Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 17:37:35 GMT -5
Trinity is far from fact, and far from the truth. It is, and always has been not only an invented term, but an invented concept of man to to bring the Greeks and Romans into the growing church system....without alienating the Jewish heritage too much with polytheism. The Trinity is not just a matter of faith, but more importantly, it is a matter of politics. CD. Are not all of those words that you've answered Happy Feet "invented words"? Why are you not using words that you've not invented? OH/? You find that you want to use your own wording because you understand better what you want to say! Okay, I'll buy that. Why is it so hard to turn loose of the 2x2 rhetoric against the word "Trinity"...why are you hollering it is political, when it is only a "descriptive" word to describe the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost....I understand that the 2x2's use those names to baptize one another with.... Here is the point: since the Trinity is not defined in the bible, the bible gave no name for it. Because the Trinity had to be invented and defined after the bible was written, then a new word had to be invented for a new concept. I am not"hollering" that it is political. I'm whispering it for now until I discover that you are hard of hearing. So for now, the truth is this: the trinity theory emerged because of politics. Fourth century believers had to raise Jesus to God because they could not accept the authority of his spoken truth. Then, to avoid charges of polytheism from a large number of believers, they came up with the 3-in-1 God. It was brilliant at the time from a political perspective, but it greatly harmed the Truth and Way of Christ right until today.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 17:50:13 GMT -5
OK, we could probably discuss this from now till Eternity and not come to a conclusion everyone agrees with..... We're only mere mortals. God is Almighty. So we can't really expect to fully understand whether God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One or not. Well I don't anyhow. I just understand God loves us, Jesus loves us and one day we will know more fully.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 17:57:19 GMT -5
Yes, Jesus even explained that.... Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. Also this power: Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth. Oh, oh. Now the Pharisees are finding that Jesus is taking God's power to do himself. That is blasphemy. Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. Another place describes that the people thought only God could forgive sins. Mar 2:7 Why doth this [man] thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? Folks, are we not missing some important messages out of the gospels here? Why have we not noted that Jesus did what ONLY God could do? That's interesting that you take the religion of the Jews about forgiving sins and use that to validate a theory of Trinity that is in direct contradiction to Jewish belief. Why can't you just believe Jesus that "the Son of Man" had that power. We both know that all power of the Son of Man was given by God. That's right. Thru Jesus' divine nature, the Father with whom Jesus is one, did the Son of Man as Jesus refers to himself in this passage, have the power to forgive sins. The Pharisees recognized that Jesus was calling himself God - otherwise they would not have accused him of blasphemy!!!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 18:44:45 GMT -5
CD. Are not all of those words that you've answered Happy Feet "invented words"? Why are you not using words that you've not invented? OH/? You find that you want to use your own wording because you understand better what you want to say! Okay, I'll buy that. Why is it so hard to turn loose of the 2x2 rhetoric against the word "Trinity"...why are you hollering it is political, when it is only a "descriptive" word to describe the relationship between the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost....I understand that the 2x2's use those names to baptize one another with.... Here is the point: since the Trinity is not defined in the bible, the bible gave no name for it. Because the Trinity had to be invented and defined after the bible was written, then a new word had to be invented for a new concept. I am not"hollering" that it is political. I'm whispering it for now until I discover that you are hard of hearing. So for now, the truth is this: the trinity theory emerged because of politics. Fourth century believers had to raise Jesus to God because they could not accept the authority of his spoken truth. Then, to avoid charges of polytheism from a large number of believers, they came up with the 3-in-1 God. It was brilliant at the time from a political perspective, but it greatly harmed the Truth and Way of Christ right until today. The Trinity is many times referred to - in all of the places Jesus tells us that he and the Father are one - as indicated in the passages under discussion here. The Trinity is defined in the baptismal formula as commanded by Jesus, in the name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There was no need to define the Trinity per se in the Old Testament because Jesus, God Incarnate, had not yet come to earth so yes, it was a new concept - at least a more clearly taught concept under the New Covenant.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 18:46:57 GMT -5
I'm not talking about "part line theories" here CD...stop right there! I'm talking about our faith in Jesus Christ as our Saviour, as the firstborn of the resurrection, and as the only begotten Son of God the Father. I don't care who you have faith in or don't as far as "party line theories" are concerned....but I do care for those who have faith in Jesus Christ AND all that that name covers. Yes, your contentions are a matter of faith, not a matter of fact. The problem is, faith is not a virtue. Are you saying that "fruit of the Spirit" isn't virtuous? Wouldn't that be blasphemy against the "Spirit"? Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Is it not faith that saves us? Our faith in Jesus Christ and what that means buys for us the unmerited grace of God? Below is what is says about a virtuous woman in that she fears the Lord...okay she's going to have to have faith that there is the Lord in order to have fear of him. Pro 31:30 Favour [is] deceitful, and beauty [is] vain: [but] a woman [that] feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 18:49:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 18:55:50 GMT -5
Yes, Jesus even explained that.... Jhn 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father. Also this power: Mat 9:3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This [man] blasphemeth. Oh, oh. Now the Pharisees are finding that Jesus is taking God's power to do himself. That is blasphemy. Mat 9:4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts? Mat 9:5 For whether is easier, to say, [Thy] sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk? Mat 9:6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house. Another place describes that the people thought only God could forgive sins. Mar 2:7 Why doth this [man] thus speak blasphemies? who can forgive sins but God only? Folks, are we not missing some important messages out of the gospels here? Why have we not noted that Jesus did what ONLY God could do? That's interesting that you take the religion of the Jews about forgiving sins and use that to validate a theory of Trinity that is in direct contradiction to Jewish belief. Why can't you just believe Jesus that "the Son of Man" had that power. We both know that all power of the Son of Man was given by God. Why? Because that does not address what this verse means: Col 2:9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. You see, CD, this is one of those verses that workers AND friends have just passed right on by during all of those Wed. nite bible studies for they have NO idea what it means. How Sad! That we've missed years of knowing who Jesus is, was and will always be. He possessed the FULNESS of the God head BODILY!
|
|
|
Post by sharonw on Mar 23, 2012 19:00:04 GMT -5
This is the catholic (general) faith; which except a man believe faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved (p.6). Can you not see the parallels between three-person-god doctrine and one-true-way doctrine? Both are exclusive, both make people extremely defensive, both leave a huge hole when people finally see through them. AHA! Rational has been telling this for many years now...he has proclaimed "Christianity" as exclusive a religion as any could be. But then so are the Buddhists, the Islams and any other Moslems there may be. We are exclusive in the "God we worship"! So are they! You cannot be a Christian and not be exclusive in believing in the Christian God. You cannot be a Buddhist and not be exclusive in believing in Buddha. You cannot be a Moslem and not be exclusive in believing in Islam. The "general" categories are exclusive, but the factions of those categories are what hurts the "brotherhood" of that religion. Again, Rational is right in that Christianity is exclusive....but so are other "faiths".
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 19:42:30 GMT -5
The "general" categories are exclusive, but the factions of those categories are what hurts the "brotherhood" of that religion. Are those who worship the three-person-god a category or a faction?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 19:50:49 GMT -5
Are you saying that "fruit of the Spirit" isn't virtuous? Wouldn't that be blasphemy against the "Spirit"? Gal 5:22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Is it not faith that saves us? Our faith in Jesus Christ and what that means buys for us the unmerited grace of God? Its not a belief system that saves us, but rather faithfulness.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 19:59:42 GMT -5
The Trinity is many times referred to - in all of the places Jesus tells us that he and the Father are one - as indicated in the passages under discussion here. Semantics has led you astray. To be one is to be united... Jesus said: "that they may be one as we are one— ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ John 17:20 “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— 23 I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 20:07:43 GMT -5
Thru Jesus' divine nature, the Father with whom Jesus is one, did the Son of Man as Jesus refers to himself in this passage, have the power to forgive sins. You give your priest the power to forgive sins. Why shouldn't Jesus the son of man forgive sins? Jesus even instructed his followers to forgive sins. ======================================= Matthew 6:15 But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 20:10:57 GMT -5
The Pharisees recognized that Jesus was calling himself God - otherwise they would not have accused him of blasphemy!!!!!!! How the Pharisees perceived Jesus and his teaching is not a good model for Christian doctrine.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 20:21:13 GMT -5
OK, we could probably discuss this from now till Eternity and not come to a conclusion everyone agrees with..... We're only mere mortals. God is Almighty. So we can't really expect to fully understand whether God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are One or not. Well I don't anyhow. I just understand God loves us, Jesus loves us and one day we will know more fully. I agree, we only see through a glass darkly. Jesus was the son of God. By definition a son emanates from his father. The Holy Spirit is simply the spirit of God, not a person at all. Elijah was a person, but it would be foolish to classify the spirit of Elijah as a person. ============================================== Luke 1:17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the parents to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous—to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.”
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 20:39:47 GMT -5
The Pharisees recognized that Jesus was calling himself God - otherwise they would not have accused him of blasphemy!!!!!!! How the Pharisees perceived Jesus and his teaching is not a good model for Christian doctrine. The Pharisees knew Jesus was saying he is God. Surely if they knew what he was saying, a professed follower of Christ (you) would recognize who Jesus was saying he is (God). That is one of the lessons in that passage of Scripture. It is there for a reason - as are the reasons for all recorded Scripture. Are you now placing your preferences for Scripture over what has been canonized as authoritative, the inspired word of God? Nevertheless, Jesus instructed them to obey what the Pharisees taught (as long as it didn't violate the law) because the authority of the seat of Moses was given to the Pharisees to interpret the Law[/u]; with the warning not to do as they did.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 21:26:09 GMT -5
StAnne, do you believe Jesus only worked miracles by the power of Satan?
Or were the Pharisees only right when it supports your flimsy doctrine?
==========================================
Matthew 12:22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see.
23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 21:54:41 GMT -5
Here's my understanding of some unadulterated 2x2 doctrine:
Workers preach Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, and for that they're accused of preaching "Jesus was just a man".
I wonder if the apostle John was concerned about a growing "Jesus is God" theology even in his day?
Workers teach to walk in obedience to the commands of Jesus out of love for him because he first loved us.
"Jesus is God" theology tends to play down Jesus as an example for us to follow, and it seems that John was concerned about this doctrine coming amongst God's people.
John wrote that whoever "does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God" and referred to their work as "wicked".
"Jesus is God" proponents condemn friends and workers for their efforts to follow Jesus, complaining that they are "working for salvation". John was concerned about this too it seems, and wrote:
"Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for."
I've even known "Jesus is God" people who claimed the sermon on the mount was for Jews, not "saved by grace" Christians.
===========================================
2 John 1:6 And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love.
7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist.
8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.
9 Anyone who runs ahead and does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God; whoever continues in the teaching has both the Father and the Son.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 22:08:30 GMT -5
StAnne, do you believe Jesus only worked miracles by the power of Satan? Or were the Pharisees only right when it supports your flimsy doctrine? ========================================== Matthew 12:22 Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23 All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “ It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Oh get real. What a stupid question. I know and confess that Jesus is God. It is you and some others here who deny that Jesus is fully God, fully man. Of course Jesus (God) would not work miracles by the power of Beelzebub. Back up here just a moment. I never said the Pharisees believed that Jesus is God. Only that they recognized that Jesus was saying he is God. If it weren't so they would not have accused him of blasphemy.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 22:44:51 GMT -5
Here's my understanding of some unadulterated 2x2 doctrine: Workers preach Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, and for that they're accused of preaching "Jesus was just a man". I wonder if the apostle John was concerned about a growing "Jesus is God" theology even in his day? "Jesus is God" theology tends to play down Jesus as an example for us to follow, and it seems that John was concerned about this doctrine coming amongst God's people. John wrote that whoever "does not continue in the teaching of Christ does not have God" and referred to their work as "wicked". Inaccurate. It is because of the denial that Jesus is also God. If he isn't also fully God, then he is only a man. If John the Apostle was concerned about that he wouldn't have begun his gospel by telling us that Jesus, the Word, was God. Nor would he have told us that the Word who is God took on human flesh and came to dwell among us. Nor would John have recorded Jesus' teachings that we've been discussing where Jesus tells us over and over again that he is God; also that he and the Father are one. Neither would St John have recorded Thomas' account of calling Jesus ' my Lord and my God'. Yes. Some of those very teachings are the ones where Jesus the Christ tells us that he is God ... such as this one, Jn 14:7 ... "If you had known Me, you would have known My Father also; from now on you know Him, and have seen Him." No it doesn't. Jesus is also fully man. Fully God. Fully man.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 23:14:23 GMT -5
Thru Jesus' divine nature, the Father with whom Jesus is one, did the Son of Man as Jesus refers to himself in this passage, have the power to forgive sins. You give your priest the power to forgive sins. Why shouldn't Jesus the son of man forgive sins? No. Christ breathed the Holy Spirit upon his apostles, sent them as the Father had sent Him, Jn 20:21-23; gave his apostles the command to forgive or to retain sins. How would they know to forgive them or to retain them if the sins weren't confessed to them? Christ further gave them the power to bind and loose, Mt 18:18 - to use in the commission of forgiving (loosing) or retaining (binding) the sins. Priests forgive sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - by the power of the commission given them by Christ - acting in the person of Christ - just as St Paul writes ... To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 23:16:04 GMT -5
The Pharisees knew Jesus was saying he is God. Surely if they knew what he was saying, a professed follower of Christ (you) would recognize who Jesus was saying he is (God). Sorry, I don't share your confidence in the perception of the Pharisees. Matt 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 23:18:50 GMT -5
You give your priest the power to forgive sins. Why shouldn't Jesus the son of man forgive sins? No. Christ breathed the Holy Spirit upon his apostles, sent them as the Father had sent Him, Jn 20:21-23; gave his apostles the command to forgive or to retain sins. How would they know to forgive them or to retain them if the sins weren't confessed to them? Christ further gave them the power to bind and loose, Mt 18:18 - to use in the commission of forgiving (loosing) or retaining (binding) the sins. Priests forgive sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - by the power of the commission given them by Christ - acting in the person of Christ - just as St Paul writes ... To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; You said only God can forgive sins. Now you say priests can forgive sins. Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 23:23:35 GMT -5
“The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.” --New Catholic Encyclopedia Pub. Guild., 1967 ~~ hmmmmm....... I wonder how they explain what King David said in Ps. 110 The 1) LORD said unto my 2) Lord, sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool. Ps.51:11 Cast me not away from thine presence, and take NOT thy 3) Holy Spirit from me.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, "Let US make man in OUR image, after OUR likeness..." I would have to see clearday's quote in context. The first site that pops up as a possible source for the quote is very anti-Trinitarian. Contrast from the original Catholic Encyclopedia, 1917 ... Proof of doctrine from Scripture
Old Testament
The early Fathers were persuaded that indications of the doctrine of the Trinity must exist in the Old Testament and they found such indications in not a few passages. Many of them not merely believed that the Prophets had testified of it, they held that it had been made known even to the Patriarchs. They regarded it as certain that the Divine messenger of Genesis 16:7, 16:18, 21:17, 31:11; Exodus 3:2, was God the Son; for reasons to be mentioned below (III. B.) they considered it evident that God the Father could not have thus manifested Himself (cf. Justin, Dialogue with Trypho 60; Irenaeus, Against Heresies IV.20.7-11; Tertullian, Against Praxeas 15-16; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.22; Novatian, On the Trinity 18, 25, etc.). They held that, when the inspired writers speak of "the Spirit of the Lord", the reference was to the Third Person of the Trinity; and one or two (Irenaeus, Against Heresies II.30.9; Theophilus, To Autolycus II.15; Hippolytus, Against Noetus 10) interpret the hypostatic Wisdom of the Sapiential books, not, with St. Paul, of the Son (Hebrews 1:3; cf. Wisdom 7:25-26), but of the Holy Spirit. But in others of the Fathers is found what would appear to be the sounder view, that no distinct intimation of the doctrine was given under the Old Covenant. (Cf. Gregory Nazianzen, Fifth Theological Oration 31; Epiphanius, "Ancor." 73, "Haer.", 74; Basil, Against Eunomius II.22; Cyril of Alexandria, "In Joan.", xii, 20.)
Some of these, however, admitted that a knowledge of the mystery was granted to the Prophets and saints of the Old Dispensation (Epiphanius, "Haer.", viii, 5; Cyril of Alexandria, "Con. Julian., " I). It may be readily conceded that the way is prepared for the revelation in some of the prophecies. The names Emmanuel (Isaiah 7:14) and God the Mighty (Isaiah 9:6) affirmed of the Messias make mention of the Divine Nature of the promised deliverer. Yet it seems that the Gospel revelation was needed to render the full meaning of the passages clear. Even these exalted titles did not lead the Jews to recognize that the Saviour to come was to be none other than God Himself. The Septuagint translators do not even venture to render the words God the Mighty literally, but give us, in their place, "the angel of great counsel." www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 23:35:07 GMT -5
No. Christ breathed the Holy Spirit upon his apostles, sent them as the Father had sent Him, Jn 20:21-23; gave his apostles the command to forgive or to retain sins. How would they know to forgive them or to retain them if the sins weren't confessed to them? Christ further gave them the power to bind and loose, Mt 18:18 - to use in the commission of forgiving (loosing) or retaining (binding) the sins. Priests forgive sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit - by the power of the commission given them by Christ - acting in the person of Christ - just as St Paul writes ... To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ; You said only God can forgive sins. Now you say priests can forgive sins. Which is it? I didn't say that it is only God who forgives sins - although it is - with the priest acting in the person of Christ - remember that Christ is also God. God may act on his own or thru the commission to His priests to hear and forgive sins, or retain sins, by the power of binding and loosing.
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 23, 2012 23:36:14 GMT -5
The Pharisees knew Jesus was saying he is God. Surely if they knew what he was saying, a professed follower of Christ (you) would recognize who Jesus was saying he is (God). Sorry, I don't share your confidence in the perception of the Pharisees. Matt 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Why did they accuse Jesus of blasphemy if they didn't believe Jesus was saying he was God? It wasn't their perception. It was Jesus' own words. They didn't believe Jesus was God (obviously, or they wouldn't accuse him of blasphemy) - but at least they understood Jesus claiming to be God. John 10
31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”
33“We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”
36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. 38But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.”
39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 23:53:47 GMT -5
Sorry, I don't share your confidence in the perception of the Pharisees. Matt 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” Why did they accuse Jesus of blasphemy against God if they didn't believe Jesus was saying he was God? Is it possible they were making a false accusation?
|
|
|
Post by JO on Mar 23, 2012 23:57:17 GMT -5
You said only God can forgive sins. Now you say priests can forgive sins. Which is it? I didn't say that it is only God who forgives sins - although it is - with the priest acting in the person of Christ - remember that Christ is also God. God may act on his own or thru the commission to His priests to hear and forgive sins, or retain sins, by the power of binding and loosing. The Catholic Church gives God permission to act through the commision of his priests? Yet you won't give God permission to act through his only begotten son?
|
|
|
Post by StAnne on Mar 24, 2012 0:00:28 GMT -5
I didn't say that it is only God who forgives sins - although it is - with the priest acting in the person of Christ - remember that Christ is also God. God may act on his own or thru the commission to His priests to hear and forgive sins, or retain sins, by the power of binding and loosing. The Catholic Church gives God permission to act through the commision of his priests? It is unbelievable to me the ways in which your written words manage to contort the Scriptural word of God. Jesus, God in the flesh, gave his priests not permission but the command to forgive or to retain confessed sins. Even the Pharisees were able to understand Jesus' claim of being God. His 'only begotten son' is God in the flesh. My Lord and my God. Sins are forgiven by God. I have already stated that. Your twisting of words is wasted on me.
|
|