Christian Discussion Thread VII: The Christ Awakens.

[Nordengrund]

If you mean the Rapture, the Catholic Church utterly rejects it.

I wish it was true, but at some point, certain church still talked about it.

The Early Church Fathers were divided between premillennialism (then known as chiliasm) and amillennialism. The Father's that held premillennialism is akin to historic premillennialism rather than dispensationalism. Chiliasm didn't die out until around the Fourth Century IIRC correctly, with Augustine (and maybe Origen.)

Just because a particular view was not taught in the Early Church doesn't make it false. The Church at that time was in its primitive stage, and doctrines were likely loosely defined as they hadn't had as much time to develop and the Church was mainly focusing on surviving and dealing with persecution, so it may not have had the time to go into the meticulous with doctrine. Over time, we gain a better understanding of those doctrines. I'm not saying new views cannot be wrong, just that we shouldn't dismiss it just because it's new.

Just like any other period in the Church's history, the Early Church got some things right and some things wrong. Such is inevitable as the Church is made up of humans and we will sin until Christ returns.

[Most Eternal Angvaria]

I was an avid fan of the SSPX 46 years ago...

And now you are presumably over 60 years of age with an anime girl avatar?

I live more than 4000 years ago on earth...

[Cill Airne]

As this thread nears it's end, I would like to once again suggest updating the poll. I'd like to offer two proposals - the first is a refinement, while the second proposes a new category:

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc.)
• Anglican/Episcopalian
• Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
• Methodist
• Baptist
• Other Evangelical Protestant (Pentecostal, Charismatic, etc.)
• Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
• Other Christian

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Non-Chalcedonian (Oriental Orthodox, Church of the East, etc.)
• Anglican/Episcopalian
• Lutheran or Reformed (including Calvinist, Presbyterian, etc.)
• Baptist
• Other Evangelical Protestant (Pentecostal, Charismatic, etc.)
• Restorationist (LDS Movement, Jehovah's Witness, etc.)
• Cultural Christian
• Other Christian

I changed the poll for this CDT but it was changed back to the original poll so I am not sure if it will be changed/permitted to change in the next incarnation.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

I don't really like to be this blunt, but no that is incorrect. At no point, in any source is the Sanhedrin referred to as "the heart of the Earth." The Sanhedrin aren't even the "heart" of the Jewish religion, at best you could make an argument for the Temple and Priests, being the "heart" but even that is a stretch. It's never been referred to to as that.

Further, the Greek here for Earth is γῆς the genitive case of γῆ which means literal earth, the ground. The Greek phrase here is ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τῆς γῆς, which without going too much into Koine grammer, literately means to be in the ground.

To even possibly be referring to the Sanhedrin,. the phrase would have to be ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ τοῦ κόσμου "in the heart of the world."

Mathew 12:40 refers to the three days of Jesus's death. He was crucified, descended into the heart of the earth, which you'll remember from the picture is Sheol, and on the third day rose again. (It's Hebrew custom to refer to even part of the day as constituting the whole 24 hour period day and night, so even though he was killed on Friday and Raised again Sunday morning, a time period of aproximately 36 hours, the first century Jews would have recorded this as 3 days)."

And he did,... during those three days.

Luke 9:28-36
28 And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.

29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.

30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:

31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.

32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.

33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.

34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.

35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.

36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

I don't know what distinction you're trying to make here. Lucifer is not God. Christ is God. Lucifer literally has no power over Christ than what Jesus allows him to have. Lucifer is still subject to Jesus's will.

Jesus. being the Word and Son, is subject to the Father's will. (The Godhead really can be confusing)

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not what I want but what you want.” 40 Then he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not stay awake with me one hour? 41 Stay awake and pray that you may not come into the time of trial;[a] the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” 42 Again he went away for the second time and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done.”

This whole thing was God's will. Lucifer was just an actor in the play God had composed. If Lucifer had any choice in the matter, he would have spared Christ, as Christ's death was the ultimate victory over sin and Satan. If anything, it is the ultimate punishment for Satan, to have to manifest his own defeat.


....You realize there is a linear timeline right? Christ had not died when he spoke these words, thus no man had ascended into heaven. It wasn't until after he had died so that man could ascend.



Again, Lucifer is just a player in the divine plan. He's still under God's authority. The notion that Lucifer had the capacity to kill God is near blasphemous. Christianity is not dualist, the Devil is not equal in power to God.

Christ was in full control over his fate.
"53 Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels? 54 But how then would the scriptures be fulfilled, which say it must happen in this way?”"

11 “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep." ]

"Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? 'Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour"

"Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross. Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, and of those on earth, and of those under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"



Christ went willingly to the Cross Chose The Cross, and through the Cross, Lucifer is defeated. Once again, while it may have been used by evil men before, God took it, sanctified it with his Blood, and delivered us from perdition. In that way, the Cross of Christ is a truly holy thing.

I mean it's redundant at this point, Satan is under the heel of God and can do nothing that God doesn't allow. Satan may have been the agent that twisted Judas, but it was all God's will. Christs death was not the work of the Devil, it was the will of God.




You're right he did:

And calling the crowd to him with his disciples, he said to them, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me."



You don't get to call things false, when you don't even know the definition of words. Once again you are using Graven incorrectly. It does not bear negative connotation: it means "deeply impressed; firmly fixed" In the connotations of Exodus 20:4 graven is translated from פֶּסֶל which means "a carved idol" Graven=carved. Graven=/= evil.

It is irrelevant, who or for what motive the Actors had, they carried out the will of the Father. Ironically you quoted the passage that confirms this.

"11 Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin."

The only false Christian here, is your "Pastor" who tries to tell you that the Death of Christ was evil.

A few bits of advice going forward:

1. Pick a better translation. The KJV is a beautiful work, but it's a product of its time, has many confusing inaccuracies and utilizes words that have evolved in meaning and connotation since then. The NAB, NRSV, ESV, are all solid translations attested to by Scholars and Clergy alike, and they're much easier to work with.

2. Please structure your posts more compactly. Theological debates are more than just posting walls of scripture, expecting them to speak for themselves. Present the arguments you are making fully, and support it with scripture. And if you're going to be posting entire chapters please spoiler them.



And here's a bit of logical question for you, Iconography in Christian usage dates back to at least the second century. The Bible wasn't codified until the 4th century. Why would the Church, codify Scripture that directly contradicted its practices? (Hint: it wouldn't)

The Cross is not evil and was held up by Christ and the Christians who wrote the books of the Bible

1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Matthew 10:38 And whoever does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me.


I don't know what obscure sect of Christianity you belong to, but if what you say is true, that only false Christians "revere" the Cross, then there have never been true Christians.

I did not say that Yahshua dying on the cross was by the will of Lucifer but the will of the Lord God Yahweh. I'm sorry if you did not see my saying that several times but now that I've cleared that up I do intend to make myself very clear.
Yahweh's will was to have Yahshua killed to save all mankind.
Yahshua allowed himself to be killed by those who hated him and were sinful.
Sinfulness is not of the Lord God Yahweh but of Lucifer.
Lucifer therefore guided them to kill him.
Lucifer directly entered Judas Isocrait and then went to betray Yahshua the Christ.
Lucifer therefore directly had a hand in killing him as I had pointed out.
Yahweh did not kill his son Yahshua the chirst but simply allowed it to happen so that all men could be saved by his sacrifice.
Yes Yahshua died on the cross.

Yes you said it several times, but the point I'm making is you seem incapable of following the logical regression that stems from the fact that it is God's will. Because, it was God's will that Christ die all those who participated in the crucifixion were a part of God's plan even if they themselves were sinful. No matter the Complexities of God's interactions with the world, at all times he remains sovereign.

"7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." Isaiah 45:7. As God allowed the Babylonians to Conquer Israel, Jesus allowed himself to be crucified. But at all times it was His will.

Think about it from this perspective: Jesus dying on the Cross was the ultimate victory. His death defeated the power of Sin. If Satan were free to do his own works, do you think he would allow Christ to die? No, he would have rolled in guns blazing and saved the Son of Man as fast as possible. This is why Satan tempts Jesus in the desert, in hopes to distract him from his mission, to get him to not die. It was God's will that Jesus died, therefore all that happens to carry out that will is derivative of that Will. Because it was God's will that Christ die on the Cross, the Cross is not evil. Because God chose the cross as the instrument of his passion "The son of man must be lifted up" it cannot be said to be evil, it was an instrument of capital punishment.

Yes it does say to take up the cross after him.

Luke 9:21-26
21 And he straitly charged them, and commanded them to tell no man that thing;

22 Saying, The Son of man must suffer many things, and be rejected of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be slain, and be raised the third day.

23 And he said to them all, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.

24 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: but whosoever will lose his life for my sake, the same shall save it.

25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?

26 For whosoever shall be ashamed of me and of my words, of him shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he shall come in his own glory, and in his Father's, and of the holy angels.

Matt 16:23-25
23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

24 Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.

25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

But it is saying to die, for the Lord God Yahweh's word just as he did.
I'm sorry you could not see that before but I hope that now you can see and understand the true meaning of what it is saying.

I know, it was a joke, hence why I included the smiley face. But, on that note, that is one of the reasons Christians wear crosses around their necks: to symbolically carry their cross. The reason this practice is done is because dying for Christ isn't really a practice anymore, now that Christianity dominates a good portion of the world. The Donatist and Cicumcellion heresies, of seeking to be martyred have been condemned for over a thousand years. Christs words here are more than just "one must die" but one must bear the burden of following Christ. The life of a Christian is a struggle, it is not easy. Thus we carry our crosses.

As to the other quote from Corinthians.
18 For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
I agree completely that we all must preach that Yahshua died on the cross for our sins and in fact if we do not believe that he died on the cross for our sins we cannot be saved.
When we look at the definition of Idol in the Strong's concordance we see that the definition of graven image is an idol or image. Or alternatively a carved image, or idol. Take your pick.

Yes that is the definition, in the modern vernacular, a Carved Idol, a statue, etc.

So yes the cross is indeed a carved image that is used as an idol by your churches.

No it's not. You've identified the translation (finally) of a carved Idol, but don't seem to comprehend what an idol is. An idol is a physical representation of a god, and the Idol itself is worshiped as if said God was manifest within the Idol. No Christian denomination, has any doctrine in which it worships the Cross itself as the embodiment of God, and you asserting as such is slander.

The cross=graven image=idol=not of the Lord God Yahweh=Of Lucifer.

This is a false assertion. As you have purposefully ignored, the command against graven idols, was not about the Idol itself about about making up their own. God commanded them to make Idols, with the Ark of the Covenant, and this was not in violation of the commandment.

Alright, now Yahshua did die on the cross but making the cross the focal point and not him dying is wrong.
Caring at all about the torture device he died on is wrong.

This is really just your ignorance of what other traditions actually believe at this point. The Cross itself is not the focal point. There's two avenues to address here, the Cross and the Crucifix. The Crucifix is the Catholic and Orthodox Icon, which depicts Christ on the Cross. It is an Icon, and image, not an Idol (physical manifestation of God), that brings to mind the Death of Christ. It literally puts the focus on Christ's death.


Protestants use the Cross to carry two fold meaning: 1. Like the Crucifix it is a symbol bringing to mind the death of Christ, that Christ was tortured and died for us. They don't revere the cross itself, the revere the purpose for which it was used. 2. That Christ has been resurrected, and death itself could not hold him. They use the Cross not the Crucifix, because Christ has risen. And empty cross is a symbolic representation of both his death and his resurrection.

Caring about Yahshua is holy.
Yahshua did not sanctify the cross he simply died on it, it was just a means to an end.

Pretty sure any object that comes into contact with the blood of the Lord is sanctified, but that's not the point.

But here's what I meant. Symbols have no inherent meaning, they only have the meaning we ascribe to them. For instance "p" is a symbol. = When we see that symbol we know what it means, the meaning is generated in our mind, the phonetic sound. However it doesn't mean the same to everybody. In greek "p" doesn't evoke the same phonetic sound, it actually envokes the sound an "r" makes. The symbol p itself has no meaning, on the meaning that groups ascribe to it.

The cross has always been more than just a torture device, it is the oldest symbol known to man. In Jesus's time, it was a symbol of Roman military might, dominance, and oppression. When Christ, died on the cross, the cross became a symbol of God's love and mercy. We as Christians no longer saw the Cross as a symbol of oppression, but a symbol of God's liberation. Check the wording on that Corinthians quote, "the message of the Cross" not "the message of Jesus's death." As early as Paul, the cross had become an important symbol in Christianity.

To raise it up and make it something more than just a way for people to be tortured to death is wrong.

Redundant at this point, but this is really just your own opinion. There's nothing in Scripture or Tradition, that supports this assertion. Really the opposite is true.

How many people died on the cross after Yahshua was killed?
Were they all then righteous having died on it even if they did not know the word of the Lord God Yahweh?
Do we all get a free pass by simply being killed on the cross?
If so then why do we go by faith and works at all and not just all die on the cross and be instantly saved.
Because the cross is not holy.

No, more just because you're making a ridiculous assertion. No Christian denomination holds this view, or has ever held this view, I don't think even the Cicumcellions held a view of martyrdom this specfic.

It is not of god.
It was created by men, used by men before Christ, and after him to kill people innocent or guilty in the eyes of the lord.

And that's irrelevant. Christ died on it, he made it his own and Christians in the immediate aftermath embraced it as a symbol. Many of those crucified were martyrs' of the Christian faith, (Though dying specifically through Crucifixion). And Constantine outlawed crucifixion so that none would be confused with Christ.

And as I said I cannot get into the Sanhedrin court discussion with you until I have all the facts from the bible, I would not want to be wrong about something concerning the bible and teach it to others, because then I would be the reason that they did not know the truth and instead a lie.

Then you shoulnd't have mentioned it at all. Clearly you shouldn't be "Teaching" if you don't even know the facts to defend your "teachings."

I would hope that someone who considers themselves to be a person of the Lord would understand that having strong doctrine is always better than simple word of mouth, considering that doctrine is what we believe in and only by sound doctrine should we accept anything brought before us.
I would also hope that you would know that we are to prove all things concerning what the Lord God Yahweh has said.

1 Thessalonians 5:21-23
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.

23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 4:1-5
4 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.

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;

4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

And you've proved nothing. What you've offered is little more than a glorified opinion.

[/quote]

Couple of things to comment on here:

1. Scripture =/= doctrine. Scripture is Scripture. Doctrines are Teachings. Doctrines are based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. You seem to be confused on that point.
2. Spare me the pious bullshit. You're not a prophet, you're not guided by some divine revelation that us mere mortals are unable to discern. You are arguing for your own belief about what scripture says, a belief by the way, Which flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian Theological Development. The very Church that compiled the Scripture you claim is the word of God, is the same Church you call false. That's simply illogical. If I have to pick, between what you think you've uncovered in the Scriptures, and what the Church that can trace its succession all the way back to Christ himself professes, I'm gonna pick them over you every time. I'm sorry that you have blinded yourself with your own ego, that you cannot hear the truth. I'm sorry that you trust in your own understanding, and not in God's Holy Church.


If I may ask, what Denomination do you belong to?

[ShinChonJi]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

[Conscentia]

I changed the poll for this CDT but it was changed back to the original poll so I am not sure if it will be changed/permitted to change in the next incarnation.

It was changed back because that proposal which you used included the option "Messianic Jew", and Archregimancy didn't approve of that. My new proposals do not include this option.

[Greater Nitedula]

Indeed!

[Nordengrund]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

It depend on who you ask. Some denominations and sects claim to be the only true Church and anyone outside of it is either a heretic of a "separated brethren". The latter are considered Christians, just without full truth.

Many Protestant denominations believe that the true church consists of the worldwide body of born- again believers found all over the world, so they define the universal Church as consisting of all believers throughout the world and it's history since the beginning of the Church. However, a Protestant may believe that one denomination is generally more right than the others and closer to the truth, but he still believes that born-again believers can be found in any church and he does not see his denomination as infallible.

[Reverend Norv]

2. Spare me the pious bullshit. You're not a prophet, you're not guided by some divine revelation that us mere mortals are unable to discern. You are arguing for your own belief about what scripture says, a belief by the way, Which flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian Theological Development. The very Church that compiled the Scripture you claim is the word of God, is the same Church you call false. That's simply illogical. If I have to pick, between what you think you've uncovered in the Scriptures, and what the Church that can trace its succession all the way back to Christ himself professes, I'm gonna pick them over you every time. I'm sorry that you have blinded yourself with your own ego, that you cannot hear the truth. I'm sorry that you trust in your own understanding, and not in God's Holy Church.

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribes a sure rule for these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacreligious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things."

Calvin, Institutes, Book One, Chapter VII, Section 2

[Efraim-Judah]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

There is none.


The True "denomination" is Israel.

[Efraim-Judah]

I changed the poll for this CDT but it was changed back to the original poll so I am not sure if it will be changed/permitted to change in the next incarnation.

It was changed back because that proposal which you used included the option "Messianic Jew", and Archregimancy didn't approve of that. My new proposals do not include this option.

You know what, I'm pretty sure I speak for other Messianics on this thread when I say we don't want to be included on the poll. There is to much doctrinal distinction to be included.

[Austria and Bavaria]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

It's called a dispute. It's like claiming that Black Holes don't exist because they aren't fully understood and scientists do not fully agree on all points about them.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

2. Spare me the pious bullshit. You're not a prophet, you're not guided by some divine revelation that us mere mortals are unable to discern. You are arguing for your own belief about what scripture says, a belief by the way, Which flies in the face of 2000 years of Christian Theological Development. The very Church that compiled the Scripture you claim is the word of God, is the same Church you call false. That's simply illogical. If I have to pick, between what you think you've uncovered in the Scriptures, and what the Church that can trace its succession all the way back to Christ himself professes, I'm gonna pick them over you every time. I'm sorry that you have blinded yourself with your own ego, that you cannot hear the truth. I'm sorry that you trust in your own understanding, and not in God's Holy Church.

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribes a sure rule for these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacreligious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things."

Calvin, Institutes, Book One, Chapter VII, Section 2

Quoting Calvin to me is like telling me 2+2 is 5.

There is no doubt the God inspired the codification of scripture, but it was through this institution that such inspiration was made manifest. It was by The Church's authority that the a canon was established, inopposition to other proposals. You cannot accept that God inspired the scriptures and then reject the means by which he executed such inspiration.

This is just another case of Calvins hypocritical thinking.

[Camaalbakrius]

"But a most pernicious error widely prevails that Scripture has only so much weight as is conceded to it by the consent of the church. As if the eternal and inviolable truth of God depended upon the decision of men! For they mock the Holy Spirit when they ask: Who can convince us that these writings came from God? Who can assure us that Scripture has come down whole and intact even to our very day? Who can persuade us to receive one book in reverence but to exclude another, unless the church prescribes a sure rule for these matters? What reverence is due Scripture and what books ought to be reckoned within its canon depend, they say, upon the determination of the church. Thus these sacreligious men, wishing to impose an unbridled tyranny under the cover of the church, do not care with what absurdities they ensnare themselves and others, provided they can force this one idea upon the simple-minded: that the church has authority in all things."

Calvin, Institutes, Book One, Chapter VII, Section 2

Quoting Calvin to me is like telling me 2+2 is 5.

There is no doubt the God inspired the codification of scripture, but it was through this institution that such inspiration was made manifest. It was by The Church's authority that the a canon was established, inopposition to other proposals. You cannot accept that God inspired the scriptures and then reject the means by which he executed such inspiration.

This is just another case of Calvins hypocritical thinking.

I find the idea of predestination to be absolutley bogus. Being determined before you existed whether you would go to heaven or hell completely undermines the idea of free will and redemption

[Diopolis]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

There are forty thousand interpretations. Thirty nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine are not true, because only one can be true.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Quoting Calvin to me is like telling me 2+2 is 5.

There is no doubt the God inspired the codification of scripture, but it was through this institution that such inspiration was made manifest. It was by The Church's authority that the a canon was established, inopposition to other proposals. You cannot accept that God inspired the scriptures and then reject the means by which he executed such inspiration.

This is just another case of Calvins hypocritical thinking.

I find the idea of predestination to be absolutley bogus. Being determined before you existed whether you would go to heaven or hell completely undermines the idea of free will and redemption

Well there is a sort of predestination, but it's not the type of predestination that Calvin attests. God has a plan, has always had a plan, Christ was predestined to die before the founding of the world. But did God predestine the means by which that would be his distruction? Or did he exploit what he knew would be available. It's honestly a very difficult subject to discuss when you consider that God transcends time, exists at all points of time sumarrily, yet at the same time his plan is ordered through a linear time frame.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

There are forty thousand interpretations. Thirty nine thousand, nine hundred and ninety nine are not true, because only one can be true.

And that one is Connor Macleod.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

There is none.


The True "denomination" is Israel.

Technically speaking, the whole world is Israel

[Czervenika]

So do we have a new thread yet or not?

[The Princes of the Universe]

So do we have a new thread yet or not?

We still have 23 posts left before 500 pages.

What's the best way to undercut bad theology?

[Luminesa]

So do we have a new thread yet or not?

We still have 23 posts left before 500 pages.

What's the best way to undercut bad theology?

If a person is talking over you and shouting misconceptions about your faith, just let them finish and then answer calmly. You'll look like the smart one no matter what you say, after that.

[Salus Maior]

Can someone give me something in the scripture that supports the idea of Trinity?

Also, can someone tell me how can all these denominations call themselves the truth? Isn't there only 1 truth in the end, and that's God?
If God exists, then there is ONE truth, making all the other interpretations NOT TRUE.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome[a] it. John 1: 1-5

14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

I'm pretty sure that's got Jesus's place as the Son all set definitively.

Because all those denominations interpret either scripture, tradition, Church history or all three at once differently and for the most part have legitimate points.

[The Princes of the Universe]

What's the best way to undercut bad theology?

If a person is talking over you and shouting misconceptions about your faith, just let them finish and then answer calmly. You'll look like the smart one no matter what you say, after that.

That's actually really useful in a discussion and great advice to be heeded by all (I think I'll put this in my quotes dispatch)... but not quite what I meant.
I mean the presence of bad theology society-wide.

[Camaalbakrius]

We still have 23 posts left before 500 pages.

What's the best way to undercut bad theology?

If a person is talking over you and shouting misconceptions about your faith, just let them finish and then answer calmly. You'll look like the smart one no matter what you say, after that.

They just look disrespectful, so you always be the better man. As the motto of the Catholic Gentlmen states: Be a man. Be a saint

[Tarsonis Survivors]

So do we have a new thread yet or not?

We still have 23 posts left before 500 pages.

What's the best way to undercut bad theology?

see my responses to bad theology on this thread.