Trump Gurl
Credo in Unum Deum
That means he can save non-Christians too. I am still correct.
Jesus is God !
- Thread starter beloved57
- Start date
That means he can save non-Christians too. I am still correct.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
@Caino is one of many here on TOL who "do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety" (838), but who nonetheless professes to believe in Christ, and in His Resurrection.
Nobody can formally convert to the Catholic faith without confessing our entire Creed, but anybody can come to Mass.
No Catholic is authorized to disbelieve any of what the magisterium teaches us as Apostolic. And as for who among the Noncatholics, are authentic Christians and who are not, there's an enormous spectrum of variations in particular beliefs, but all authentic Christians believe in the Lord Jesus.
God the spirit has divine sons. They are different beings but united in spirit. Was with God (2 beings) and was God (united in spirit).
He who is not against us is with us.
By the time of the arrival of the Son on earth the religion of Judaism had become a unnessasarity overcomplicated yoke for the common Israelite.
Jesus presented a simple to understand Gospel of the Kingdom of Heaven.
After Jesus left men complicated religion again. They fight endlessly on these forums.
Right Divider
Body part
Repeating a LIE does not make it become true.
ONE being (God), three PERSONS (Father, Son and Holy Spirit).
You're a heretic hack.
Right Divider
Body part
The TRUTH will always fight against ERROR (error is you).
Last edited:
Referring to angels, of course, which were likely created on day one. You might want to read more though:
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding.Who determined its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it?To what were its foundations fastened? Or who laid its cornerstone,When the morning stars sang together, And all the sons of God shouted for joy?“Or who shut in the sea with doors, When it burst forth and issued from the womb;When I made the clouds its garment, And thick darkness its swaddling band;When I fixed My limit for it, And set bars and doors;When I said, ‘This far you may come, but no farther, And here your proud waves must stop!’ - Job 38:4-11 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job38:4-11&version=NKJV
Two words: hydroplate theory.
Also, please use the "paste as plain text" option when quoting from sources with special formatting.
Last edited:
No actually sons of God means sons of God. Funny that, you guys can be so anal retentive when it comes to specific words when it suits your argument but when it doesn't you just convert sons to angels.
God obviously has more that one son considering that the scripture books talks about other sons. Adam was himself a son of God.
:duh:
The meaning of "sons of God" is determined by the context. In the context of Job 38:4-11, God is asking Job about the creation story which is recorded in Genesis 1. The creation story in Genesis 1 has man being created on day 6, not day one, so that excludes man from being the "sons of God" in that passage, and the only other beings this could refer to as being "sons of God" in this context are angels.
You have to add to scripture, or read it with your a priori belief's glasses on to assert that "sons of God" in this passage are something other than angels.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Lonster
Member
Scripture says not to be quick in joining evil. Have you READ the Urantia Book thread??? Your hasty judgement and shallow pool of assessment has incredibly stark problematics.
Of course they do but so do demons. Your 'universalism' is showing where there is need for careful parsing. Urantians deny the atonement, deny the need for salvation and lie after lie, including blasphemy against the nature of Christ are exploited and expanded within the confines of those papers. Search "Lon" in the Urantia thread. I point out many of them in clarity. Urantia is an attack upon Christ and Christianity. Fact.
Last edited:
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That just sounds like yet another Noncatholic Christian tradition to me. You all are "an attack upon" the Church. There's the actual Christian faith, the one taught by Christ and His Apostles, the one passed down through the ages by the men holding the office specifically instituted to preserve this faith, and there's literally everything else. Among the 'everything else' is gnosticism, Urantia, Calvin, Luther, JW, Mormons, etc.
Except gnostics like Muslims deny Christ's Resurrection. @Caino believes in the Resurrection. And at the risk of repeating myself, all I really did here was invite Caino to Mass. If Caino wants to convert, then Caino's going to have to confess our Creed. If what you're saying is true about Urantia, then Caino's going to have a difficult choice to make. I for one hope that Caino chooses our faith, but then, I hope the same thing for you.
Lonster
Member
:doh: I really cannot speak with you when you can't even be reasoned with. You go ahead and become a Urantian
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
GM is just a tool... according to my perception of the Woodshed's response to his trolling, that is.
theologyonline.com
You show a genuine lack of discernment. Creeds mean anything to you?
Incorrect. You called him a Christian. He is not. Read and be informed instead of this poor excusing behavior.
This isn’t a thread about the UB but Lon largely misrepresents the book, he has been nasty towards me from the beginning on this forum.
NWL
Active member
This is basically you making excuses as to why you cannot answer the question, in my opinion. You refused to answer question after question, then failed to answer the list of questions after they accumulated, so I reduced it to one and you STILL refuse to answer it, as you claim it's not important. Again, the question is very important to our main topic of discussion that you no longer wish to speak about, it is not up to you to decide what points are important to a position I am trying to prove. Imagine you were trying to prove Jesus is part of the trinity and used John 1:1 as evidence and I told you "I will pick and choose what is important and likely NOT get lost in the woods with your whims", you would no doubt laugh and such a foolish statement.
I've lost count how many times I've asked the question now, please answer it. Any further refusal will result in the end of any side topic and a persistent repetition of the question that was previously the main topic of discussion.
Please answer the question Lon, stop stalling, if you cannot rationalize the biblical text in relation to what you currently believe and have previously claim just be humble enough to admit it.
The question again: Let's go back to basics, I will pick one of the many questions I have previously asked you and await your answer, hopefully, you'll answer and we can progress from there. The main topic of our discussion was if there are others who are called G-god who are not the 'one God' and who the originator of creation is. You've previously stated Jesus is the originator of creation and that because all things have been created through him he must be the originator because of the strong language used ("All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existences" John 1:3). My question is this, in Hebrews 2:8 it states God subjected "all things" under man and "left nothing that is not subject to him", since God and the Angels would no doubt be included in the "all things", according to your own reasoning, does this mean God and the Angels were subject to Man, or is the "all things" and God "leaving nothing not subject to Man" not inclusive of God himself and the Angels?
It does not matter if it literally says "with His own blood", as I've already shown scripture has people literally saying their relatives are their flesh, are their bone, and are their blood; when these ones state things such as "you are my bones and my flesh", they are no doubt talking about their own flesh, blood, and bones, it's implied; nothing about their suggestion demands that their relatives literally are themselves, likewise, nothing about God saying he has given 'his own blood' needs demand that it was God himself that gave his literal blood. Again, it was not Jesus deity that gave his blood by dying, it was his flesh that did. You have not reconciled how the giving of blood, which relates to the sacrifice of the death and pouring out of blood in a similar manner to the law for the forgiveness of sins, can be said regarding God, but the death which accompanies the giving of blood, does not refer to God. If God gave his blood then it was God that died, you deny that Jesus divinity died but that it was his flesh that died, therefore you cannot consistently claim it was God who gave his blood.
Repeating the same point over and over will not magically negate my points.
Simply asserting something does make it true. I showed clear examples where people compared their relatives as their very own blood, bones and flesh, nothing about their statement insists their relatives are them themslevles. It seems as if you cannot deny the consistent parallel when compared to my interpretation of Acts 20:28 and can therefore only deny it is true and assert it is special pleading once again.
As I have said repeatedly, numerous scholars understand and accept my interpretation of Acts 20:28, thus to say it is special pleading in light of numerous scholars acceptance of it is pure arrogance and foolishness.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
@Caino is an authentic Christian if Caino believes in Christ and in His Resurrection. Caino has already agreed that the Resurrection really happened. By hook or by crook if Caino believes in Christ, then Caino is an authentic Christian, just as I believe that you are, and that I am.:doh: I really cannot speak with you when you can't even be reasoned with. You go ahead and become a Urantian
The Late Great Urantia Revelation
GM is just a tool... according to my perception of the Woodshed's response to his trolling, that is.theologyonline.com
You show a genuine lack of discernment. Creeds mean anything to you?
Incorrect. You called him a Christian. He is not. Read and be informed instead of this poor excusing behavior.
There is a wide spectrum of variant beliefs held by authentic Christians, and all who deny any part of Apostolicity fall along that spectrum somewhere, you, Caino, NWL, RD, etc. There is one faith. And every detail of that faith is Apostolic in origin, because it was to the Apostles that the Holy Spirit of Truth came, and the Apostles instituted the office of a bishop, and appointed the first generation of bishops, and taught them the purpose of the office, was the preserve what the Apostles uniformly taught, which are Christ's own teachings.
That office has never ceased to exist or to function, not even remotely, throughout all these intervening centuries. And throughout all the scandals and schisms still the office persists, in fact none of the historical "headline stories" of the Church has even approached the cessation of the bishops' pastorate, let alone ushered it in.
The age of the bishops began during the Apostolic era, and it remains with us today, and there's no sign of it slowing down either.
The bishops teach now and have always taught unequivocally and unambiguously that Jesus is God.
Lonster
Member
It is rationalizing/logicking your way through your faith. Nowhere, where I want to be Caino. If it isn't from Him, I want no part in rationalizations.
Last edited: