TomL is definitely Trinitarian, believe me. It was just a statement to get the Unitarians to see how they're so prone to make assumptions that are unwarranted or even alien to the text.
The Unitarian belief that Jesus is not God causes those who offer worship to the Father's Throne (where Jesus sits) to be guilty of idolatry.
- Thread starter synergy
- Start date
MTMattie
Active member
The only idiocy I see are those beliefs from those that do not understand the clear words from Jesus in John 8:24
“Therefore I said to you that you will die in your sins; for unless you believe that I am He, you will die in your sins.”
That would be Unitaritarians and JWs who are steeped in the word of God and should know better.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Define "Catholic". If you do, you will find that the very word "catholic" applies to most every Christian within 2nd century Christianity. I'll glad have this conversation with you and you can learn. Don't blindly accept all these false narratives that exist around most anything to do with "Christianity" today.
You will find that I'm different than most anyone you've meet. I seldom "fit in" anywhere. If you really want to discuss what is real and what is imaginary in all of this, I'll spend the time to do just that. I actually enjoy such conversations. Rarely does anyone get to have an unbiased conversation.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
There is plenty of that going around in the forum......
Last edited:
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
In my view, few people actually pay attention to what they actually read. People form "clicks" that dictate how most anything should apply to their "click".
I just tried to reread an supposedly "scholarly" article on the "anti_Necene" period of "Christianity". I couldn't get past the 2nd paragraph. It is amazing how supposed "historians" have twisted realty.
Many issues come from misunderstandings about first/second century history relative to "Catholicism". It is far too late to wait till the Nicene Council in 325 to understand Christianity.
MTMattie
Active member
Except the bibles they read often change a verse just enough to make it seem to suggest something else.
Such as the JW choice on John 8:24 reads That is why I said to you: You will die in your sins. For if you do not believe that I am the one, you will die in your sins.”
They add the one... and meaning changes.from "I am" to I am the one who can save you leaving the God name out of things.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
The overall scope of the revelation of Jesus Christ clearly establishes the preeminence of Jesus Christ. JW and Unitarians "wrest" the Scriptures to their own destruction.
No I was speaking of another's not my assumption
stating he was begging the question
"That begs the question Assuming God cannot be more than one person"
I am a Trinitarian
Read the posts
Peterlag
Well-known member
I'm not concerned with what the Catholics taught a thousand years ago. I want to know two things that I cannot know on my own. Curious I am about...
1.) What the Catholics taught in my lifetime that was ever correct.
2.) What Christianity means to people who believe Jesus is God. How do they fellowship with God?
Peterlag
Well-known member
Jesus did not teach Christians how to pray. He taught Jews how to pray.
Peterlag
Well-known member
It's the Christ that I am fellowshipping with to the end that I am moving back and forth with him and thereby able to have a relationship with him. This is new to me because the concept is to not ask God for much. Also, and this is huge: I no longer try to get God or Jesus Christ to work with me or to get close to me. I now spend much of my time right inside the spirit as close as I can get right in their face. The Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
1. You must define Catholic to answer #1. Also, are you referencing 1000 years ago forward or point in time?
2. That is a long conversation. If you want to solely know how I fellowship, I can answer with the Scriptures.
1Co 1:9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Jn_1:3 That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ.
Peterlag
Well-known member
It's the Christ that I am fellowshipping with to the end that I am moving back and forth with him and thereby able to have a relationship with him. This is new to me because the concept is to not ask God for much. Also, and this is huge: I no longer try to get God or Jesus Christ to work with me or to get close to me. I now spend much of my time right inside the spirit as close as I can get right in their face. The Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.
MTMattie
Active member
praise_yeshua
Well-known member
Got it. At least I think I do.
Modern Catholics do not teaching what is often referenced as "Total Depravity". Such teachings were so engrained in some old Latin traditions and subsequently English traditions (Concupiscence) that it is difficult to delineate the very "fine lines" that exists between various teachings.
I do not believe that man is born incapable of doing good. Neither do I believe that man is so removed from God that he can't do good for all the right reasons. Nor that tainted innocence produces self serving good. Jesus said very clearly that no man has greater love than to die for another. Yet, Non-Christians die for one another all the time.
However, Jesus took this a step further when He detailed how Christ died for His enemies. (which is what mankind had become). It is rather certain that the very details of our existence in this life prove that we are born in an environment of suffering. This suffering is relative to how our "fathers before us" treated God. Thusly, mankind has been previously judged incapable of actually pleasing God. Which is why Christ died. Christ died to rescue mankind.
Dying for enemies is heavenly. Divine. This is contrary to mankind. We seek vengeance for our own.
Can you agree that only the Divine can love in such a manner as this? Such is only imparted to us through the Divine love of Jesus Christ. Even Angels don't love in such a manner.
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?
1Pe 1:12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
Do you agree with me thus far?
Last edited:
civic
Well-known member
oops.
MTMattie
Active member
Yes, but all here are.
No problem at all
Similar threads
