Poor Theology - God Told Me / You're Arguing With God

[popsthebuilder]

It was the Jews and the Romans who killed the Lord. I see not link between them and the claims your posts make.

Ridiculous, are you not familiar with prophesy at all. Right will be askew from the powers that be. The meek will inherit the Earth. All sin. The three versus the two headed beast. Brother versus brother. It is obvious through scripture, that a second coming will be soon. It is also apparent, from scripture that those that hold this world's trappings dear, will be the ones trapped here. Everything is plane to see in scripture. But you have to want to accept what it says regardless of your fondness of personal things. Thank you. I know I jump around a lot. Just have patience, and Faith in God.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[popsthebuilder]

Paul's letter isn't really self-referencing because when he wrote the letter it wasn't considered to be part of Scripture.

Non-Christians sometimes complain that Christians accept the Bible as being the inspired word of God because, well, the Bible says it's God's word. And so the circular reasoning begins for them, and unless the Bible can be validated using sources other than the Bible they will struggle to believe it. In some regards it's like the teachings of some of the relatively new hypercharismatic groups where you see lots of teachings that are consistent with each other and so build up a large block of teaching, and unless you take a point of reference from outside the block you never realise that what they teach doesn't align with what Scripture teaches. If you look at a large enough loop of circular reasoning it seems to make sense, but when viewed from outside the circle it doesn't make sense.



Where OT prophecies took many centuries to come to pass (I'm thinking specifically of Isaiah's "the virgin shall conceive and bring forth a child", and Daniel's visions of the end times that have still not come to pass) we can see that the prophets in question established a track record. Had they not established a track record it is hard to see their writings being preserved for so long - there have been untold numbers of false prophets who spoke a lot of fine-sounding words but whose predictions did not come to pass and so they were forgotten.

This comes back to the issue that prophets did some crazy stuff but not everybody who does crazy things are prophets. All apples are fruits but not all fruits are apples.



I'm struggling to see God at the root of the reasoning. It just seems like a statement without evidence, paired with "wait and see, God said so".

I don't dispute that Jesus Christ was infallible, I just don't see how our attempts to follow Jesus make us infallible. It seems like expecting the perfection associated with the new heaven and the new earth, but wanting it in this earth.

You wouldn't do it to be infallible, that's the whole thing. If you are being selfish in any way then you aren't doing it for the Lord and God, but for self, which is blasphemous, and eternally damning.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[tango]

You wouldn't do it to be infallible, that's the whole thing. If you are being selfish in any way then you aren't doing it for the Lord and God, but for self, which is blasphemous, and eternally damning.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

I'm not sure I follow you. If I'm doing something in the sincere belief that it's God's will but I'm wrong (i.e. it isn't God's will at all) then where does infallibility come into it?

 

[tango]

You wrote


The short answer is "yes" the long answer is that like any living thing the Catholic Church ages and grows so in its infancy it was not exactly like it is in its maturity.

If it "ages and grows" how can you be sure that it has not grown into error while other groups have remained true to what the church was supposed to be like?

If it used to be one thing and is now another thing, how do you know that the change was the right thing to do? The only way I can see to ensure that without detailed study is through circular reasoning along the lines of "we are infallible, therefore anything we do is the right thing because we are infallible".

 

[popsthebuilder]

I'm not sure I follow you. If I'm doing something in the sincere belief that it's God's will but I'm wrong (i.e. it isn't God's will at all) then where does infallibility come into it?

Even if it's right it doesn't make you infallible. Everything must be backed by scripture in some obvious, direct way. This, however, doesn't mean it has to perfectly align with existing religions, but in most cases, religions could work together making a much better church with unified direction from Christ under God. This church would equate all men the same. Like it days in the Bible. We are to unite under God, not divide due to the seeking of personal power.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[tango]

Even if it's right it doesn't make you infallible. Everything must be backed by scripture in some obvious, direct way. This, however, doesn't mean it has to perfectly align with existing religions, but in most cases, religions could work together making a much better church with unified direction from Christ under God. This church would equate all men the same. Like it days in the Bible. We are to unite under God, not divide due to the seeking of personal power.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

OK, so are you saying that if I'm doing the right thing now it doesn't mean I can never do the wrong thing later, because I am a fallible human?

 

[popsthebuilder]

Yes. Only through Christ can one be infallible, and only at that moment. Not through sin.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[MoreCoffee]

If it "ages and grows" how can you be sure that it has not grown into error while other groups have remained true to what the church was supposed to be like?

If it used to be one thing and is now another thing, how do you know that the change was the right thing to do? The only way I can see to ensure that without detailed study is through circular reasoning along the lines of "we are infallible, therefore anything we do is the right thing because we are infallible".

One can be sure of these things.

1. The Catholic Church is ancient and its roots can be traced historically to the second century and if we accept saint Paul's letter to the Romans then to the first century.
2. The Church that Christ spoke of in the gospel according to saint Matthew (16:18-19) is the same Church that was present in Rome, Corinth, Jerusalem, Antioch and so forth.
3. The infancy of the Church is in the first century and much of it is described at least partially in the acts of the apostles.
4. The Church as it grows is attested to in the writings of the early church fathers.
5. The Church as it matures is attested to in the councils and decisions of the councils as well as the growing body of divinity written by the canonised saints.
6. The Church of today is attested to by its history as well as by its vision and the holy scriptures.
7. The Church of all ages is attested to by the work of the Spirit of God within her and among her people.

These lines of enquiry are a sound basis for accepting the Catholic Church as the Church that Christ founded and in which he continues to be present.

 

[popsthebuilder]

What can be said is that the RCC was originally of the opinion that Christ was after God and subservient of God, and that through Christ, the holy ghost man could have a direct connection to God. Somewhere between the third and seventh century the RCC changed the interpretation of Christ for the public through executions, excomunications, and slaughter, destruction of record. It is my personal belief that they knowingly keep the methods of rightiousness through Christ away from the public, attempting to use them only for themselves. Eucebius and Lucius were both of the belief that God was eternal, and that Christ was put here by God for our understanding of God. They believe that Christ was given to us in order for us to interpret God throughout the ages.

The councels and desisions were initially forced into others violently, making them eventually accept the RCC changes

The church of ages as you call it will indeed be the church of God through Christ. This in no way singles out the RCC as the only church. In fact It says that the church is a direct connection of God and man. It also says that all truthfully faithful to God will come together. This will never happen under the RCC. Thanks.

Faith in selfless Unity through Good

 

[Josiah]

One can be sure of these things.

1. The Catholic Church is ancient and its roots can be traced historically to the second century and if we accept saint Paul's letter to the Romans then to the first century.
2. The Church that Christ spoke of in the gospel according to saint Matthew (16:18-19) is the same Church that was present in Rome, Corinth, Jerusalem, Antioch and so forth.
3. The infancy of the Church is in the first century and much of it is described at least partially in the acts of the apostles.
4. The Church as it grows is attested to in the writings of the early church fathers.
5. The Church as it matures is attested to in the councils and decisions of the councils as well as the growing body of divinity written by the canonised saints.
6. The Church of today is attested to by its history as well as by its vision and the holy scriptures.
7. The Church of all ages is attested to by the work of the Spirit of God within her and among her people.

These lines of enquiry are a sound basis for accepting the Catholic Church as the Church that Christ founded and in which he continues to be present.

I think we can be certain of this....

1. There was no denomination in the time of Christ - and likely for 300 years after that - thus no RCC or OOC or EOC or any other denomination.
2. The church (the word means a community of PEOPLE, not a denomination) was and still is a community of PEOPLE.... it has nothing to do with any inter-congregational geopolitical/economic/legal/physical institution.
3. Jesus never even so much as MENTIONED the RC Denomination (or any other) for or about anything whatsoever - NO promises, NO authorizations, not anything at all. Odd if the singular, particular, individual RC Denomination is all that it itself egotistically claims for it itself alone.
4. There were many congregations, and it's likely there was one in Rome perhaps by the late 40's or early 50's. But Peter didn't found it - no Apostles did. Until the mid 5th Century, Rome was the center of everything and it would make sense that that congregation would be important, but Rome soon became a ghost town as power moved East - and it's probably no accident that the bishop in rome began to feel a bit abandoned and the POWER struggle (SO Roman! SO unchristian!) began that eventually lead to 1054 and 1521 as the ROMAN Church obsessed in it's power grab, its self-deification.
5. It seems ROME created the first denomination - created in the image of it itself, with an obsession on power, control, centrality, docilicity submission. It was of, by and FOR Rome (thus not catholic in any sense) and lasted for about a century before it divided. But there is NO indication whatsoever that Jesus had anything to do with this, the Roman Empire did all this.
6. While it is historically very likely that the ordained always did the ordaining (as it STILL the case - in Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Protestantism and even in some "cults"), this has NOTHING to do with being infallible/unaccountable or in having some divine POWERS to lord it over others as the gentiles do. The Roman obsession with POWER is not only unchristian but unhistorical.



- Josiah

 

[Josiah]

I agree. See the opening post, see the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination for it itself, # 87. Note what it itself claims for it itself, what it itself tells all to do in relation to it itself individually.



As for your reference to the promise to lead and teach.... As posted (as a part of the discussion of this thread)....


1. That promise [The Holy Spirit will teach and lead] becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially." See the Opening Post. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination #87.


2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.


3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?


4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.




Thank you.


Pax


- Josiah

MoreCoffee,

You appear to still be ignoring, evading this....



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

MoreCoffee,
You appear to still be ignoring, evading this....
- Josiah

The first alternative is the correct one.

 

[Josiah]

1. That promise [The Holy Spirit will teach and lead] becomes irrelevant if one (person, denomination, sect, cult) simply equates it itself exclusively with "church" in an egotistical, power-grabbing, accountability-evading move... when "church" or "you" is deleted from His promise and replaced with "ME - individually, exclusively, especially." See the Opening Post. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the individual RC Denomination #87.


2. If you actually quoted Jesus (and I understand why you chose not to), it would be obvious He didn't promise the individual, exclusive RC Denomination anything whatsoever.... a point the RC Denomination must evade and ignore.


3. To LEAD is not the same thing as to FOLLOW. When I studied several US "cults," one of the strongest common denominators was a sense that God leads ME (see the opening post of this thread).... and the claims that ME ergo infallible FOLLOWS that lead. Both are entirely unfounded. Both are entirely missing from what Jesus promised. God lead Adam and Eve... did that mean ERGO both were infallible/unaccountable followers? God lead the Hebrews in the wilderness... God lead Saul and David and Solomon... did that make them ERGO infallible/unaccountable followers? Just because one is lead correctly, does that mandate an infallible following?


4. To TEACH is not the same thing as to LEARN (ask any school teacher). It's just absurd to ASSUME that since God teaches inerrantly, ERGO there is going to be ONE (person, church, sect, cult, denomination - such as the RCC or LDS or Jim Jones or Joseph Smith or Pope Whoever) that is THE one, individual, exclusive infallible/unaccountable STUDENT. God taught His people the Ten Commandments on the mountain... was there therefore one among the crowd at the base of the mountain who was perfect, infallible, unaccountable in terms of those 10 things? And is one THE infallible/unaccountable STUDENT if the self same claims such for self uniquely, exclusively, only? See the opening post and title of this thread. See the latest edition of the ever-changing Catechism of the RC Denomination # 87. See "The Authority of the Church" by LDS Apostle/Prophet Bruce McConkie.




.

The first alternative is the correct one.

Then the RCC is wrong to teach that IT is essentially the Church, wrong to equate God's promised to the church with It Itself.

If #1 is correct, then it seems to me the other 3 points are correct, too.

If #1 is correct, then IMO you support my move to leave the RC Denomination. And you support my response to the question/issue of this thread as opposed to the RC Denomination.



- Josiah

 

[MoreCoffee]

Then ...

If only your post was a reply rather than a cheap little trick with the text and the quote function ...