the Humanity of Jesus

PsyOps

Pixelated
Loosing ones salavtion how does that work? Gods not an indian giver. Grace is a gift from God.
Your either saved or your not. Those who backslide for more than a short season propably never slide forward in the first place.
Excummioncation is Biblical (practiced by the first church)
<DIR>1Co 5:11 But now I am writing to you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother if he is guilty of sexual immorality or greed, or is an idolater, reviler, drunkard, or swindler--not even to eat with such a one.
"Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them" (Romans 16:17).
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us" (2 Thessalonians 3:6).
</DIR>
but not indefintly providing there is repentace. It's the highest form of church disclipe, but I have heard examples where one man has taken it on himself to implement which is not Biblical.

But, since you believe the CC was the first established Christian Church as Peter was ordained as the rock of the church, then you would have to say that excommunication originated in the CC. Right?

I never said excommunication wasn’t Biblical. What I am saying is the CC exercises excommunication in ways that I consider questionable. Although, I have also already stated that the practice is questionalby practiced in other churches as well.
 
Last edited:

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
A child, even at the age of two knows whether they are doing right or wrong to a certain extent. They have already learned that there are certain consequences for disobedience. But what they haven't learned is salvation and how their actions play into this.
Exactly! I stated that in an earleir post.
PsyOps said:
What bothers me about this kind of discussion is how we, even as Christians, try to judge whether someone is saved or not based on certain criteria: age, actions, which church you beling to, what version of bible you read, etc... I think it makes for interesting conversation but we all know that only God makes this decision. No one knows what's in someone's heart except God. Hitler claimed he was a believer in Christ. Will he live in paradise with the rest that are saved? Only God knows.
Hello PsyOps. I don't look at it as "judging someone's salvation" because we're told not to. I look at it as deep caring about someones salvation because (as you well know) it isn't something that you can change after you die. I always care what someone believes and WILL always push for the truth but sometimes I'm labled as narrow minded & bigoted. So what, they'll see someday but it doesn't stop me from caring and pressing hard for the truth to be known.
 

libby

New Member
But, since you believe the CC was the first established Christian Church as Peter was ordained as the rock of the church, then you would have to say that excommunication originated in the CC. Right?

I never said excommunication wasn’t Biblical. What I am saying is the CC exercises excommunication in ways that I consider questionable. Although, I have also already stated that the practice is questionalby practiced in other churches as well.

PsyOps,
Marie is not Catholic, I doubt she believes that the Catholic Church was the first established Christian church, or that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16:18.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
PsyOps,
Marie is not Catholic, I doubt she believes that the Catholic Church was the first established Christian church, or that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Wow, I'm a bit :blushing: I think I got Marie confused with you. Sorry about that.
 

Marie

New Member
PsyOps,
Marie is not Catholic, I doubt she believes that the Catholic Church was the first established Christian church, or that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Hi Libby,

LoL :)

Your correct that I am not Roman Catholic or Greek Orthadox although my Dad and his Dad were both Roman Catholic as well as my grampa on my moms side.
You might also be very surprised to learn that for the last two years I have been reading Father Steadmans daily Missel. That I own A copy of the Catechissm Of the Catholic Church, that I have read the apochrpha and own three differnt versions of the Catholic Bible, my last being St Josephs Textbook edition Confraternity Version.

I do not agree with some of the doctrine, (like works based rightousness) but over the past few years I have taken it on my own to explore these doctrines and not just take someone else word for it. As I have always been intrigued by the differnces. Oh and I have no problem siteing the apostles creed.

So thanks for labeling me ;-) Laughing as I type this.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Hi Libby,

LoL :)

Your correct that I am not Roman Catholic or Greek Orthadox although my Dad and his Dad were both Roman Catholic as well as my grampa on my moms side.
You might also be very surprised to learn that for the last two years I have been reading Father Steadmans daily Missel. That I own A copy of the Catechissm Of the Catholic Church, that I have read the apochrpha and own three differnt versions of the Catholic Bible, my last being St Josephs Textbook edition Confraternity Version.

I do not agree with some of the doctrine, (like works based rightousness) but over the past few years I have taken it on my own to explore these doctrines and not just take someone else word for it. As I have always been intrigued by the differnces. Oh and I have no problem siteing the apostles creed.

So thanks for labeling me ;-) Laughing as I type this.

Okay... two questions:

1. Are you a Catholic of any type?

2. What is a Catholic Bible? (didn't know the Catholic Church had their own bible)
 

Marie

New Member
Okay... two questions:

1. Are you a Catholic of any type?



2. What is a Catholic Bible? (didn't know the Catholic Church had their own bible)

(1.) As a Christian in general, we are all consider part of the one Holy Apostlic Catholic Church, so in that regards yes, but in the convential use of the term no I am protestant, Baptised Brethen, in a Grace Brethern church my great Grandfather, my grama's dad was a Duknurd Minister orignally from Germany. I spent some time in my youth visiting a wide array of protestant churches but my primary church attendace as a child was the Grace Brethern Church & a Bible Presberytan Church. I currently attend an awesome Reformed, Orthadox Presberytan Church but Doctrinally I line up most closley to a reformed Baptist church.

(2.) The Roman or Greek Orthadox Catholic churches Bible is differnt in that Protestants claim there are 66 books as the Bible (cannons of scripture) there are some books that are the same but with differnt names for example we have 1 & 2nd Samuel were in their Bible that would be first and 2nd Kings as they have kings 1-4.



I am no scholar on Catholism by any means Libby would be a much better source when it comes to that.
You can get a Protestant Bible with the apocrypha included but its still slightly differnt, the apocrypha was deemed not worthy of being included as part of the cannons of scripture but do have value. I attended a United Methodist Church for two years that refrenced then in its Disciple 1 Bible study class.

Jerome rejected the Deuterocanonical books when he was translating the Bible into Latin circa 450 CE, (see the Vulgate). This was because no Hebrew version of these texts could be found, even though they were present in the Greek Old Testament (the Septuagint). However, they eventually were accepted by the Church, and most of them remained part of the Bible. Protestants rejected these books during the Reformation as lacking divine authority. They either excised them completely or placed them in a third section of the Bible. The Roman Catholic Council of Trent, on the other hand, declared in 1546 that the Deuterocanonical books were indeed divine.

It's interesting reading the books of Machabees because of you read of the Machabeen war in the Prostant Bible but this provides extra details of the family and the war. The book Of Enoch neither one include but yet it is in some Etheopian Bibles it talks about the angels being cast out of heaven.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Book of Enoch (also known as 1 Enoch) was once cherished by Jews and Christians alike, this book later fell into disfavor with powerful theologians–precisely because of its controversial statements on the nature and deeds of the fallen angels. The Enochian writings, in addition to many other writings that were excluded (or lost) from the Bible (i.e., the Book of Tobit, Esdras, etc.) were widely recognized by many of the early church fathers as "apocryphal" writings.[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The theme of the Book of Enoch dealing with the nature and deeds of the fallen angels so infuriated the later Church fathers that one, Filastrius, actually condemned it openly as heresy (Filastrius, Liber de Haeresibus, no. 108). Nor did the rabbis deign to give credence to the book's teaching about angels. Rabbi Simeon ben Jochai in the second century A.D. pronounced a curse upon those who believed it (Delitzsch, p. 223).[/FONT]

It also has some wild things in it that make it fairy tale like so although it provides a perspective on the fall of the angels it would be damaging to include it in scripture.
The Jews have some legends and thats where this really falls into unvalidated folk lore like Lillith.

I personally have no intrest no interest in the Nostic gospels which I consider forgeries, but the books above (except Enoch) fall into a differnt catagory. Read them like you would Flavius Josephus the Jewish Historian.
 
Last edited:

Marie

New Member
Differences Between Bibles

<CENTER><TABLE cellPadding=2 align=center><TBODY><TR><TD width=100></TD><TD>[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]In parentheses are alternate names for the Book in question. Books with a red mark are called "deuterocanonical" by the Catholic Church and "apocryphal" by Protestants, who've removed them from their Bibles. The first five Books of the Bible, the Law, are also called "Torah" and the "Pentateuch".[/FONT]

Refer to this Catholic website for a great example of differences in Bibles


<CENTER> </CENTER>
http://www.fisheaters.com/booksofbible2.html

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></CENTER>
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
(1.) As a Christian in general, we are all consider part of the one Holy Apostlic Catholic Church.

I had to do a little research on this one. I could find nothing that roots this “Holy Apostolic Catholic Church” in origin to what you are calling the first Church derived from ordination of Peter by Jesus. I found several references for actual churches that exist claiming they represent ALL Christians but none of them claims original roots to Jesus and Peter. Wiki (in short) explains it this way:

The Catholic Apostolic Church is the title belonging to the entire community of Christians (cf Catholic), quoting the last sentence of the Nicene Creed. It has, however, become specifically applied to the movement often called Irvingism.

Nicene Creed didn’t come along until around 325 AD. However the term “Apostolic Catholic Church” is not completely accurate as it is derived from the last part of the creed:

In one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church...

Catholic and Apostolic are separate terms, although it deems them both as one Church. But given the intent of the Nicene Creed I believe this accurately describes what would be the all-encompassing Church.

It's too bad so many churches don't subscribe to this teaching, even though they may have this creed to define their "membership" in the Church but they adhere to a more separatist mentality where they exclude those they feel don’t belong for one reason or another.
 

Marie

New Member
Nicene Creed didn’t come along until around 325 AD. However the term “Apostolic Catholic Church” is not completely accurate as it is derived from the last part of the creed:
Catholic and Apostolic are separate terms, although it deems them both as one Church. But given the intent of the Nicene Creed I believe this accurately describes what would be the all-encompassing Church.
It's too bad so many churches don't subscribe to this teaching, even though they may have this creed to define their "membership" in the Church but they adhere to a more separatist mentality where they exclude those they feel don’t belong for one reason or another.

Bingo!
Sorry for the confussion in church we switch from the Apostels Creed to the Niceen Creed and its always been explained as meaning the universal Christian church. I am glad you took the time to look it up though.
The Methodist Church did the Apostles creed which is very similar in content.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.
 

PsyOps

Pixelated
Bingo!
Sorry for the confussion in church we switch from the Apostels Creed to the Niceen Creed and its always been explained as meaning the universal Christian church. I am glad you took the time to look it up though.
The Methodist Church did the Apostles creed which is very similar in content.

I believe in God, the Father Almighty,
the Creator of heaven and earth,
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
Who was conceived of the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, died, and was buried.
He descended into hell. The third day He arose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven
and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty,
whence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body,
and life everlasting.
Amen.

Here is the bottom line for me. All churches and their denominations are vital parts of the body of Christ. These discussions are interesting but have no bearing on the importance of each part of “The Body”.

HOWEVER… many aspects of this church (or body) have lost touch with the core of Christ’s teachings. They have become self-serving and focused on rules, rituals, money and power. I have so many criticisms of these churches and their practices. This shouldn’t be interpreted as a criticism to the congregation; the believers. So many aspects of our churches have fallen into the same demise as the churches of the days of Christ, in which He was highly critical.
 

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
He descended into hell.
I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy *catholic church,
These are the three in that creed that I've had trouble with for years:
Christ did not descent into hell after He died.
The CC is not the church Jesus started.
The one that says (in the other "creed"): they believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Those are not biblical but I can live with the rest.
 

Marie

New Member
These are the three in that creed that I've had trouble with for years:.
Why?
Christ did not descent into hell after He died.:.
?
<DIR>1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
I have heard debate as to what the text means but never the text disregarded. I have also heard the creed modified as such he decended to the dead.
</DIR>
The CC is not the church Jesus started.:.
CC? Christian Church?
This has always been explained as the universal Christian Church coming directly from its Greek meaning. When I was exposed to it for the first time, I cringed but but into context I dont see any issue with it.
The Greek roots of the term "Catholic" mean "according to (kata-) the whole (holos)," or more colloquially, "universal." At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Church.

The one that says (in the other "creed"): they believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
Those are not biblical but I can live with the rest.
The creeds where written by men, if it wernt for some churches doing mindless recietals of them every week the couldnt even explain at all what they believe. Although for liturigical purpose you are to be concertrating on what your saying. I know of some churches that do and most members still couldnt tell you what a Christian believes.

I think the reformed churches would probably shy away from them if they were any blatiant issues but I like to hear in more detail your thoughts on this. Personally I can do without littergy but if it can be done so as to elevate ones thoughts of God and why they are there I can deal with it.
 

ItalianScallion

Harley Rider
<DIR>1Pe 3:18 For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
1Pe 3:19 in which he went and proclaimed to the spirits in prison,
1Pe 3:20 because they formerly did not obey, when God's patience waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through water.
I have heard debate as to what the text means but never the text disregarded. I have also heard the creed modified as such he decended to the dead.
I did not disregard it. Some (Meyers, Copeland, Osteen, etc.) believe that Jesus had to go to hell to finish paying for our sins through 3 days of satanic torment. Just before He died He said: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. It's possible, but highly doubtful, He went into hades (not hell) and proclaimed victory at some point AFTER He rose from the dead but definitely NOT right after He died. It is clearly stated that His spirit went to the Father immediately after He died on the cross.
Marie said:
CC? Christian Church? This has always been explained as the universal Christian Church coming directly from its Greek meaning. When I was exposed to it for the first time, I cringed but but into context I dont see any issue with it. The Greek roots of the term "Catholic" mean "according to (kata-) the whole (holos)," or more colloquially, "universal." At the beginning of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius the first surviving use of the term "Catholic" in reference to the Church.
I'm unsure what your "CC? Christian Church" means here. It was either Starman, PsyOps or someone else who correctly stated it earlier. The church that started with Jesus was the Christian church (sometimes called the "universal" church), but NOT the present day Roman Catholic church.
Marie said:
The creeds where written by men, if it wernt for some churches doing mindless recietals of them every week the couldnt even explain at all what they believe. Although for liturigical purpose you are to be concertrating on what your saying. I know of some churches that do and most members still couldnt tell you what a Christian believes. I think the reformed churches would probably shy away from them if they were any blatiant issues but I like to hear in more detail your thoughts on this. Personally I can do without littergy but if it can be done so as to elevate ones thoughts of God and why they are there I can deal with it.
I think I agree with you here Marie but what is your point about? I wrote what I said in regards to their saying: "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..." and the fact that baptism does NOT forgive any sins.
 

Marie

New Member
I did not disregard it. Some (Meyers, Copeland, Osteen, etc.) believe that Jesus had to go to hell to finish paying for our sins through 3 days of satanic torment. Just before He died He said: "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit. It's possible, but highly doubtful, He went into hades (not hell) and proclaimed victory at some point AFTER He rose from the dead but definitely NOT right after He died. It is clearly stated that His spirit went to the Father immediately after He died on the cross.

I'm unsure what your "CC? Christian Church" means here. It was either Starman, PsyOps or someone else who correctly stated it earlier. The church that started with Jesus was the Christian church (sometimes called the "universal" church), but NOT the present day Roman Catholic church.

I think I agree with you here Marie but what is your point about? I wrote what I said in regards to their saying: "we acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins..." and the fact that baptism does NOT forgive any sins.
Were cool and on the same page
Christ did all the work on the cross, and if he went to Hades as the creeds implies it was to decalare victory as you stated.
The creeds refer to the Catholic church as the Universal church.
Christ never gave the apostels degrees of authority over each other in fact he rubuked them for there grumbling. That was something man implemented as he was going through the motions of creating a church structure he did tell Peter that he would build his church with/through him but never called him a pope or exalted him in any other way.
Finally Baptism is nothing more than a public proffession of faith although I personally believe it should be reserved for believers, as non believers have nothing to proffess, and that you can dedicate a child to the Lord without getting them wet. Although my church disagrees with me.
 

TimAllen

New Member
Existence makes more sense through science then the belief that something that can't be seen, touched, or heard one day said poof and everything that was suppose to be here was placed. Yet since that day he or she hasn't created anything else outside of Jesus or any of the other religious icons born after the poof session.

The dinosaurs don't make sense. But I don't hear any stories about them being created. Did a t-rex sin one day and piss god off and as retribution he sent in a big comet to blow up the earth and make them all extinct? Were are there creation stories.

There isn't a single thing about creation that makes sense unless you believe in magic, fairy tales and have fear for the unknown.

There is reference to dinasaurs in the Bible,

Job 40 15-18
15 Behold now behemoth, which I made with thee; he eateth grass as an ox.

16 Lo now, his strength is in his loins, and his force is in the navel of his belly.

17 He moveth his tail like a cedar: the sinews of his stones are wrapped together.

18 His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron.

AND

Job 41 1-34

King James Bible

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?
2 Canst thou put an hook into his nose? or bore his jaw through with a thorn?

3 Will he make many supplications unto thee? will he speak soft words unto thee?

4 Will he make a covenant with thee? wilt thou take him for a servant for ever?

5 Wilt thou play with him as with a bird? or wilt thou bind him for thy maidens?

6 Shall the companions make a banquet of him? shall they part him among the merchants?

7 Canst thou fill his skin with barbed irons? or his head with fish spears?

8 Lay thine hand upon him, remember the battle, do no more.

9 Behold, the hope of him is in vain: shall not one be cast down even at the sight of him?

10 None is so fierce that dare stir him up: who then is able to stand before me?

11 Who hath prevented me, that I should repay him? whatsoever is under the whole heaven is mine.

12 I will not conceal his parts, nor his power, nor his comely proportion.

13 Who can discover the face of his garment? or who can come to him with his double bridle?

14 Who can open the doors of his face? his teeth are terrible round about.

15 His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal.

16 One is so near to another, that no air can come between them.

17 They are joined one to another, they stick together, that they cannot be sundered.

18 By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning.

19 Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out.

20 Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron.

21 His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth.

22 In his neck remaineth strength, and sorrow is turned into joy before him.

23 The flakes of his flesh are joined together: they are firm in themselves; they cannot be moved.

24 His heart is as firm as a stone; yea, as hard as a piece of the nether millstone.

25 When he raiseth up himself, the mighty are afraid: by reason of breakings they purify themselves.

26 The sword of him that layeth at him cannot hold: the spear, the dart, nor the habergeon.

27 He esteemeth iron as straw, and brass as rotten wood.

28 The arrow cannot make him flee: slingstones are turned with him into stubble.

29 Darts are counted as stubble: he laugheth at the shaking of a spear.

30 Sharp stones are under him: he spreadeth sharp pointed things upon the mire.

31 He maketh the deep to boil like a pot: he maketh the sea like a pot of ointment.

32 He maketh a path to shine after him; one would think the deep to be hoary.

33 Upon earth there is not his like, who is made without fear.

34 He beholdeth all high things: he is a king over all the children of pride.
 

Marie

New Member
Cool Kids site discusing rejection of the Mamoth

:yeahthat:
More than likely they are describing an elephant. I'm pretty sure TRex didnt spend alot of time at the Salad Bar ("he eateth grass as an ox")
Actually I thought it was refering to the Wooly Mamoth as well, but it doesnt work as the description of ther tail dosent fit. It sounds more like the large plant eating dinasour. Dinosaurs such as Diplodocus and Apatosaurus have tails like a cedar tree.
Are Dinosaurs in the Bible? Behemoth Dinosaur Creation Evolution
 

TimAllen

New Member
Any site that claims Dinosaurs (we're talking T-rexes and Brontasaurus's) existed at the same time as man is just silly.

To use YOUR Bible to support that argument is equally invalid. In order for YOUR version to work they co-existed with man in the Garden of Eden. Not everyone believes in YOUR Bible, People and civilizations that predate YOUR Bible, have an equally valid creation "story" that doesnt include the Garden of Eden.
  • There is proof of the existence of the dinosaurs
  • There is no proof of the existence of the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve
  • You cant use the Bible as "proof" since your asking your "proof" to prove itself.
  • The Bible is not a history book. Just because the Bible did not mention Dinosaurs does not mean they did not exist. The Bible does not refer to a lot of things that do in fact exist.

Show me where Science has proved the Bible wrong!
IT has NOT happened.... I have heard this for a long time.. Science this Science...The only thing Science has been able to do is corroborate the Stories in the Bible never once has Science prived the Bible wrong.. If you know something different then tell me..
 
Top