was held. The Council settled the matter that the Gentile converts were no longer bound by the Old Mosaic Law. The Book of Acts 15 describes who was there; the purpose of the meeting and how it was conducted as well as how the matter was settled.
There are 21 Catholic Councils that followed. The Council of Nicea 325, The First Council of Constantinople 381, the Council of Ephesus, 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451; one hundered years later, the Second Council of Cnstantinople; Third Council of Constantinople in 680; Second Council of Nicea 787; Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869; First Lateran Council in 1123; Second Lateran Council in 1139; Third Lateran Council in 1179; Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; First Council of Lyons in 1245; Second Council of Lyons in 1274; Council of Vienne in 1311; Council of Constance in 1414; Council of Florence in 1447; Fifth Lateran Council 1512; Council of Trent 1564; First Vatican Council in 1869 and Second Vatican Council in 1962.
...Men claimed that the Son of God was a mere man (Arius; Arianism)? In 325, in Nicea a Council is called to settle the matter...the Chruch proclaims the Divinity of the Word made Flesh.
....Men claimed that there are two separate persons in Christ? ( Nestorius; Nestorianism) In 431, in Ephesus, a Council is called to settle the matter....and the Chruch declares that Jesus Christ is one Divine Person.
.....Men claimed that the Human Nature had been absorbed into the Divine (Eutyche;) In 451, in in Chalcedon, a Council is called to settle the matter...and the Chruch declares that Christ possessed both a Human and Divine Nature, not confused, changed, divided or separated.
.....fast forward to the 16th century....Men claimed false views of the Holy Bible, denied Divine Tradition, the Holy Mass, the Seven Sacraments, and the Chruch as authority and guardian of Revelation of God and established their own doctrines.....Wycliffe, Luther, et al; Protestantism)...and the Chruch at the Council of Trent 1545-1563 condemned these errors.
Verse 6 tells us the Apostles and ancients were there. The Council may have been made up of all Jews, but they were now followers of Christ for they had been converted and now members of the one true Church and one Faith of Christ.
No....St.Luke was not one of the original 12 Apostles...He was converted by St.Paul and called the Evangelist. We don't know if St.Luke was there at the Jerusalem Council or not. It is believed that St.Luke wrote chapter 15 and the account of the Council of Jerusalem.
Besides that, neither was St.Paul one of the original Twelve Apostles, but it's plain he was at the Council of Jerusalem.
The Book of Acts of the Apostles is an actual history, albeit a short view, of the early Catholic Church that takes place from the Ascension of Our Lord and ends in the year 63. The Council of Jerusalem as per Acts 15, occurred in 49AD is actual history......The Council of Jerusalem was indeed the first Catholic Council and was followed by all those Councils named above.
Lula posts:
[quote.....we must back up to the first Catholic Council...the Council of Jerusalem 49 AD, as recounted in the Book of Acts chapter 15; 16:4...........The Councils are part of Apostolic Sacred Tradition .......
Your fierce reaction is becasue you believe what Protestantism denies and Protestantism denies Apostolic Tradition of which the Council of Jerusalem is clearly a part. Sacred tradition is contained in early Chruch history and the Book of Acts of the Apostles is clearly early Chruch history.
#2.... No. But so what? You are trying to make a meaningless point.
You are forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Holy Bible is only one authentic source of the one Christian Faith. The Bible itself says that "the Church is the pillar and ground of truth"...and that means there is another authentic source of the one Christian faith which St.Paul calls Tradition. The word Catholic comes from Apostolic or Sacred Tradition. And Apostolic Tradition commands our obedience for this is commanded of us by God through St.Paul.
"Therefore, brethren, stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter." 2 Thess. 2:14-15.
Here we can see that there is a distinction between what is taught by word of mouth and what is taught by letter. From this passage, it's clear that Christians are commanded to hold fast not only to what was written but also what was handed down to us by way of oral teachings (Tradition). Can any honest Christian deny this?
The name "Catholic" is not found in the Bible although the idea of the Chruch in the mind of Christ and the Apostles is clearly set forth by the Greek word meaning "universal". The early Fathers often declared that the Chruch is Catholic becasue it is spread over the whole earth and teaches every where "Universally and completely all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge."
Again, the word Catholic comes from Apostolic or Sacred Tradition. St.Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna in 110, is the first to use the name "the Catholic Chruch". He writes: "Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Chruch." (Ad Smyr., viii. 2.).
The Matyrdom of St.Polycarp (155) mentions the Catholic Chruch in 3 passages viii.1; xvi., 2; xix., 2.
At the beginning of the 3rd century, Fr. d'Herbigny wrote, "The dogmatic sense of the word "Cathollic" is evident; the true Chruch is the Chruch that is called "Catholic". (De Ecclesia ii., 72.).
He cites Clement of Alexandria, (Strom. vii., 18); Origen, (In Jos., ix., 8); and Tertullian (Adv. Marcion, iv., 4; De Pres. xxx.). In this last passage Tertuillian speaks of the "Catholicia" when he means the Chruch. St.Augustine uses the same word as a synonym of the Church 240 times in (Revue Benedictine, 1900, 109.).
The Council settled the matter that the Gentile converts were no longer bound by the Old Mosaic Law.
What do you mean with "no longer". Gentiles were NEVER bound by "Old Mosaic Law".
I'm interested in this answer as well.
Lula, I'll just leave this ...you are adding to scripture. I've already warned you. You know what the scripture says about adding to the scriptures right?
I'll say again, there is NO such thing as a Jerusalem Catholic Council. While you're in Acts 15...take a good look at v16 and notice the wording..."after this."
Correction, the Council of Nicea defined Catholic doctrine, not Christian doctrine. Since Catholicism was the only ones represented it would be pretty presumptuous to say that they spoke for everyone who followed Christ. Furthermore, what authority did any Catholic in any of the councils have to decide what pertains and doesn't pertain to any Christian outside their faith?
I do not recognize the authority of the Council of Nice and see no reason for anyone other than Catholics and Protestants to do so. Therefore, I don't see any reason to use anything they said to back any discussion on the topic of the nature of God, Jesus and/or the Holy Ghost. In fact, since I do not consider the Catholic Church to be the church Christ established during his ministry, I think it would be pretty hypocritical of me to all of the sudden use the council when it seems to work for me.
I don't consider the Pope to be perfect, nor his decisions to be the word of God. If they were, then the horrors of the inquisitions were God's will. When the pedophile priests molested young boys, the official policy of the Pope was to move them around and absolve them of their crimes simply because they repented. To say that the Pope is God's official representative on earth would be to say that those priests had the right to do what they did... since they were absolved of the crimes by God, through His Popes.
That's not to say that every act by every priest or above in the Catholic Church is an official act of the Church, I don't think the Catholic Church considers priests and above "infallible". I'm sure they are just as subject to temptations as anyone else. I only hold the Pope responsible for the decisions made by him, in his official capacity. I'm also sure each Catholic church leader has committed sins that rest solely on their own heads, and don't reflect the doctrines, policies of, or those church leaders appointed over them.
To me, anyone who can look at the history of the Catholic Church and say that it has been a worthy representation of Christ's ministry is looking at it with rose colored eyeballs.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
