Catholic Church & Jesus Christ-Why No One Should Be A Catholic

Apostolic Messianic Fellowship ^ | August 30, 2005 | Why No One Should Be A Catholic

[Salvation]

Didn't the post originally pertain to LDS and JWs?

[Salvation]

**Here's a Newsweek article and there is more elsewhere on the www**

And you would want me to believe leftist Newsweek? No, thank you!

[ladyinred]

Again, Catholics are not the only ones who are targeted by this author. Anyone who is not "oneness" is wrong, wrong, wrong, and an Anti Christ in his mind.

[Diego1618]

I am.....and thank you for your kind words.

[markomalley]

The only Protestant group where this idea may fall apart is in some Lutheran dioceses where the Apostolic Succession is intact and which profess a belief in the Real Presence.

Do you have any other information on this? I have no idea which Lutheran groups could possibly have a valid Apostolic Succession.

[the808bass]

Your quote from Origen is interesting, as I haven't seen it before. Could you please provide a citation and perhaps a hotlink? (I tried locating it from a text search and was unable to do so)

Yes, it is fun when the Proddie quotes the Fathers and the Catholic responds with the Greek of the NT. (Smile)

I think this is the appropriate quote from Origen. Origen Passage

As for the Greek, I think the grammar would indicate Peter is the rock. However, how a passage is understood by the readers in a culture is probably at least as important as the grammar that readers removed from the sitz em leben by 2000 years read. And, yes, that cuts both ways.

[Kolokotronis]

"Do you have any other information on this? I have no idea which Lutheran groups could possibly have a valid Apostolic Succession."

I have been told, or read somewhere, and relativey recently at that, that there are some Scandinavian dioceses with an intact succession. If I have time tomorrow, I'll see if I can find it.

[Zuriel]

**Help me out here**

Ask and ye shall receive.

Mr. Reckart: "Mary was the mother of the seed of David in which God was incarnated upon birth ..."

Right after that line was (1 Tim 3:16), which I would say is harmonious, "..God was manifest in the flesh.."

Manifest or incarnated, same result. NOT interpreted as CREATED. GOD cannot be created.

God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself.

Here's a related question concerning the birth. Which was the father of the Christ, the Son of the living God: the Father, or the Holy Ghost, or both?

Mary was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Matt. 1:18,20
"the Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.." Luke 1:35
Twelve yrs old: Jesus says, "..I must be about my Father's business." Luke 2:49. Jesus referred to his Father a lot, but never referred to the Holy Ghost as his father.

It is so wonderful to be liberated from the tradition of men, that have tried to teach the Godhead with a carnal, earthly understanding; that more of God was created in Mary's womb. The unspiritual efforts to compartmentalize the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God always end up as an unsolved mystery.

Perhaps Isaiah said it best: "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgement to the Gentiles". Is.43:1

Yes, marko, you may label me 'oneness', if you please. For 28 yrs I was 'threeness', but the confusion was overcome, thank God.

[ladyinred]

While I respect your beliefs, really I do, we Protestants take communion properly as well. My Church does use unleavened bread, but the words used are quoted from the words of Jesus in the scriptures. I am not at all troubled by the method we use, just as you are convinced your way is correct. I do think God honors us all.

[markomalley]

Yes, marko, you may label me 'oneness', if you please. For 28 yrs I was 'threeness', but the confusion was overcome, thank God.

Well, good for you. I hope you have a good life with your belief system as it is.

As I said in my previous post, if you are a 'oneness' believer, it would be completely illogical for you to baptize using a Trinitarian formula, as you don't believe in the Blessed Trinity.

But we still have to deal with the question I asked in my earlier post. If you believe in baptizing like they did in the book of Acts, which formula do you use?

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Note: the Stephens Text says "in the name of the Lord")

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So which is it? Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or baptized in the name of the Lord?

If you use a more modern tranlsation of the Bible, you have a choice of one of two. If you use a KJV, you have a choice of one of three. So which is it?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to attack your beliefs, I just see that there are two (or three) possible variants, and was wondering which you use?

[Tax-chick]

Oh, golly. How do I get mixed up in these things?

Mr. Zuriel, it doesn't bother me in the slightest that you seem to believe something totally different. Have a nice day.

[Mad Dawg]

Zuriel,

All this is new to me, sort of new. In 1978 I gave some kittens who had been born in the woods behind the place where I was living to some people who gave me a pamphlet about baptizing in the name of Jesus. But from then until now, I have no more contact.

In the rush of prose, I want to make sure I'm getting the main ideas. (1) Doctrine of Trinity is man-made and carnal? (2)Would you agree with the article that the Divine "aspect""part""whatchamacallit" or Jesus was not in Him when he was a fetus, but was sort of added at birth? (3)You understand Trinitarians and those who endorse the Chalcedonian definition as saying that somehow more God was created or added somehow in the process of what we call Incarnation?

Thanks. I'm not waiting to pounce. This is a new line of country for me and I want to look around.

Tax-chick's question, way back in post #10, I think arose because "we" would say that whatever was divine about that Baby was divine from the instant of His conception, not added at birth, as Mr Reckart seemed to say. The manifestation and/or incarnation is, to us, distinct from the nativity, which is a part of the entire incarnation, ah, phenomenon.

Personally, I think debating the Trinity will make us all crazy in a heart beat.

I get my bandages changed today! Let the dancing in the streets begin! YAY! I got to leave the house and go to Church yesterday. Do you know? The entire world managed to survive pretty well without my seeing it for 6 days. I think there are parts of it that didn't even miss me! Wonders never cease!

[Mad Dawg]

I do think God honors us all.

Actually I think God laughs at us all. I'm hoping that it's a warm affectionate laugh.

So tell me, ladyinred, when you do your Eucharistic stuff, what do you think happens to the bread and wine?

Again, I'm not asking so I can pounce and dance around going nyah nyah she thinks such and such, I'm already comfortable with my supreme correctitude and will not throw it in the face of people who don't share my being "correct as usual" like King Friday. I try to be condescending, uh, pitying and compassionate uh, warm and fuzzy with people who fail to come up to the unusually high standards set by moiself.

Why, my modesty alone is at a level unattainable by most!

[Tax-chick]

Congratulations on your recovery.

[Muzzle_em]

As a protestant, I try not to look at what "label" someone claims, i.e. Catholic, Epis, Methodist, etc., but instead I see if the individual seems to have a personal relationship with Christ. My husband's grandmother is Catholic and I can think of nobody who loves the lord MORE than she does.

[markomalley]

As a note of trivia, if you look at the Peshitta (Aramaic) text, you'll note that the word "keepa" is used in both instances. You can take a look at an interlinear Aramaic/English text here.

As to the Origen quote, I'd refer you to the same document (Commentary on Matthew) Book XIII Chapter 31.

• But since it was necessary, even if something in common had been said in the case of Peter and those who had thrice admonished the brethren, that Peter should have some element superior to those who thrice admonished, in the case of Peter, this saying “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens,”
• a great difference and a pre-eminence in the things said to Peter, compared with the second class.
• For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on the earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage, with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens.

[Mad Dawg]

Thank you. I wait the sight of my unbandaged tootsies with 'bated breath.


Gotta go put on doctor visit attire.

(I think it interesting that the FReep spell check tolerate "tootsies" but blenches at "unbandaged".)

[Iscool]

As a protestant, I try not to look at what "label" someone claims, i.e. Catholic, Epis, Methodist, etc., but instead I see if the individual seems to have a personal relationship with Christ. My husband's grandmother is Catholic and I can think of nobody who loves the lord MORE than she does.

I've always said I'm sure there are saved Catholics, in spite of their religion...

[Tax-chick]

Spell check is a tool of the devil.

[Uncle Chip]

But wait -- most of Rome was in the grips of pagans at that time. Your statement just might make sense. So since you have one history source, when did the people of God retake the city? I'll see if I can find others.

I believe that Constantine did build the Basilica of St Peter over a cemetery there on Vatican Hill between 320-325 AD, and haven't recent archeological excavations borne that out.