The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

The above quote is very far from orthodox Christian belief. Very far indeed. Mind you, just saying that it is not orthodox without explaining why would be unkind. So here's a brief explanation. John chapter one explains as clearly as a single chapter of scripture can that God sent forth his Son to be born of a woman, the woman was blessed Mary. The Son of God, born of Mary, is God. That's partly what John 1:18 tells us. John 1:14 tells us that the Word became a human being (became flesh is the term used) and dwelt among us (human beings) and we saw his glory (meaning those who were with him saw who he was and perceived that he was the Glorious God, the only begotten of the Father. And he was full of grace and truth. So the person to whom Blessed Mary gave birth was none other than the Son of God (the Father) and was the Word (of God) and the only begotten God himself. Thus we cannot deny that Blessed Mary is the mother of the Son of God who is the only begotten God.

Now, when the above post asserts that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his life I must ask where did you get that idea from? Do you have some passage of scripture from which you've drawn that teaching?

There are many in Acts who had the revealation of Christ as the Son of God, starting with Nathanael that Jesus told would see much more than angels ascending and descending. As a perfect example Jesus was the only begotten of God and first of the begotten of the dead Rev 1:5. He was born without sin but depended on the power of the Holy Spirit and did nothing but what He saw the Father do. As the example for us as new creations.
As the Son of God He is the resurrected Christ, the Messiah, the mediator, our high priest and Lord.
It`s not in my interest to comment on Mary other than she was the mother of Jesus and was informed before conception that He was to be the Son of God.

 

[MoreCoffee]

~Cassia~, I see that there was no passage from scripture in your latest post that explains why you think that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his earthly life. Is such a passage present in your bible?

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

~Cassia~, I see that there was no passage from scripture in your latest post that explains why you think that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his earthly life. Is such a passage present in your bible?

I`ll have to get back to you. It`s not by any means unorthodox except perhaps by jargon.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I`ll have to get back to you. It`s not by any means unorthodox except perhaps by jargon.

It looked very unorthodox to me.

But if you have an explanation that doesn't somehow undo the incarnation or confuse it or make it into some kind of divine possession of a human being then okay, I'll wait ... and see

Here's a nice bit of music in the meantime ...

R.E.M. - Nightswimming - YouTube

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

It looked very unorthodox to me.

But if you have an explanation that doesn't somehow undo the incarnation or confuse it or make it into some kind of divine possession of a human being then okay, I'll wait ... and see

Here's a nice bit of music in the meantime ...

R.E.M. - Nightswimming - YouTube

I believe very strongly in the incarnation. I wouldn`t be a Christian without it.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I believe very strongly in the incarnation. I wouldn`t be a Christian without it.

Have you read the Athanasian Creed?

It says:

It is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believes also the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, it is the right faith, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and He is man born of the substance of His mother in time: perfect God, perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a human body, equal to the Father according to His Godhead, less than the Father according to humanity.

Although he is God and man, yet He is not two, but He is one Christ; one however, not by the conversion of the Divinity into a human body, but by the assumption of humanity in the Godhead; one absolutely not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul and body are one man, so God and man are one Christ.

He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, on the third day arose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; at His coming all men have to arise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds: and those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire.

This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Amen.​

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Have you read the Athanasian Creed?

It says:

It is necessary for eternal salvation that he faithfully believes also the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Accordingly, it is the right faith, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God is God and man. He is God begotten of the substance of the Father before time, and He is man born of the substance of His mother in time: perfect God, perfect man, consisting of a rational soul and a human body, equal to the Father according to His Godhead, less than the Father according to humanity.

Although he is God and man, yet He is not two, but He is one Christ; one however, not by the conversion of the Divinity into a human body, but by the assumption of humanity in the Godhead; one absolutely not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person. For just as the rational soul and body are one man, so God and man are one Christ.

He suffered for our salvation, descended into hell, on the third day arose again from the dead, ascended into heaven, sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty; thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; at His coming all men have to arise again with their bodies and will render an account of their own deeds: and those who have done good, will go into life everlasting, but those who have done evil, into eternal fire.

This is the Catholic faith; unless every one believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved. Amen.​

The only thing I didn`t understand about that is `:assumption of humanity in the Godhead. What does that mean... The risen Christ arose bodily and will reign bodily with His people who will be in resurrected bodies.

 

[MoreCoffee]

The only thing I didn`t understand about that is `:assumption of humanity in the Godhead. What does that mean... The risen Christ arose bodily and will reign bodily with His people who will be in resurrected bodies.

Assumption has these meanings: to elevate and to take in. Thus the assumption of humanity in the Godhead speaks of the elevation of humanity by Christ taking human nature into the Godhead (not by changing the Godhead but by elevating human nature). Of course, explanations always come to an end before human curiosity is fully satiated. That is the nature of revealed religion, God tells us about himself using human language but human language is not sufficient to express the infinite God so we are always left with mystery - revealed truth that goes as far as it can in human language but is never able to make a human being as wise as God and so leaves human beings wondering how it all works beyond what's been revealed.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

we are always left with mystery - revealed truth that goes as far as it can in human language but is never able to make a human being as wise as God and so leaves human beings wondering how it all works beyond what's been revealed.

yaha

 

[BobRyan]

~Cassia~, I see that there was no passage from scripture in your latest post that explains why you think that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his earthly life. Is such a passage present in your bible?

hmm - a welcomed change of heart ... the idea of the Bible needed to prove or disprove a doctrine.

Which gets us back to --



The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Nope

 

[Albion]

And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Hard to answer because the date AD313 seems to be wrong.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

~Cassia~, I see that there was no passage from scripture in your latest post that explains why you think that Jesus was not the Son of God until the end of his earthly life. Is such a passage present in your bible?
​

hmm - a welcomed change of heart ... the idea of the Bible needed to prove or disprove a doctrine.

Originally Posted by BobRyan

Which gets us back to --​

​

The RCC evolved over time as error after error was incorporated.

No pugatory in the NT.

no "Mary mother of God" in the NT

no prayers to the dead in the NT.

No "confecting the body and divinity of Christ" in the NT.

No indulgences in the NT.

No exterminating heretics in the NT.

No Pope Peter in the NT - as we see in Acts 15 - James is the leader.

No infant baptism in the NT

No order of priests in the NT

And without all of that - do you really have the RCC in the NT?

No.

hint - even Catholic sources themselves admit that the RCC doctrines "evolved over time" see "A Concise history of the Catholic Church" and "Catholic Digest" as they research the history of infant baptism and priests.

​

And of course the never-answered-question for this thread ...."And without all of that before 100 AD - do you really have the RCC in the NT until 313?"

Good question! Inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870602/#post54128344
Roman church errors and inventions

Scholasticism
Filioque
Papal Supremacy
Immaculate Conception

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43630346

Inventions:
-Infallability of the Pope
-Papal supremacy
-Immaculate coneption
-purgatory
Errors:
-Vatican I and II(not the councells but their decisions....although II was worse than I)
-indulgencies
-crusades
-Vatican City.... (never should have been a "seperate state"but goes hand in hand with the Papal supreority)

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43629206

Hmmmmm, let me think on that one..................................................................................................

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43630926
um, I got one, well kind of, not an error by the Pope but some errors made by a Catholic King and Catholic Monk.
Luthernism and Anglicanism

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43632320
None

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43636094

I'm going to have to go with Mr. O'Briens answer.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43636190
Change in Paschalion.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43636780
Lack of fasting. [of which post # 36 clarifies what is meant]

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43636255

*snip*

Crusades.

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43646993

*snip*
......so you see LLoJ...the RCC or any "business" that is involved in day to day ops certainly can't allow ALL MEN to believe in Him...the only ones who are allowed to believe are those who ADHERE to their particular organizations DOCTRINE...because THAT is the FORCE they use to keep their CUSTOMERS...and if you don't buy into ANY "churches" system...they will DAMN YOU TO BURN ALIVE...

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43652400

assumption of mary

submission to the pope of Rome being absolutely neccessary for salvation

penance to atone for sins committed after baptism

auricular confession

sacerdotal sacramentalism

meritorious works for the attainment of salvation

the whole Roman system of justification

http://www.christianforums.com/t6870.../#post43668261
Lateran IV

Unam Sanctum

Trent

Vatican I

Vatican II

the papacy

the Marian dogmas

the dogma of papal infallibility

auricular confession and penance

sacerdotal sacramentalism

purgatory

indugences

transubstantiation

and admit that the Roman religion was built upon the deceptions and frauds of forgeries invented during the dark ages



.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Nope

Nope what?



.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Nope what?



.

No, RCC is not in the bible. The Church in Rome was recorded but this is not the same as RCC. Catholicism doesn't reflect Pauls letter to the Romans at all, in my opinion. Romans 14 doesn't support the RCC practice of commanding its followers to observe a special holy day, for example. Unless i'm missing something in my understanding.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

And why would Rome be the Mother Church? This seems very odd.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Nope what?

No, RCC is not in the bible. The Church in Rome was recorded but this is not the same as RCC.
Catholicism doesn't reflect Pauls letter to the Romans at all, in my opinion.

Romans 14 doesn't support the RCC practice of commanding its followers to observe a special holy day, for example. Unless i'm missing something in my understanding.

Ahhh, good point.
Just because it is called the Book of Romans, does not mean it was meant for just the Roman Catholic Church, IMHO......

http://www.christianforums.com/t7364825/#post55237103
LLOJ's Book of Romans Chapter 14


#1261 used 15 times in 14 verses according to ISA. Shown 8 times in Gospels, 1 each in Matt and Mark, 6 times in Luke. 7/6 times in General Epistles. Formed with the prefix #1223 and a variation of the root word #3056.
14:1
The yet one being weak to the faith, be ye toward-receiving! No into thru-judgings/disputes of opinions/dialogismwn <1261>.

Textus Rec.) Romans 14:1 ton de asqenounta th pistei proslambanesqe mh eiV diakriseiV dialogismwn

Strong's Number G1261 matches the Greek &#948;&#953;&#945;&#955;&#959;&#947;&#953;&#963;&#956;&#8057;&#962; (dialogismos), which occurs 14 times in 14 verses in the Greek concordance of the KJV

1261 dialogismos dee-al-og-is-mos' from 1260; discussion, i.e. (internal) consideration (by implication, purpose), or (external) debate:--dispute, doubtful(-ing), imagination, reasoning, thought.
1223. dia dee-ah' a primary preposition denoting the channel of an act; through (in very wide applications, local, causal, or occasional):--
3049. logizomai log-id'-zom-ahee middle voice from 3056; to take an inventory, i.e. estimate (literally or figuratively):--conclude, (ac-)count (of), + despise, esteem, impute, lay, number, reason, reckon, suppose, think (on).
3056. logos log'-os from 3004; something said (including the thought); by implication, a topic (subject of discourse), also reasoning (the mental faculty) or motive;



.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Im amazed that RCC having so much wealth, so many followers, so many decades in which to study doctrine, that they missed Paul's teaching on observing holy days. But then again, they do seem to suppress any open discussion of doctrine, and they have a reputation for mistreating what they call heretics. This seems to be an example of quenching the Spirit maybe. I cannot understand why anyone would read scripture and not see the very fallible doctrine known as Catholicism. Maybe they are too involved in RC letters that were written after the apostles died and this is why they seem to be blind to sound doctrine, and blind to the vast fallacy of Catholicism.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

I cannot say whether this scripture is relevant to RCC, but their wealth and their doctrine of superiority makes me consider it relevant.

Revelation 3:14 &#8220;And to the angel of the church of the Laodiceans[f] write,

&#8216;These things says the Amen, the Faithful and True Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God: 15 &#8220;I know your works, that you are neither cold nor hot. I could wish you were cold or hot. 16 So then, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot,[g] I will vomit you out of My mouth. 17 Because you say, &#8216;I am rich, have become wealthy, and have need of nothing&#8217;&#8212;and do not know that you are wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked&#8212; 18 I counsel you to buy from Me gold refined in the fire, that you may be rich; and white garments, that you may be clothed, that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed; and anoint your eyes with eye salve, that you may see. 19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten. Therefore be zealous and repent. 20 Behold, I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and dine with him, and he with Me. 21 To him who overcomes I will grant to sit with Me on My throne, as I also overcame and sat down with My Father on His throne.

22 &#8220;He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.&#8221;&#8217;&#8221;

 

[BobRyan]

Im amazed that RCC having so much wealth, so many followers, so many decades in which to study doctrine, that they missed Paul's teaching on observing holy days. But then again, they do seem to suppress any open discussion of doctrine, and they have a reputation for mistreating what they call heretics. .

hopefully they can be more open about discussing views that are not their own - in the modern age.

in Christ,

Bob