Pope: Everyone, Even Atheists, Want to See the Face of God

Asia News ^ | 1/16/13

[marshmallow]

General audience, Benedict XVI defines the Incarnation as "something unimaginable, the face of God can be seen, the process that began with Abraham is fulfilled." The Week of Prayer for Christian Unity, he asks "for the great gift" to "proclaim together that Jesus is the Savior of the world."

Vatican City (AsiaNews) - "The desire to know the face of God is in every man, even the atheists," but this desire is only realized by following Christ, in whom, in the Incarnation, "something unimaginable took place, the journey that began with Abraham is fulfilled. He is the Son, the fullness of all Revelation; the mediator who shows us the face of God. "

And "to proclaim together that Jesus is the Saviour of the world" Benedict XVI asked for incessant prayers for "the great gift" of Christian unity in the forthcoming week, which begins on the 18th of this month.

Previously, in his catechesis, he again reflected on the meaning of Christmas, in a commentary on John's Gospel in which the apostle Philip asks Jesus to show them the Father. The answer of Jesus, "introduces us to the heart of the Church's Christological faith; For the Lord says: "Whoever has seen me has seen the Father" (Jn 14:9).This expression summarizes the novelty of the New Testament, the novelty that appeared in the cave of Bethlehem: God can be seen, he showed his face is visible in Jesus Christ".

The theme of "seeking the face of God" is present throughout the Old Testament, so much so that the Hebrew term "face", occurs no less than 400 times, 100 of which refer to God." The of Jewish religion which the religion forbids all images, "for God can not be depicted," and "can not be reduced to an object," tells us that "God...

[HarleyD]

Mysterious denominations, denial of the Trinity, refusing to believe the dictionary even. Interesting the things you find out when you start to explore “free will”, isn’t it? Just saying...

[HarleyD]

Not interested in *religion*. Just Jesus and His word.

How righteous of you.

[HarleyD]

I must say this is bizzare behavoir and seem to have the support of others. Please review these scriptural teachings:

1Ti_1:10 For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;

2Ti_4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Tit_1:9 Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.

Tit_2:1 But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine:

I would be interested in knowing what MM or CB considers to be "sound doctrine" apart from "false doctrine"?

[CynicalBear]

>> Do you agree that with the FAITH OF GOD, that you can become a "little god"<<

That’s Catholics and Mormons.

>> by exercising the FAITH OF GOD you can direct creation or prosperity or health by your positive confession of THE FAITH OF GOD.<<

I don’t much worry about prosperity or health. I just tend to say “thank you Jesus” when stuff goes well. Of course after having had polio at the age of two my perspective is a little different than most.

>> You see, unless you have people around you who can correct you when you stray from sound doctrine, then you can fall into damnable heresy.<

Not if they already follow man rather than God’s word. Of course those who God calls His own He pretty much takes care of.

Hebrews 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.

Revelation 3:19 As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.

That’s why I repented of those errors of the “denominations”.

>>That is what a church is for.<<

1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

>> That is why churches have doctrinal statements. That is why Churches have confessions.<<

So the “doctrinal statements” and “confessions” aren’t based in scripture? And if they are why have them if they are already in scripture? Is scripture the ultimate truth or not?

>> That is why Christians are not opposed to identifying their fellowship so that others can understand the basics of the doctrines that they believe.<<

I have many time identified who I fellowship with. It’s other believers who proclaim Jesus as their Lord and Savior and all beliefs are from scripture.

>> I don't know anything about your church or your doctrines.<<

I’m sorry to hear that. Jesus and the apostles spoke of it often.

Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

Which church (by your definition of the term) would suggest is being talked about there? I maintain that all true believers are part of the universal church.

>> but you never bother to explain what your understanding of the scriptures is.<<

Every time I am here I post scripture as explanation of my beliefs and to support my beliefs. No where in scripture can I find that adherence to some set of “creeds” or “confessions” other than “believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – and your house” is needed for salvation. Did the apostles somehow mislead those who they said were “added to the church daily” in that they also needed to adhere to “creeds” and “confessions” that would be developed centuries later?

>> Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. I am admonished to test the spirits and to hold fast to SOUND DOCTRINE.<<

I don’t “say so”. I post what scripture says. I believe scripture to be “SOUND DOCTRINE”.

>> Obviously Kenneth Copeland's doctrine is not sound, but he, like you, claims that he arrived at that doctrine by scripture and the Holy Spirit only.<<

It’s pretty easy to discount that isn’t it. He obviously doesn’t us ALL of scripture.

Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

>> So if there is a disagreement between you and Kenneth Copeland, why should I believe you and not him?<<

No disagreement? Wow! Not making huge assumptions to try to categorize are you?

>> What standard of biblical hermenutics and interpretation do you use?<<

No portion of scripture can contradict any other portion of scripture and scripture always interprets itself with the help of the Holy Spirit.

>> What confession to you adhere to?<<

“believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved – and your house”.

>> As I pointed out, every single English Language scripture is the product of the interpretations of men.<<

I never hear you giving credit to God for preserving His word for us today. Why is that?

[CynicalBear]

>>denial of the Trinity,<<

Would you please show the post where someone denied the trinity?

[CynicalBear]

>>I would be interested in knowing what MM or CB considers to be "sound doctrine" apart from "false doctrine"?<<

That’s easy. Sound doctrine is what scripture teaches. False doctrine is something not found in scripture or contrary to scripture.

[metmom]

We’re having a theological discussion on the RF and suddenly you see fit to drag politics into it?

Why?

[metmom]

Well, here at least, we can get a Scriptural definition of faith.

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

A) of

B) in

C)all of the above

D)none of the above.

I vote *C*.

[xzins]

Illustrating the point that if you know a person’s position it helps understand where they are coming from in other areas.

I stated that in the post to you. Perhaps you didn’t read it.

In any case, I’m on and off with the satellite tonight. There’s snow, the dish is on the roof, I don’t want to climb up and clean it out, so internet goes in and out.

[metmom]

Not my righteousness.

Romans 3:21-22 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— 22 the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.

[metmom]

OK, so what does Scripture tell us is sound doctrine?

Could you provide a chapter and verse for what Scripture says sound doctrine consists of?

[P-Marlowe]

Using the definition in Heb 11:1, does God have “Faith”?

[metmom]

Your internet and my mind.

I was up early this morning and am shot.

Later.....

[CynicalBear]

>>That is why Christians are not opposed to identifying their fellowship so that others can understand the basics of the doctrines that they believe.<<

So you think that belonging to some “denomination” protects from false doctrine or error. Think the Reformed Church and it’s college Calvin College are holding strictly to Biblical doctrine? Here’s a slippery slope for you.

From the “FAQs about Calvin College, LGBT Students and Homosexuality.”

“we believe that homosexual orientation is not a sin”

http://www.calvin.edu/student-life/ss/faq.html

The Reformed Church of America also appointed a committee to reassess their views and position on homosexuality.

The recommendation to create the "new committee" to resolve the denomination's issues pertaining to homosexuality was passed by voting delegates who were elders and ministers from regional synods and church bodies in the RCA. Final vote tally was 120 in favor of the new committee and 91 opposed Read more at http://www.christianpost.com/news/reformed-church-appoints-new-committee-on-homosexuality-77217/#u9cRRZBJxE4ZpfQ8.99

Seriously? A majority of the delegates believe they need to form a committee to “resolve issues”? Scripture isn’t enough to declare it a sin? Tell me again how belonging to a “denomination” guards against error.

[P-Marlowe]

False doctrine is something not found in scripture

You mean like prepositions that aren't in the original manuscripts?

BTW How do YOU determine what is or is not "scripture"?

Does the Bible tell you which books are supposed to be in the Bible?

Does your Bible come with it's own original language translation and interpretation tool? Or do you do something like putting a seer stone in a hat and allow the spiritual light to shine and tell you the correct interpretation of every verse?

Let's put your doctrinal test to the test. Since the scriptures don't tell us which books should be included in the Canon of scripture, how do you know which books are, in fact, scripture?

For instance why isn't the Book of Enoch or the Gospel of Thomas included? Why is the epistle to the Hebrews or James included? The book of Revelation is not included in the Eastern Orthodox Canon. Using only "scripture" can you tell me why it should be included?

[P-Marlowe]

And how do you know that you are immune from falling into error? It can happen to you.

Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall. 1 Cor 10:12

I hate to break the news to you CB, but your interpretations of scripture are not infallible. You are fully as capable of falling into error as those you so freely mock.

[CynicalBear]

>> Since the scriptures don't tell us which books should be included in the Canon of scripture, how do you know which books are, in fact, scripture?<<

I trust the God has preserved His word as He wants us to have it today.

>> For instance why isn't the Book of Enoch or the Gospel of Thomas included?<<

Sayings in The Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus run counter to what is written in the four Gospels and the gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The Book of Enoch has to many contradiction to what the apostles wrote.

[CynicalBear]

>>You are fully as capable of falling into error as those you so freely mock.<<

Yep, but God will smack me back down. And I don’t make “doctrine” for thousands of people who make “confessions” and claim to follow me.

[P-Marlowe]

Sayings in The Gospel of Thomas attributed to Jesus run counter to what is written in the four Gospels and the gospel of Thomas was not written by Jesus' disciple Thomas. The Book of Enoch has to many contradiction to what the apostles wrote.

Did you diligently research and study those books and come to that conclusion on your own, or did you rely on the work of other people and accept their conclusions?

[P-Marlowe]

And I don’t make “doctrine” for thousands of people

But there are thousands of people on this forum who read your posts. How do you know you aren't leading some of them astray. Wouldn't it be better if the lurkers were able to see your statement of faith, compare it to scripture, review your posts for consistency with your doctrinal statement and admonish you if your beliefs and doctrines are inconsistent or in error?

In essence, by insisting that your interpretation of scripture is correct because YOU only base your beliefs on scripture that you are, in fact making doctrine for all who read your posts. In other words, your denomination is the Church of Cynical Bear, and YOU are the final authority since it is your interpretation that is the Truth and anyone disputing that doctrine is espousing false doctrine.

Take heed, lest you fall.