CATHOLICITY (inclusiveness)
Bible Right
Taught:
In Christ's reproof of John (Mk 9:38-41; Lk 9:49-50). In Peter's vision of
the sheet and visit to Cornelius (Ac 10:1-48). In Paul's commission (Ro
1:1-7,14-16). In Paul's rebuke of Jewish exclusiveness (Ro 3:20-31; 4:1-25).
In the judgment of apostolic church (Ac 15:1-31). In the unity of believers
(Ro 5:1-2; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-17; Col 3:11-15). In the gifts of Holy
Spirit to Gentiles as well as to Jews (Ac 10:44-48; 11:17-18).
Instances of:
Solomon, in his prayer (1Ki 8:41-43). Paul, in recognizing devout Gentiles
(Ac 13:16,26,42-43). Peter (Ac 10:34-35). Rulers of the synagogue at
Salamis, permitting the apostles to preach (Ac 13:5).
John Cooper
news:qztQc.188$KW...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
> CATHOLICITY(liberality of religious sentiment, inclusiveness).
> Taught:
> In Christ's reproof of John (Mk 9:38-41; Lk 9:49-50).
Agreed.
> In Peter's vision of
> the sheet and visit to Cornelius (Ac 10:1-48).
This shows that repentance has also been granted to the Gentiles.
> In Paul's commission (Ro
> 1:1-7,14-16).
This shows Paul's claim to be the apostle of the Gentiles, and that the
gospel of Christ is for all nations.
> In Paul's rebuke of Jewish exclusiveness (Ro 3:20-31; 4:1-25).
This shows that we are justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of
the Mosaic Law. Because of this, salvation is open to Gentiles as well as
to repentant and believing Jews.
> In the judgment of apostolic church (Ac 15:1-31).
This shows that Gentiles Christians do not need to be circumcised or to
observe the Mosaic Law for salvation. 4 things only were binding on the
Gentile Christians - they were to refrain from food offered to idols, from
sexual immorality, from meat from which the blood had not been drained, and
from blood itself. These commands predate the giving of the Mosaic Law, and
apply to the whole human race.
> In the unity of believers
> (Ro 5:1-2; Gal 3:27-28; Eph 2:14-17; Col 3:11-15).
I don't see your point about Romans 5:1,2.
Galatians 3:27-28 is about the unity of all those who have put on Christ.
Ephesians 2:14-17 is about the unity between the Jewish and Gentile
believers in Christ.
Colossians 3:11-15 is about the unity of all those who have put on the new
man.
In the gifts of Holy
> Spirit to Gentiles as well as to Jews (Ac 10:44-48; 11:17-18).
Then God has also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life (Acts 11:18).
> Instances of:
> Solomon, in his prayer (1Ki 8:41-43). Paul, in recognizing devout Gentiles
> (Ac 13:16,26,42-43). Peter (Ac 10:34-35). Rulers of the synagogue at
> Salamis, permitting the apostles to preach (Ac 13:5).
We don't have a problem with plain Scripture, Petros. What we want to know
is whether you are therefore (on the basis of these verses) going to condemn
us for discriminating against practising homosexuals and for refusing to
accept them as brothers in Christ.
John Cooper
zer.onic
What are you playing at?
Why are you so keen on the word 'catholic', and why do you sometimes use a
capital C when you shouldn't do.
It's a bit like you have an agenda other than is immediately apparent,
seeing as you are a self-confessed "Anglo-Catholic" (which I take to be an
off-shoot of the religio-political 'Church of England') and keen on the
religio-political "Roman-Catholic" organisation.
The content of your posts doesn't quite 'add up' somehow, which is meant to
be an observation not an insult. You perhaps think the same about my posts.
:-)
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
news:ceu85q$7tt$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
Yes, I do think the same about your posts!! For goodness sake, "c" or "C".
I'm simply not that pedantic. You seem a bit obsessed by caPitAl leTters, I
remember you posting something similar about 'church' or 'Church'.
As for the 'religio-political' bit, I think in some ways it is unfortunate
that the Church of England is an 'established' church, but at least it gives
us a chance from time to time to say "antidisestablishmentarianism." ;-)
Now, 'Anglo-Catholic'. Well, that's not an 'off-shoot' of the CofE, (try
the Methodist Church if you want to find an off-shoot...), it's very much a
part of the CofE and is the more 'orthodox' part. The Anglican Church is
Catholic (can't care less whether it should be 'c' or 'C') and did not
reject it's catholicity when it split from Rome, only splitting from some
things the Roman Catholic Church were doing which it saw as 'heresies'.
(It's spelt out in the 39 Articles of Religion - easily found on the net, or
in the Common Book of Prayer if you have one.)
I'm a member of 'Affirming Catholicism', a group of Anglo-Catholics which,
far from being a side-line to the main Anglican Communion, has the direct
backing of some of its prominent theologians, including none other than
Rowan Williams, who is a Trustee. Odd to identify the Archbishop as being
in an 'offshoot' of the CofE... The main point being, we hold to the
catholic Tradition at heart, with the Sacraments, and especially Eucharist
(or Mass) being at the centre of a life of religious observance and
discipline. Worship itself tries to engage all the senses of sight,
hearing, taste, smell and touch, in ritual which instills in us a sense of
awe at the mystery and glory of God.
When it comes to the 'religio-political' bit, I think the 'religio-'
practices are not made in-valid by their unfortunate association with the
'-political' involvement. The essential 'catholicity', and upholding of
traditional doctrine and Sacraments remain beneficial to the Christian life.
What am I 'playing at', you ask? Well, I hope I'm not 'playing' at all as
you put it!! I'm really posting on here to get a feel for how what I
understand about Christianity compares with the understandings of others,
and by argument or debate, establish WHY others might take the stances they
do, which are diverse, as this newsgroup shows. It's a bit of a 'microcosm'
of the wider Christian (and fringes) community. Also to express what I
believe and let others make of it what they will. Why do ANY of us post on
here, after all?
If my posts do not 'add up somehow' as you put it, it will be likely to do
with my mild disability which affects my memory and attention span. I will
sometimes say things in my posts and then forget the details of what I said
(especially if they are an aside to the main point I'm trying to make).
This may make some things contradictory at first glance, but I will try to
explain my position underlying what is said, if people ask. I'm also likely
to say all the same stuff over again!! It's true that I started posting on
here with a view to get 'fundamentalists' (be they scripture or church ones)
to think more deeply about their Faith instead of just following tramlines,
which is why I called myself 'Bibleright'.
Mainly, I suppose, it's about presenting Christianity as I understand it,
and using the newsgroup to reflect back to me how this is received by
others, and how I respond to various arguments, so that when I meet similar
people in wider life, I will have my own understandings (at least to some
extent) tested and prepared. By sharing on this group, I think all of us
can learn from the experience because it makes us examine and think about
what we really do believe, as well as why others might believe differently.
Hopefully it might help us grow and develop in our Faith. It's also, to
some extent, enjoyable!! Nothing wrong with that.
As for an 'agenda other than is immediately apparent' as you put it, I don't
know what that could be! Affirming Catholicism is a group which quite well
sums up my beliefs, it is orthodox Anglican, and a look at their website:-
http://www.affirmingcatholicism.org.uk/home.asp
will show 'where I am coming from'.
One thing, as an example of where we differ from Rome, is the affirmation of
the full participation of women in the Church. But even we would recognise
that other Christians sincerely believe differently over this issue. I just
give that as an example, but generally we accept much of the Roman Catholic
position. Essentially ours is a belief in the inclusivity of the Gospel.
Peter.
Bible Right
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ceu1oe$u26$3...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
Ah! So THAT's your agenda! We're back to that old chestnut, I thought we'd
already 'done that one to death' on here. I am not going to condemn you for
what you sincerely believe, even though you would condemn me for my equally
sincere belief that Canon Jeffrey John is a good Christian and excellent
theologian, and would have made a very good Bishop.
You would not only exclude him, but even me because I believe he should be
included! Ah well, thank God it's not you who decides. Ironically, I would
*include* you, even though you are still, by nature, an 'excluder'.
I remain,
Your Brother in Christ,
Peter.
Jim Docherty
zer.onic
> news:ceu85q$7tt$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > Dear Bible Right,
> >
> > What are you playing at?
> > Why are you so keen on the word 'catholic', and why do you sometimes use
a
> > capital C when you shouldn't do.
> > It's a bit like you have an agenda other than is immediately apparent,
> > seeing as you are a self-confessed "Anglo-Catholic" (which I take to be
an
> > off-shoot of the religio-political 'Church of England') and keen on the
> > religio-political "Roman-Catholic" organisation.
> > The content of your posts doesn't quite 'add up' somehow, which is meant
> to
> > be an observation not an insult. You perhaps think the same about my
> posts.
> > :-)
> >
>
> Yes, I do think the same about your posts!! For goodness sake, "c" or
"C".
> I'm simply not that pedantic. You seem a bit obsessed by caPitAl leTters,
I
> remember you posting something similar about 'church' or 'Church'.
What I was trying to get at is that the word 'catholic' has two meanings. If
someone says "I'm catholic" depending on the context they might be saying
they are a Roman Catholic (note the capital letter) or they might saying
their taste in modern art (for example) is catholic.
But with your posts it's puzzling, it's as if you are really promoting
organised Catholicism (both Anglo & Roman) under the guise of
'inclusivity' - which you call 'catholic'. Yet why use the word at all -
with the vast majority of people it must be solely assumed to mean Roman
Catholic, which surely contradicts what you have been trying to say? Or does
it, is that what you really want? This question led me to ask what you are
'playing at' etc.
John Cooper
news:nTGQc.131$LA...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> Now, 'Anglo-Catholic'. Well, that's not an 'off-shoot' of the CofE, (try
> the Methodist Church if you want to find an off-shoot...), it's very much
a
> part of the CofE and is the more 'orthodox' part.
Slight correction there, Petros. Anglo-Catholicism dates (unless I have my
facts totally wrong) from the Oxford Movement of the 19th century. The
orthodox and original part of the Anglican Church is the conservative
evangelical wing, and this any history book dealing with the subject will
show.
> I'm a member of 'Affirming Catholicism', a group of Anglo-Catholics which,
> far from being a side-line to the main Anglican Communion, has the direct
> backing of some of its prominent theologians, including none other than
> Rowan Williams, who is a Trustee. Odd to identify the Archbishop as being
> in an 'offshoot' of the CofE...
The reason Rowan Williams is archbishop at all is because Ms Cherie Booth's
husband (Tony Blair) appointed him archbishop. He may represent 'Affirming
Catholicism', but he does not represent the majority of Anglicans overseas,
especially in Africa and Asia. The evangelical wing in this country is
currently withholding payment due to dodgy bishops who support his agenda.
How can he then represent the mainstream of Anglicanism?
John Cooper
Jim Docherty
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
chance
have you with Scripture?
As for 'inclusivity' I will have to look that one up, but it will
probably come back
as Masonic. Now, what are they playing at?
Jim
Robert Marshall
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:nTGQc.131$LA...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
>> Now, 'Anglo-Catholic'. Well, that's not an 'off-shoot' of the
>> CofE, (try the Methodist Church if you want to find an
>> off-shoot...), it's very much
> a
>> part of the CofE and is the more 'orthodox' part.
>
> Slight correction there, Petros. Anglo-Catholicism dates (unless I
> have my facts totally wrong) from the Oxford Movement of the 19th
> century. The orthodox and original part of the Anglican Church is
> the conservative evangelical wing, and this any history book dealing
> with the subject will show.
>
I don't think that's quite true - Anglo-Catholicism - as a label
certainly derives from the 19th century but the tensions between the
two wings of the Anglican church have been there from the beginning -
witness the debates over the 1662 prayer book where many things were
phrased to support the higher church end of anglicanism
>> I'm a member of 'Affirming Catholicism', a group of Anglo-Catholics
>> which, far from being a side-line to the main Anglican Communion,
>> has the direct backing of some of its prominent theologians,
>> including none other than Rowan Williams, who is a Trustee. Odd to
>> identify the Archbishop as being in an 'offshoot' of the CofE...
>
> The reason Rowan Williams is archbishop at all is because Ms Cherie
> Booth's husband (Tony Blair) appointed him archbishop. He may
> represent 'Affirming Catholicism', but he does not represent the
> majority of Anglicans overseas, especially in Africa and Asia. The
> evangelical wing in this country is currently withholding payment
> due to dodgy bishops who support his agenda. How can he then
> represent the mainstream of Anglicanism?
His agenda??!! Only as far as those with certain fixations
Robert
--
The H-word the church is struggling with is not homosexuality but hypocrisy
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> The H-word the church is struggling with is not homosexuality but
hypocrisy
Actually its BOTH!..... Robert.
Jeff...
Hiscoming
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in
message news:LL8Rc.234$Vx....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
I am only interested to know whether this archbishop is in Jesus Christ and
Jesus Christ is in him and he is a member.of the only Church of Jesus
Christ.
Those who promote denomination and make people believe that their
denomination is the real Church Jesus Christ refers to in the Holy Bible are
deceivers.
Robert Marshall
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote
> in
> message news:LL8Rc.234$Vx....@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net...
>>
>> "Robert Marshall" <sp...@chezmarshall.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
>> message
>>
>> > The H-word the church is struggling with is not homosexuality but
>> hypocrisy
>>
>> Actually its BOTH!..... Robert.
>>
Maybe but when - from personal experience I find people who are very
keen on a certain issue using methods which are certainly not
Christian in an effort to promote their (sic) case then _I_ know which
is the more urgent (and no I'm _not_ going to go into details!)
>>
>
> I am only interested to know whether this archbishop is in Jesus
> Christ and Jesus Christ is in him and he is a member.of the only
> Church of Jesus Christ.
Which archbishop - I've never claimed to be one - and I bet you're not
really interested to know as I guess you've already made up your mind
R
--
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Not so. What about Eastern Orthodox? Also cCatholics...
> which surely contradicts what you have been trying to say? Or does
> it, is that what you really want? This question led me to ask what you are
> 'playing at' etc.
>
Right. First tell me what your church background is (ie Baptist, Anglican,
Pentecostal, etc) then I will be more willing to expand on that, or at least
tell me if your fellowship/denomination/sect upholds the Nicene Creed (as
the Baptists, Methodists, etc do, I think). Because the Creed says "One
holy catholic and apostolic Church".
If you don't beleive the Creeds, fair enough, then your beliefs are
fundamentally different to mine, otherwise YOU are part of the 'One holy
catholic and apostolic Church', like it or not, if you are a follower of
Christ. (I posted Scriptural origins for the Creed statement earlier, I
would have thought they needed no further comment.) The Church is
cCatholic...
Peter.
Bible Right
Couldn't agree with you less. Because some wicked and rebellious groups
withhold payments (they obviously serve Mamon) they will be judged by God
I'm sure. The Anglican Communion can survive without their money if it has
to.
Peter.
Bible Right
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2004, John Cooper wrote:
>
> > "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:nTGQc.131$LA...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >> Now, 'Anglo-Catholic'. Well, that's not an 'off-shoot' of the
> >> CofE, (try the Methodist Church if you want to find an
> >> off-shoot...), it's very much
> > a
> >> part of the CofE and is the more 'orthodox' part.
> >
> > Slight correction there, Petros. Anglo-Catholicism dates (unless I
> > have my facts totally wrong) from the Oxford Movement of the 19th
> > century. The orthodox and original part of the Anglican Church is
> > the conservative evangelical wing, and this any history book dealing
> > with the subject will show.
> >
>
> I don't think that's quite true - Anglo-Catholicism - as a label
> certainly derives from the 19th century but the tensions between the
> two wings of the Anglican church have been there from the beginning -
> witness the debates over the 1662 prayer book where many things were
> phrased to support the higher church end of anglicanism
Correct!
Peter.
Bible Right
"Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
news:cf351d$623$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Ah! Now 'Hiscoming' the excluder wants to exclude THE ARCHBISHOP OF
CANTERBURY!! Good grief, just WHO do you think you are? The phrase
'arrogant toe-rag' springs to mind...
Peter.
Bible Right
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:cf12a2$jvm$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Zeronic's not the worst! Look at some of the others!! But I am wasting my time I fear, anyway.Peter.
zer.onic
Eh? I wouldn't have thought many people in the uk associate the 'Orthodox'
churches with the word 'catholic' - ie they hear the word 'catholic' & think
'Roman Catholic'
>
> > which surely contradicts what you have been trying to say? Or does
> > it, is that what you really want? This question led me to ask what you
are
> > 'playing at' etc.
> >
>
> Right. First tell me what your church background is (ie Baptist,
Anglican,
> Pentecostal, etc) then I will be more willing to expand on that, or at
least
> tell me if your fellowship/denomination/sect upholds the Nicene Creed (as
> the Baptists, Methodists, etc do, I think). Because the Creed says "One
> holy catholic and apostolic Church".
>
> If you don't beleive the Creeds, fair enough, then your beliefs are
> fundamentally different to mine, otherwise YOU are part of the 'One holy
> catholic and apostolic Church', like it or not, if you are a follower of
> Christ. (I posted Scriptural origins for the Creed statement earlier, I
> would have thought they needed no further comment.) The Church is
> cCatholic...
Now you're making it worse than ever with this weird word you've invented!
"The Church is cCatholic" !! What does that mean? It's not at all clear how
you are really trying to use the word 'catholic', which has been my whole
point all along.
I've just looked in a 'pocket' (ie short) dictionary & it says:
{catholic adj widespread; liberal; of general interest. Catholic adj. n
Roman Catholic }
Notice the lack of capital letter on the first definition. So when the
Nicene Creed says 'catholic' I think it is meaning the first definition, it
does not mean the 'Church of Rome'. What do you think it says about the
Church of Rome? Why do you say the church is "cCatholic" & not "catholic".
It seems to me to be a delibarate blurring together of the dual meaning of
the word. Why do that?
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Eh? I very much doubt it!
>
>
>
> >
> > > which surely contradicts what you have been trying to say? Or does
> > > it, is that what you really want? This question led me to ask what you
> are
> > > 'playing at' etc.
> > >
> >
> > Right. First tell me what your church background is (ie Baptist,
> Anglican,
> > Pentecostal, etc) then I will be more willing to expand on that, or at
> least
> > tell me if your fellowship/denomination/sect upholds the Nicene Creed
(as
> > the Baptists, Methodists, etc do, I think). Because the Creed says "One
> > holy catholic and apostolic Church".
> >
> > If you don't beleive the Creeds, fair enough, then your beliefs are
> > fundamentally different to mine, otherwise YOU are part of the 'One holy
> > catholic and apostolic Church', like it or not, if you are a follower of
> > Christ. (I posted Scriptural origins for the Creed statement earlier, I
> > would have thought they needed no further comment.) The Church is
> > cCatholic...
>
> Now you're making it worse than ever with this weird word you've invented!
> "The Church is cCatholic" !! What does that mean? It's not at all clear
how
> you are really trying to use the word 'catholic', which has been my whole
> point all along.
I haven't understood your point about 'c' and 'C' at all - hence I gave you
BOTH so you could make your mind up for yourself!! I think it is an
irrelevant thing. In the Creed (at least, the print out I have) it is
'catholic', if that's any help? (But look at the Creeds I have kindly
reproduced for you below...)
If you think I am saying that true Christians must be either Roman Catholic
or Anglo Catholic (or indeed, Anglican), then I hope it was manifestly
obvious that that was NOT what I was saying at all, since BOTH those
organisations recognise that there are Christians who do not fall into
either category. I am making the point that the Gospel and the Church
(capital 'C' because I mean the fellowship of all believers, the 'invisible'
Spiritual Church of Christ, not a human 'visible' organisation) are
'catholic' in nature, ie inclusive of ALL, Jew or Gentile, who would turn to
Christ. I've already quoted a list of Scripture references from which the
'catholicity' can be shown. St Paul said that in Christ there was neither
male nor female, slave nor free, Greek nor Jew, for all are One in Christ
Jesus. That ought to be enough in itself to convince anyone that the
Gospel, and therefore the Church (Big 'C' as I explained earlier) is
catholic, whatever the 'visible' denominations/fellowships/groups/sects etc
might like to call themselves. That's why the Nicene Creed recognises that.
Why do you have a problem with it? The Gospel and Church are inclusive,
which is what catholic means, and it's in the Scripture, so even the
bible-fundies should have no argument about it. Most of them say the Nicene
Creed anyway!
> I've just looked in a 'pocket' (ie short) dictionary & it says:
> {catholic adj widespread; liberal; of general interest. Catholic adj. n
> Roman Catholic }
> Notice the lack of capital letter on the first definition. So when the
> Nicene Creed says 'catholic' I think it is meaning the first definition,
it
> does not mean the 'Church of Rome'. What do you think it says about the
> Church of Rome? Why do you say the church is "cCatholic" & not "catholic".
> It seems to me to be a delibarate blurring together of the dual meaning of
> the word. Why do that?
>
It was NOT a deliberate blurring of anything, thank you very much. For your
info and easy reference, I reproduce here the 3 Creeds upheld by the
Anglican Church. The Apostles' Creed is widely used even in the 'free'
churches (don't know if that's 'f' or 'F'). Note that in ALL THREE Creeds
the word 'catholic' is used, sometimes with a small 'c' and sometimes with a
big one. Make of it as you will, but I guess I'm just as confused as you
are, except I don't think it matters much! The word means 'inclusive', ie
for all. No-one is barred from receiving the Gospel Message. It's
Scriptural, why do you have a problem with it? I'm only saying that the
Church is 'catholic' whatever individual groups or sects might say or call
themselves.
Peter.
*The Apostle's Creed (Date not known)*
I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I
believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the
power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under
Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell.
On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the
right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the
dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the communion
of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the
life everlasting. Amen.
*The Nicene Creed (A.D. 325)*
I believe in one God the Father Almighty; Maker of heaven and earth, and of
all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the
only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds [God of
God], Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one
substance [essence] with the Father; by whom all things were made; who, for
us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by
the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also
for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day
He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with
glory, to judge both the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no
end.
And [I believe] in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of Life; who
proceedeth from the Father [and the Son]; who with the Father and the Son
together is worshiped and glorified; who spake by the Prophets. And [I
believe] in one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. I acknowledge one
Baptism for the remission of sins; and I look for the resurrection of the
dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen. [Note that the last
paragraph of this creed was not in the original 325 version but was added
later in A.D. 381.]
*The Athanasian Creed (Date not known)*
We worship one God in trinity, and trinity in unity, neither confounding the
persons nor dividing the substance. For the person of the Father is one; of
the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit, another. But the divinity of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is one, the glory equal, the
majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such also is the Son, and such the
Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is uncreated, the Holy Spirit
is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is infinite, the Holy Spirit
is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is eternal, the Holy Spirit is
eternal. And yet there are not three eternal Beings, but one eternal Being.
So also there are not three uncreated Beings, nor three infinite Beings, but
one uncreated and one infinite Being. In like manner, the Father is
omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent. And
yet there are not three omnipotent Beings, but one omnipotent Being. Thus
the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And yet there
are not three Gods, but one God only. The Father is Lord, the Son is Lord,
and the Holy Spirit is Lord. And yet there are not three Lords, but one Lord
only. For as we are compelled by Christian truth to confess each person
distinctively to be both God and Lord, we are prohibited by the Catholic
religion to say that there are three Gods or Lords. The Father is made by
none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is from the Father alone, not made,
not created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is not created by the Father and
the Son, nor begotten, but proceeds. Therefore, there is one Father, not
three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Spirit, not three Holy
Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or posterior, nothing
greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal and coequal to
themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in trinity
and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him thus
think concerning the Trinity.
John Cooper
> > Slight correction there, Petros. Anglo-Catholicism dates (unless I
> > have my facts totally wrong) from the Oxford Movement of the 19th
> > century. The orthodox and original part of the Anglican Church is
> > the conservative evangelical wing, and this any history book dealing
> > with the subject will show.
> >
>
> I don't think that's quite true - Anglo-Catholicism - as a label
> certainly derives from the 19th century but the tensions between the
> two wings of the Anglican church have been there from the beginning -
> witness the debates over the 1662 prayer book where many things were
> phrased to support the higher church end of anglicanism
Thanks Robert. That made me brush up on those times.
There were major differences between the High (Episcopalian) Church and the
Low (Presbyterian) Church at that time. Compromise was suggested along the
lines drawn up by Archbishop Usher, but this foundered upon the King's wish
to tolerate Catholics, which was repugnant to *both* parties.
King Charles II himself was a closet Catholic ('coming out' on his
death-bed, and receiving the last rites). His mother was a Catholic, and he
had spent most of his formative years in France. His brother James was
openly Catholic.
The changes in the Liturgy of the time reflected in many ways the reaction
to the Commonwealth years which swept the nation. And yet the High Church
of the time was far from the Anglo-Catholicism of today.
The Act of Uniformity, enforced on St. Bartholmew's Day 1662, drove one
fifth of the clergy from their livings, without pensions. Such a sweeping
change had never been seen before. Even the cross-over from Catholicism to
Protestantism had not seen many changes in the make-up of the clergy (apart
from the Dissolution of the Monasteries, that is). Elizabeth had expelled a
few hundred. Laud had sacked some Puritans. Cromwell had expelled parsons
for idleness, vice or inablity to preach. But the 1662 purge drove out
nearly 2000 rectors and vicars - one fifth of the clergy.
These were the most active elements, and whereas it was the CofE's loss, it
was an enormous boon to Nonconformism, which it forced them to join.
However the number of Nonconformists became so large and powerful that it
eventually ended the CofE's monopoly over the religious scene, and weakened
its standing in the nation, and led to religious tolerance for all, even for
the Catholics, which the High Church of the time was as opposed to as the
Low Church had been.
To give an example of this: King Charles attempted to end the sufferings of
the Nonconformists by proposing a Bill in 1663 which would have given him
personally the right to exempt individuals from the penalties of the 1662
Act, and to revive his prerogative of dispensing with the execution of laws
generally. This offer was turned down by the bulk of the Nonconformists,
who saw in it a return to the rights of kings (pre-Civil War), which of
course it was. It was also turned down by the High Church element, who
forced him to withdraw his pledge of toleration, and extorted from him a
proclamation for the banishment of all Catholic priests, stiff fines,
imprisonment or transportation for all those who met for acts of worship (in
greater numbers than 5) that were not in accordance with the book of Common
Prayer. Following this came the 5 mile act, which is why many old chapels
are found on the edges of towns.
So I think it would be wrong to suggest that because there has always been a
'High' and 'Low' element in the Church of England, the Anglo-Catholic wing
has a venerable claim to being the original CofE.
John Cooper
Bible Right
It makes no such claim, of course. But it isn't 'new fangled' either, in
some response to modern 'political correctness' as you seemed to be
implying. One essential feature of Anglicanism, is that it includes both
'High' and 'Low' views within its communion, in other words, we're back to
saying it is an 'inclusive' communion. The problem is some of the
'Evangelical' element want to change this tolerance. They can play all
sorts of games with money etc., but at the end of the day they will be left
with the choice (I suspect) of remaining within the Anglican communion, or
establishing (yet another) break-away denomination.
Peter.
Jim Docherty
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cf5bmp$n76$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
What a lame attempt to justify the Church of England. Dissolution of the
Monasteries
was it? More like rape and pillage.
And yer man Henry V111 also took the Last Rites.
Church of England..................Church of straw!
Jim
John Cooper
> It makes no such claim, of course. But it isn't 'new fangled' either, in
> some response to modern 'political correctness' as you seemed to be
> implying. One essential feature of Anglicanism, is that it includes both
> 'High' and 'Low' views within its communion,
A bit like me then :-)
> in other words, we're back to
> saying it is an 'inclusive' communion. The problem is some of the
> 'Evangelical' element want to change this tolerance. They can play all
> sorts of games with money etc., but at the end of the day they will be
left
> with the choice (I suspect) of remaining within the Anglican communion, or
> establishing (yet another) break-away denomination.
And many 'High' Churchmen will no doubt join the RCs (and many already have)
out of protest at this 'tolerance'.
What I'd like to know is, when the split happens, will Africa and Asia have
broken away from the Anglican Communion, or will England have pulled out of
it?
John Cooper
Hiscoming
Your statement has not addressed my points.
Is the archbishop in Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ is in him and he is a
member.of the only Church of Jesus Christ?
Secondly, I said those who promote denomination and make people believe
that their denomination is the real Church Jesus Christ refers to in the
Holy Bible
are deceivers.
I hope I make myself clear for I am more interested in the main thing -
Jesus Christ, Church of Christ, soul winning. Others are also important, but
they are not the main thing.
Bible Right
Answer to these is yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the Archbishop of
Canterbury is in Christ, and Christ is in him. He shows this in the gentle
and sensitive way he is handling a tricky situation in the Anglican Church.
He is like the Scriptural Christ in the way he approaches matters, and 'by
their fruits you will know them'. Rowan Williams shows the Fruit of the
Spirit in his own life, and I have no doubt that he is a member of the
'invisible' Spiritual and only Church of Jesus Christ.
>
> Secondly, I said those who promote denomination and make people believe
> that their denomination is the real Church Jesus Christ refers to in the
> Holy Bible
> are deceivers.
Rowan Williams does no such thing. It is clearly understood that genuine
Christians can be found spread around the denominations. Again, by their
fruits we may know them.
>
> I hope I make myself clear for I am more interested in the main thing -
> Jesus Christ, Church of Christ, soul winning. Others are also important,
but
> they are not the main thing.
>
I think you and I are in agreement here.
Peter.
Bible Right
To some extent, I don't think it really matters so very much, since the
'visible' Church is already split into so many groups - a few more won't
make that much difference. The 'invisible' Spiritual Church of Christ will
remain, in which all Christians are One in Christ, whether they agree with
one-another or not.
Peter.
zer.onic
Thanks for your answer...I think we might be getting somewhere now! :-)
...but things are still not clear to me...basically I'm trying to understand
what you are on about...(it's not really about capital letters etc, but the
way words are written can convey different meanings...I may be a bit slow on
the uptake or something :-/)
So, just to be clear....do you think that when people in the UK hear the
word 'catholic' they DON'T immediately think 'Roman Catholic' but think
'inclusive'? Have I understood you correctly on that point?
For myself, I think that the majority don't really know what 'catholic'
really means and assume it just means 'Roman Catholic' (and please notice
how I'm using a capital letter where it's a title!).
So, to go a bit further....when you use the words 'catholic' & 'catholicity'
etc are you using it them as if they are inextricably linked with Anglo- &
Roman-Catholicism (possibly including the Orthodox churches)?
Do you see a difference between the ordinary word 'catholic' and word where
it is used as part of the name of a large religio-political
organisation/system?
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
>
>
[chunk removed for brevity]
Well, it all stems from trying to look at schizms in a different way. How
do we as Christians best manage our differences in a way that truly reflects
the mind of Christ? Now, the 'visible' Church has a history of schizms, and
even the first Century disciples argued among themselves (Jeff take note).
I am trying to show how we are all members of the 'invisible' and Spiritual
Church of Christ, even those of us who hold very different views. I am also
trying to show how over-zealous fundamentalism (either to bible-literalism
or to a particular part of the 'visible' Church) is a barrier to recognising
our true Unity as being brothers and sisters in Christ, and co-heirs with
Him to God's kingdom. Since Christians never have agreed, right from the
start, it is unrealistic in all probability to expect us to start now.
However, I feel that we need not only to recognise our true Spiritual unity
(one body, one bread), but also try and be reconciled over the hurts of the
past. The awful and bloody Reformation happened, but all the people
actually involved in that are long since deceased. We today need to learn
how to work together as Christian brothers and sisters, and that can only
come about if we accept that we have differences but are still One in
Christ. One step is to point out the 'catholicity' which has always been a
part of the Gospel and the Spiritual Church of Christ, since the beginning.
As St Paul said, in Christ there is no male nor female, slave nor free,
Greek nor Jew etc., because all are One in Christ. Now, among all those
different peoples, there will be differences of opinion and understanding -
but under Christ all are One none the less. In a sense, we are all
'catholic' (small 'c') and also, all 'evangelical' (small 'e') since we are
all under the command of Christ to go into the world and preach the Gospel.
>
> So, just to be clear....do you think that when people in the UK hear the
> word 'catholic' they DON'T immediately think 'Roman Catholic' but think
> 'inclusive'?
We are both aware, I am sure, that 'Joe Public' thinks that 'catholic' means
Roman Catholic in everyday speech, but most people are also aware of the
true meaning of 'catholic' (small 'c'), after all you do hear expressions
such as 'a catholic interest in music' meaning someone who likes all forms
of music, rather than Roman Catholic music!
> Have I understood you correctly on that point?
> For myself, I think that the majority don't really know what 'catholic'
> really means and assume it just means 'Roman Catholic' (and please notice
> how I'm using a capital letter where it's a title!).
Most of us on this newsgroup know that catholic means 'inclusive'.
Likewise, 'evangelical' does not have to mean 'bible literalist'. This
newsgroup, whilst available to anyone, is read mainly by people with a
specific interest in religion, and Christianity in particular, and are able
to make out the distinctions quite easily, I would have thought. Showing
that we are all 'catholic' and 'evangelical' (Ok, small letters!) is a way
of trying to show our underlying Unity in Christ, even where our differences
of opinion may be very great. I am also trying to show by that, that those
who wish to further fracture the 'visible' Church by breaking away, are
being counter-productive, and they remain part of the 'invisible' Spiritual
Church anyway, as we are all still One in Christ. But by their breaking away
and 'refusing fellowship' with other Christians, they are re-inforcing the
broken 'Cain-Abel' fraternity of this (fallen) world.
>
> So, to go a bit further....when you use the words 'catholic' &
'catholicity'
> etc are you using it them as if they are inextricably linked with Anglo- &
> Roman-Catholicism (possibly including the Orthodox churches)?
The words are inextricably linked with the entire Christian Church, whatever
the 'visible' organisations may be called. Either that is true, or you need
to explain the words of St Paul and the other Scripture references I gave in
a different way, and explain the Creeds away too, if you are in a fellowship
which recites any of them (as I think, most mainstream Christian
denominations do. My aim is to remind people on here of the 'catholicity'
(inclusiveness) of our Faith and how it is demonstrable in both Scripture
and Tradition (the Creeds), at a time when yet further division seems
inevitable.
> Do you see a difference between the ordinary word 'catholic' and word
where
> it is used as part of the name of a large religio-political
> organisation/system?
>
You seem to continually stress this 'religio-political' bit! I take it from
that that you are from one of the 'free' churches. For those of us who live
in the UK, the 'Established' state of the Church of England (ie linked to
the State) is a mixed blessing. On the one hand, the State could interfere
with the running of the CofE. BUT- also the CofE can have a Christian
influence on the running of the State. It also means that ours is a
'Christian Country', and if the CofE was disestablished, then we would cease
to be such, and the UK would be a secular nation in name, rather than a
Christian one. It is not necessarily a 'bad thing' that the CofE has
involvement with the State (and the Queen as its [earthly] Head), but it is,
as I said, a 'mixed blessing'.
Yes, of course there is a difference between 'catholic' and Roman Catholic
or Anglo-Catholic, where the word is part of the name of an organisation.
But likewise, there is a difference between 'evangelical' and Evangelical
Church, or 'Evangelical wing of the CofE'. We are all both 'catholic' and
'evangelical'. We are all Spiritually One in Christ, no matter what our
differences.
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>Answer to these is yes, there is no doubt in my mind that the Archbishop of
>Canterbury is in Christ, and Christ is in him. He shows this in the gentle
>and sensitive way he is handling a tricky situation in the Anglican Church.
>He is like the Scriptural Christ in the way he approaches matters, and 'by
>their fruits you will know them'. Rowan Williams shows the Fruit of the
>Spirit in his own life, and I have no doubt that he is a member of the
>'invisible' Spiritual and only Church of Jesus Christ.
Aren't they both in favour of fornicating Sodomites being involved and
members of their defunct sect?
Indeed. "By their fruits shall ye know them".
Jeff..
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>remain, in which all Christians are One in Christ, whether they agree with
>one-another or not.
Really?
"10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment " 1 Cor 1:10 KJV)
Fat chance of obeying yet another Apostolic instruction....
"By their fruits [or lack of them] shall ye know them"
Jeff...
Hiscoming
Would Christ have handled this matter in different way. Would Christ have
ordained an homosexual? Would Christ have said that homosexuality is not an
abomination?
If you are in Christ and Christ is in you and you are a member of the only
Church of Christ, you will follow Christ, obey Christ and agree with Christ.
And the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ will never allow you to tolerate sin
or any abomination.
People have to choose between Jesus Christ and their denomination leaders
and between the Church of Christ and their denomination, and between the
Holy Scriptures/Holy Bible and their denominational books/doctrines.
Robert Marshall
The Archbishop of Canterbury has dual personalities??
pre-snip insult about being double-minded
Robert
--
1% of Iraqi workers are involved in reconstruction projects
Bible Right
>
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > The 'invisible' Spiritual Church of Christ will
> >remain, in which all Christians are One in Christ, whether they agree
with
> >one-another or not.
>
> Really?
> "10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
that
> ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
> that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
> judgment " 1 Cor 1:10 KJV)
>
Find me two Christians that agree on EVERYTHING...
Peter.
Bible Right
People have to choose between maintaining this world's fallen Cain/Abel
fraternity, and a fraternity that is Christ-centred, where there are no
victims or 'scape-goats'
Peter.
Bible Right
Which both? The Archbishop and Christ?
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in
> message news:PTPRc.862$zT5...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > The 'invisible' Spiritual Church of Christ will
> > >remain, in which all Christians are One in Christ, whether they agree
> with
> > >one-another or not.
> >
> > Really?
> > "10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ,
> that
> > ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you;
but
> > that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
> > judgment " 1 Cor 1:10 KJV)
> >
>
> Find me two Christians that agree on EVERYTHING...
> Peter.
Jeff Hickling and the Apostle Paul {;o;}
Hiscoming
The statement above is clear. And I believe it exposes the false christians.
The true Christians will address the issues. No true Christians will go
against Christ and His Church, and go about to support and promote
abomination like homosexuality, as against the Holy word of God.
Malachi 2:17
Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we
wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight of
the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
1 Timothy 4:1
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
devils;
2 Timothy 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord
knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity.
Bible Right
>
[cut some]
> > > People have to choose between Jesus Christ and their denomination
> leaders
> > > and between the Church of Christ and their denomination, and between
the
> > > Holy Scriptures/Holy Bible and their denominational books/doctrines.
> > >
> >
> > People have to choose between maintaining this world's fallen Cain/Abel
> > fraternity, and a fraternity that is Christ-centred, where there are no
> > victims or 'scape-goats'
> >
> > Peter.
> >
>
> Would Christ have handled this matter in different way. Would Christ have
> ordained an homosexual?
Would Christ have excluded an homosexual? I think not, since there is no
more intrinsic sin in being *attracted* to someone of the same sex (which is
what the word 'homosexual' is usually held to mean) than there is in being
left-handed, ie naturally inclined to use the left hand instead of the
right. Left-handedness was once considered 'unnatural' and evil, and school
teachers wasted many hours trying to 'correct' it. Likewise, people cannot
help being attracted to whoever they happen to be attracted to. To my
knowledge, none of the mainstream churches, not even the fundamentalist
ones, consider the mere state of *being* homosexual (ie attracted to one's
own sex) is in itself sinful. I suspect you (Hiscoming) are unable to see
the full implication of your claiming that the mere state of being attracted
to one's own sex is sin. If one considers sexual activity to be sinful,
what you are proposing is that the homosexual person is sinning BEFORE they
even do anything, merely becasue they ARE homosexual. Let me put that
another way:- You are saying that the person is sinning because they are
TEMPTED to do something you perceive as sinful. That is, you are saying
that TEMPTATION is sin. If temptation is sin, then Christ sinned because he
was tempted by the Devil in the wilderness. Personally, I believe that
Christ was WITHOUT sin. If you believe that temptation alone is sin, ergo
you also believe that Christ sinned. Your beliefs are therefore very
different to mine.
IF, however, you accept that Christ did NOT sin, because temptation alone is
not sin, then you HAVE to accept that the mere state of BEING 'homosexual'
(ie *attracted* to one's own sex) CANNOT, in itself, be sin.
So, YES! Christ WOULD have ordained an homosexual. There is no reason at
all why he should not have done, since being an homosexual is not, in
itself, sin. That is, unless you accept that temptation alone is sin, in
which case Christ sinned. It is not beyond imagination that at least one of
the original 12 could have been 'gay', since mathematically the odds are
about 50:50.
> Would Christ have said that homosexuality is not an
> abomination?
Since the bible didn't say that, at least in the versions He had at the
time, then yes, it's likely that He would have said that, if asked. The
passage in Leviticus to which you are referring would have been more
accurately thanslated with the word 'taboo' in place of 'abomination'. It's
also unclear which parts of the (even by then ancient) Levitical Law (either
moral or ritual) were binding on the Jews contemporary with Christ at the
time. It is likely that Christ would have said that sexual activity had no
place in Temple (or Church) worship, which is what the Pagans often did.
>
> If you are in Christ and Christ is in you and you are a member of the only
> Church of Christ, you will follow Christ, obey Christ and agree with
Christ.
> And the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Christ will never allow you to tolerate
sin
> or any abomination.
This is true. All sin must be repented of and turned from. But your
statement here does nothing to back up your strange claim that temptation
alone is sin. That is a 'different gospel' indeed.
>
> People have to choose between Jesus Christ and their denomination leaders
> and between the Church of Christ and their denomination, and between the
> Holy Scriptures/Holy Bible and their denominational books/doctrines.
People should be discerning over their Church leaders (who are, after all,
'brothers and sisters', since only God is 'Father') and likewise the
doctrines and beleifs of their particular branch of the 'visible' Church,
and for the same reasons. Not only should they also be discerning over
non-Scripture documents, they should be discerning over Scriptural
*interpretations* and *translations*, neither of which will be 100 percent
accurate. However, they do not have to 'choose between' as you put it, only
discern what parts are of God, and what parts are not.
>
> The statement above is clear.
That is VERY debateable!! You are effectively saying that ALL
denominations, leaders and non-Scripture documents are NOT of God at all.
Most people would accept that there are many Spirit-filled Christian members
of the True (invisible, Spiritual) Church of Christ spread throughout the
denominations and sects.
> And I believe it exposes the false christians.
But your belief could be wrong. As you believe temptation equates to sin,
and that therefore Christ sinned, why should I take much notice of ANYTHING
you claim to beleive?
> The true Christians will address the issues. No true Christians will go
> against Christ and His Church, and go about to support and promote
> abomination like homosexuality, as against the Holy word of God.
What you are saying is that some people sin automatically because of whom
they find attractive. The only 'abomination' around here is your absurd
idea that makes Christ Himself out to be a sinner.
>
> Malachi 2:17
> Ye have wearied the LORD with your words. Yet ye say, Wherein have we
> wearied him? When ye say, Every one that doeth evil is good in the sight
of
> the LORD, and he delighteth in them; or, Where is the God of judgment?
You have no right to call anyone God created 'evil' just because of whom
they find attractive. Neither do you have the right to say they must be
excluded for that reason, any more than you would have the right to exclude
them because their skin is dark, or their eyes are brown. Neither do you
have the right to call temptation 'sin' when you know full-well that Christ
was tempted, and then call yourself 'Christian'.
>
> 1 Timothy 4:1
> Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall
> depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of
> devils;
Well, it's certainly a 'Doctrine of devils' to say that temptation alone is
sin, or that people are sinners because of whom they happen to find
attractive, something over which they have no control. If you believe that,
then it is YOU who is departing from the Faith, brother.
>
> 2 Timothy 2:19
> Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The
Lord
> knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of
Christ
> depart from iniquity.
>
"The Lord knoweth them that are his". How very true! So whoever gets
excluded from the institutions of Man is not necessarily excluded from the
Spiritual Institution of Christ, the One True Church.
Peter.
zer.onic
>
> "zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
> news:cf6boc$48m$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
> >
> >
Thanks for the answers.....sorry for the delay in replying. I think I'm
seeing where you are coming from now, and the difference between us.
It's to do with the 'religio-political' thing. The reason I say that is
because that is what those organisations actually are, as far as I can tell.
I don't see that the human organisation of any church is so very important,
and the more organisation there is the more political it all becomes.
History seems to bear that out.
As you are within a framework of organised religion, and I am outside of it,
I see that your 'slant' is one of working within that framework. That's fair
enough as far as it goes, but I don't see that the framework itself is worth
working within, if you see what I mean.
I've just been reading that during the time of Jesus' ministry the Saducees
were in power in the Sanhedrin etc, but the Pharisees were more popular with
the people, thus there was a balance of religious power in the country.
Jesus worked outside that established framework (and called both sides
hypocrites as well), but he didn't reject those that were within the
framework.
So I see a parallel there with organised Christian religion through the
ages. I would not even begin to apply the 'all being one in Christ' to the
organisations (which seems to be your desire) - it's the believers who are
one (which I know you recognise), not the organisations that they might
belong to. So to try and 'marry' different organisations via the believers
is futile and will not work - mainly because the reasons that the different
organisations exist in the first place, still exist today - ie a concern for
truth, and the fact that there are unbelievers mixed with believers in these
organisations.
Visible splits in the visible church are actually a healthy thing as they
prevent the religio-political tendency going too far. (Without trying to
change the subject I think the history of the Roman Catholic organisation
stands as witness that.)
Well I've forgotten what I was supposed to be talking about now, but I hope
my thinking out loud there was interesting :-)
Hiscoming
>
> "Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cfbfk0$g9m$1...@hercules.btinternet.com...
> >
>
> >
That is all I am interested in. I always like people to come out and declare
what they really believe. I do not like people hiding under the 'use of
words'' or philosophy or endless and unprofitable argument.
From you response to those questions, the true Christians now know where you
stand. And the true Christians know where Jesus Christ stand. The true
Christians have no confusion for the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth teaches
them what Jesus Christ wants.
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
>
[cut chunk]
>
>
> Thanks for the answers.....sorry for the delay in replying. I think I'm
> seeing where you are coming from now, and the difference between us.
>
> It's to do with the 'religio-political' thing. The reason I say that is
> because that is what those organisations actually are, as far as I can
tell.
> I don't see that the human organisation of any church is so very
important,
> and the more organisation there is the more political it all becomes.
> History seems to bear that out.
There is a degree to which I would agree with you to some extent, in that
the human organisations of 'church' are very much secondary to the Spiritual
Church (of which there can only be one, but it's not a 'visible'
organisation at all), many members of which will be outside organised
religion altogether, I suspect.
One problem is, it is not in the nature of human beings to function
independantly, we are all inter-dependant on one-another. Very few of us
ever live a 'Robinson Crusoe' existence, and indeed most of us couldn't
survive long that way. Indeed, there is much in Scripture that strongly
indicates that believers are to be in fellowship with one-another, to share
together, to work together, and to worship together.
Now, as soon as us human beings start to get together, and especially work
together, human organisations have to be developed. Hence, as soon as
believers come together, you inevitably get human organisations of 'church'.
Personally, I don't see how it could be managed without, even though any
human organisation will always be imperfect. What happens for the most
part, is believers identify with the visible organisation that most closely
fits their own understanding of their personal faith. I've done the same
there, in that I believe in an inclusiveness which I found in 'Affirming
Catholicism', which recognises that there are Christians throughout, as well
as outside, organised religion.
>
> As you are within a framework of organised religion, and I am outside of
it,
> I see that your 'slant' is one of working within that framework. That's
fair
> enough as far as it goes, but I don't see that the framework itself is
worth
> working within, if you see what I mean.
Yes, to a point. I see a lot of value in Tradition and Sacraments, and
styles of worship and so on. But I'm not personally claiming that these
things are essential to Salvation, or only those ways are 'right', because
to do so would paradoxically be to deny 'catholicity', in the sense of
inclusiveness. Personally, I believe a Christian should be baptised, for
instance. But I know it's not necessarily essential for Salvation, as the
guy on the cross next to Jesus was promised a place in God's kingdom, and
it's highly unlikely that he'd been baptised, or observed any of the
Sacraments.
>
> I've just been reading that during the time of Jesus' ministry the
Saducees
> were in power in the Sanhedrin etc, but the Pharisees were more popular
with
> the people, thus there was a balance of religious power in the country.
> Jesus worked outside that established framework (and called both sides
> hypocrites as well), but he didn't reject those that were within the
> framework.
This is true. Likewise, there are undoubtedly hypocrites among today's
organised religions, and probably outside as well. But there are many
sincere believers too, and many whose eyes are closed to their own
hypocracy.
>
> So I see a parallel there with organised Christian religion through the
> ages. I would not even begin to apply the 'all being one in Christ' to
the
> organisations (which seems to be your desire) - it's the believers who are
> one (which I know you recognise), not the organisations that they might
> belong to. So to try and 'marry' different organisations via the believers
> is futile and will not work -
I didn't think I was trying to do that! But it is possible to have
organisations that do not deny the discipleship of people belonging to other
organisations. They may think they are 'wrong' over some theological points
or doctrines, but that is a different thing to saying that they are not
Christians.
> mainly because the reasons that the different
> organisations exist in the first place, still exist today - ie a concern
for
> truth, and the fact that there are unbelievers mixed with believers in
these
> organisations.
That is going to be always true, because WE don't necessarily know who is a
believer and who isn't. Your definition of a believer, and mine, may be
different, and Joe Bloggs down the road, different again. This is my whole
point about not trying to exclude people, since only Christ knows. Again,
the root of this stems from were different people with an equal concern for
the truth think it may be found in different ways. Is all truth in
Scripture alone (in which case, who interprets it, and which translation do
you rely on?), or is all truth found in a combination of Scripture and
Tradition (in which case, you have to add, whose tradition?), or is it
Scripture, Tradition and Reason (whose reason?).
Hence I arrived at the conclusion that we need to recognise that believers
have a wide range of beliefs over issues of Doctrine and particular issues,
etc, and therefore the Spiritual Church may well include people spread all
over, and outside organised religion. Also, not every member of organised
religion, (or those outside but claiming to be believers), are necessarily
Christians. I pointed out that kicking people out of one organisation is
rather pointless in a way, since they can just go off and find another that
will accept them, form their own, or be independant. No 'kicking out' would
affect their true membership (or otherwise) of Christ's True Spiritual
Church. The only positive purpose it could ever serve is to make them think
deeply about their faith.
I know I tend to go by the Creeds, but even those are probably not 'set in
stone', and I personally don't think any Tradition or Scriptural
interpretation should be 'set in stone' when Reason strongly points to an
error somewhere. That 'set in stone' mentality is what, I believe, is
causing some of the problems we're facing today. The world ain't flat...
>
> Visible splits in the visible church are actually a healthy thing as they
> prevent the religio-political tendency going too far. (Without trying to
> change the subject I think the history of the Roman Catholic organisation
> stands as witness that.)
>
As I said, the Established state of the CofE is a mixed blessing...
> Well I've forgotten what I was supposed to be talking about now, but I
hope
> my thinking out loud there was interesting :-)
>
Yes. I find it helpful to discuss these things, as then I think more deeply
about my own beliefs. We're all on a journey of discovery, like the guys on
the road to Emmaus.
Peter.
Bible Right
>
> >
> > "The Lord knoweth them that are his". How very true! So whoever gets
> > excluded from the institutions of Man is not necessarily excluded from
the
> > Spiritual Institution of Christ, the One True Church.
> >
> > Peter.
>
> That is all I am interested in. I always like people to come out and
declare
> what they really believe.
What I believe is given in the Creeds.
> I do not like people hiding under the 'use of
> words'' or philosophy or endless and unprofitable argument.
Likewise. I'm glad you came out and told us you believe temptation to be
equal to sin, and therefore you believe that Christ sinned.
>
> From you response to those questions, the true Christians now know where
you
> stand.
Yes, they will know that I am a true Christian who believes that temptation
is NOT sin, since Christ was tempted in the wilderness, and Christ was
WITHOUT sin. True Christians now also know where you stand, preaching
another 'gospel' in which temptation is sin and Christ is a sinner.
> And the true Christians know where Jesus Christ stand.
Yes, we do! He is WITHOUT sin, even though He was tempted, so temptation is
NOT sin. Listen everyone, HISCOMING BELIEVES THAT TO BE TEMPTED IS TO SIN.
Don't listen to him, he is preaching ANOTHER GOSPEL.
> The true
> Christians have no confusion for the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Truth
teaches
> them what Jesus Christ wants.
>
Correct! Jesus Christ sent the Spirit of Truth, the Holy Spirit. But He
can only have done so if He did NOT sin, so as He was tempted, we know that
temptation is NOT sin, and Hiscoming's awful heresy is exposed.
Peter.
Hiscoming
>
> "Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cfgp0q$2i4$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> >
It is not laughable because a soul is at stake.
Confusion belong to satan and its army of which some of them are hiding in
the ''churches'' today. IF all these ''churches'' will allow the Holy Ghost
to take control, the demons will be flushed out and we will have revival and
many souls will be saved and added to the Church of Jesus Christ.
Contradictory statements: ''It is a temptation'', ''homosexuality is not a
sin''
1 Corinthians 6:
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not
be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will
inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit or
have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither
the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who
participate in homosexuality,
10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards,
nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will
inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God
1 Corinthians 6:9
9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?
Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
homosexuals,
10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
will inherit the kingdom of God.
Romans 1:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in
their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly,
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
ABOMINATION
23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
confusion.
24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof upon
it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
These are quotes from the Holy Bible and not from books of
denominational/cult.
The true Christians are those who are in Christ and Christ in them - born of
the Spirit of Christ. They believe in the Living Word of God (Jesus Christ)
and the written word of God (Holy Bible). They will not exchange these for
denomination/cult leaders and books. Those who do are born of the spirit of
their leaders and books of their denomination/cult. And this spirit is not
the Holy Ghost. For Holy Spirit will not contradict the Holy Word of God.
2 Timothy 2:19
Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord
knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ
depart from iniquity.
Bible Right
I quite agree, but I CANNOT go along with you because you are saying it is
sinful merely to feel attraction to one's own sex, WITHOUT even actually
responding to that attraction in any way. NONE of the mainstream churches
or denominations would accept that premise, because it therefore equates
temptation to sin. Can't you understand what I am saying? Is it a language
barrier perhaps? None of the bible passages you quote below [in the
original Scripture] equates temptation as being the same as sin. If you
believe that temptation alone is sin, you are on dodgy ground for the simple
reason that Jesus was tempted. Hence you cannot justify from Scripture that
a person is sinning because they are attracted to someone of the same sex,
when they haven't even DONE anything.
An even more problematic consequence of your belief (which is different to
the beliefs of ANY Christians I know, even the most fundamentalist ones) is
that you are saying that the Gospel is NOT good news for all Mankind (Luke
2:10). This is because about one person in every twenty people only finds
their OWN sex physically (sexually) attractive, and CANNOT be interested in
the opposite sex in that way. This is not what they choose, it is just 'how
they are'. So, you are saying that these people (many millions world-wide)
are excluded from Christ's kingdom FOREVER, and they have NO HOPE AT ALL of
Salvation no matter what they do (including leading a life of total
celibacy) simply because, through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, they only find
their own sex physically attractive. So, you need to re-write Luke 2:10 to
read that the Angels brought the shepherds "Good News for all heterosexual
Mankind", if you're going to continue in your peculiar course.
> Confusion belong to satan and its army of which some of them are hiding in
> the ''churches'' today. IF all these ''churches'' will allow the Holy
Ghost
> to take control, the demons will be flushed out and we will have revival
and
> many souls will be saved and added to the Church of Jesus Christ.
I think this may be happening - but I also think God may not play according
to your rules...
>
> Contradictory statements: ''It is a temptation'', ''homosexuality is not a
> sin''
Not at all. The mere state of being attracted to one's own sex, if the
person is celibate, CANNOT be sin in itself. I very rarely ever say this to
anyone, but if you believe it is, then you are WRONG.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:
> 9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do
not
> be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor
> male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders
> 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers
will
> inherit the kingdom of God.
All of these things involve people DOING things and not repenting, it is not
talking about people being TEMPTED to do things.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6
> 9Do you not know that the unrighteous and the wrongdoers will not inherit
or
> have any share in the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived (misled): neither
> the impure and immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor those who
> participate in homosexuality,
> 10Nor cheats (swindlers and thieves), nor greedy graspers, nor drunkards,
> nor foulmouthed revilers and slanderers, nor extortioners and robbers will
> inherit or have any share in the kingdom of God
Again, even in this mis-translation (and it is, go back to the most reliable
early texts), all of these things involve people DOING things and not
repenting, it is not talking about people being TEMPTED to do things.
>
> 1 Corinthians 6:9
> 9Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of
God?
> Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers,
nor
> homosexuals,
My translation here has "homosexual OFFENDERS" [NIV]. I strongly suspect
that Hiscoming has actually edited Scripture here to suit his own agenda. A
trick commonly used.
> 10nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners
> will inherit the kingdom of God.
>
Again, (in correct translations), all of these things involve people DOING
things and not repenting, it is not talking about people being TEMPTED to do
things.
> Romans 1:
> 27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
in
> their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
unseemly,
> and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
This is a passage about *heterosexual* people deviating, and is an
illustration of people turning from natural worship of God to worship of
idols. In any case, again, all of these things involve people DOING things
and not repenting, it is not talking about people being TEMPTED to do
things.
>
> Leviticus 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is
> ABOMINATION
Original language, the word used here was 'taboo'.
> 23 Neither shalt thou lie with any beast to defile thyself therewith:
> neither shall any woman stand before a beast to lie down thereto: it is
> confusion.
> 24 Defile not ye yourselves in any of these things: for in all these the
> nations are defiled which I cast out before you:
> 25 And the land is defiled: therefore I do visit the iniquity thereof
upon
> it, and the land itself vomiteth out her inhabitants.
Again, all of these things involve people DOING things and not repenting, it
is not talking about people being TEMPTED to do things. [I thank the Lord
for cut-and-paste...]
>
> These are quotes from the Holy Bible and not from books of
> denominational/cult.
Yes, and ALL of these quotes (when you use honest translations, and don't
alter Scripture to suit YOUR agenda) involve people DOING things and not
repenting, it is not talking about people being TEMPTED to do things.
> The true Christians are those who are in Christ and Christ in them - born
of
> the Spirit of Christ. They believe in the Living Word of God (Jesus
Christ)
> and the written word of God (Holy Bible). They will not exchange these for
> denomination/cult leaders and books. Those who do are born of the spirit
of
> their leaders and books of their denomination/cult. And this spirit is not
> the Holy Ghost. For Holy Spirit will not contradict the Holy Word of God.
>
> 2 Timothy 2:19
> Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The
Lord
> knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of
Christ
> depart from iniquity.
But iniquity requires DOING something, not just being TEMPTED, like Jesus
was in the desert. Have I got that through to you at last? It's simple
enough.
Your (exasperated) brother in Christ,
Peter.
Hiscoming
It is good to know who you really believe in. You believe that you can be a
gay and a Christian. You believe homosexuality is not a sin/abomination. I
know you share this belief with your denomination/cult leaders.
But the Holy Ghost filled Christians will never disagree with the Holy Bible
because Holy Ghost that dwell in them will not lead them to believe that you
can be a gay and a Christian. You can not keep your sin/abomination together
with Christ in you and you in Christ. We are warned to depart from sin. Even
Jesus Christ explained further that you should not even commit sin in your
heart and not only physical participation. Those who approve sin/abomination
of homosexuality are partakers of that sin. and they disagreed with God's
condemnation of such evil act.
That is that.
Matthew 5:28
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery with her already in his heart.
Another point is the call of all religion/faith to be together. I know that
most of your denomination leaders have made this call several times. One
thing is clear, no one in Christ Jesus will make such call. All faith will
not be together for the Light and darkness will never meet. Those who are
not in Christ Jesus are in darkness. All people of another religion should
be told the truth that there is only one way to get to the true God and that
way is Jesus Christ.
Once you allow yourself to be deceived by satan and be led by him to
disagree with the scriptures, satan will take you to a very far end that may
be difficult to come back. Watch out. There are so may other areas of your
sect in which your leaders have misled many people from Jesus Christ and His
word.
For example, the praying to the angels and to the dead. Thus, once again and
again, disagree with the God that command us to pray only in the name of
Jesus Christ who is the only one without 'SIN'.
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
This include everyone - Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Mary the mother
of Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul..
Colossians 3:17
And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
This is the horrible compromise that denomination/cult spirit will do to
you. Gradually, they pull you out of the relationship with God through Jesus
Christ. That is if you really have that relationship in the first place.
It is not a temptation but a sin when you disagree with God. God is not
interested in such evil game. It is when their secrets sin/abomination were
being exposed in these denominations that they changed their story to
''temptation''. Why should you need to repent if it is not a sin? This is
confusion. If it is not a sin, why do you need to repent. The same deceivers
are joining members of the same sex in marriage in these denomination - the
home of satan where their leaders never preached Jesus Christ because they
do not want to offend the world. They will rather offend Jesus Christ
because the Spirit of Christ is not in them.
I can tell God, I am not practising homosexuality, but I do not believe that
homosexuality is a sin/abomination. My unbelief is a sin already for I have
disagreed with God and yielded to the temptation. The next step is to be
finding reasons for breaking away from God. Temptation will surely come to
all Christians, but the we should never allow it to overcome us. Lord Jesus
Christ is always there to help us to overcome. The beginning of downfall is
to disagree with the same Holy Scriptures that will save you from
temptation.
1 Corinthians 10:13
There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but
will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to
bear it.
James 1:12
Blessed is the man that endureth temptation: for when he is tried, he shall
receive the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love
him
Jim Docherty
Not according to St Paul, I bet!
Bible Right
>
> It is good to know who you really believe in. You believe that you can be
a
> gay and a Christian. You believe homosexuality is not a sin/abomination. I
> know you share this belief with your denomination/cult leaders.
You're not able to make a simple distinction between a predisposition to
temptation to sin, and sin itself. If you truly had the Holy Ghost within
you, you would be able to see that most basic of errors that you are making,
but sadly He has not chosen to open your eyes to what you are really saying
and it's blasphemous implications.
>
> But the Holy Ghost filled Christians will never disagree with the Holy
Bible
> because Holy Ghost that dwell in them will not lead them to believe that
you
> can be a gay and a Christian.
So gay people cannot be Christians, EVEN IF they are totally celibate? If
you believe that, you CANNOT have the Holy Ghost within you, because you are
claiming that God created un-redeemable 'defects' who through no fault of
their own (ie no action required on their part to sin) are totally beyond
God's Grace. Jesus said that ANYONE who turns to Him and takes up their
cross, can be saved.
> You can not keep your sin/abomination together
> with Christ in you and you in Christ. We are warned to depart from sin.
Even
> Jesus Christ explained further that you should not even commit sin in your
> heart and not only physical participation. Those who approve
sin/abomination
> of homosexuality are partakers of that sin. and they disagreed with God's
> condemnation of such evil act.
> That is that.
No it isn't 'that' at all. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was pointing
out that we are ALL hopeless sinners, lost, and level at the base of the
Cross. We are ALL in the same boat, male, female, slave, free, black,
white, old, young, clever, stupid, gay, straight.... We are ALL utterly
dependant on God's Grace alone, and can only cry, "Lord have mercy on me, a
sinner."
Yes, gay people (like everyone else) are tempted to sin, and I expect ALL of
us look on somebody at sometime 'lustfully', whatever that person's gender.
Don't you see the point? YOU are equally guilty of sin if you look on
someone of the OPPOSITE sex in that way as you are if you look on someone of
the same sex! That's why ALL of us need to have permanently repentant and
contrite hearts, because we are ALL sinners and dependant on Grace alone.
But I fear that you are blind and deaf to the Truth that is in Christ Jesus.
>
> Matthew 5:28
> But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her
hath
> committed adultery with her already in his heart.
But of course, the perfect 'Hiscoming' has never lusted after anyone, he is
only the second person ever to have lived, that is without sin... ;-)
>
> Another point is the call of all religion/faith to be together. I know
that
> most of your denomination leaders have made this call several times. One
> thing is clear, no one in Christ Jesus will make such call. All faith will
> not be together for the Light and darkness will never meet. Those who are
> not in Christ Jesus are in darkness. All people of another religion should
> be told the truth that there is only one way to get to the true God and
that
> way is Jesus Christ.
Jesus said that he is the Way, Truth and Life. No-one comes to the Father
but by Him. A clear statement of Who He is, a Person of the Trinity. It is
not for us to know whom Christ might favour, from other religions. We only
know the promises in Scripture for those of us who hear and respond to the
Gospel message, we know little or nothing about those who never hear the
Gospel, can't understand it, or who lived before Christ's ministry on earth.
Christ was plain about it, He alone knows who is Saved.
>
> Once you allow yourself to be deceived by satan and be led by him to
> disagree with the scriptures, satan will take you to a very far end that
may
> be difficult to come back. Watch out. There are so may other areas of your
> sect in which your leaders have misled many people from Jesus Christ and
His
> word.
>
> For example, the praying to the angels and to the dead. Thus, once again
and
> again, disagree with the God that command us to pray only in the name of
> Jesus Christ who is the only one without 'SIN'.
Your ignorance can be quite astounding! Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics
do not pray TO the Saints, we ask for intercessionary prayers from them.
That is, we ask for Mary and other Saints to pray WITH us on our behalf.
>
> Romans 3:23
> For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> This include everyone - Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Mary the
mother
> of Jesus Christ, Peter, Paul..
AND Hiscoming (and bibleright of course). Just as much a sinner as any gay
person is, and no more or no less dependant on the Grace and Mercy of God!
>
> Colossians 3:17
> And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord
Jesus,
> giving thanks to God and the Father by him.
>
> This is the horrible compromise that denomination/cult spirit will do to
> you. Gradually, they pull you out of the relationship with God through
Jesus
> Christ. That is if you really have that relationship in the first place.
Which I suspect Hiscoming does not, or he would never suggest that God
created people who through no fault of their own are permanently and
irrevocably beyond redemption, EVEN IF they turn to Christ and accept Him as
Lord and Saviour. EVEN IF they lead celibate lives.
The rest of Hiscoming's post indicated his peculiar stance shows he must be
in a Church of one, the Church of 'Hiscoming', in which people are evil
un-redeemable sinners simply because of who they are, and not what they do.
It truly is "A different gospel". A Spirit-filled Christian would be
incapable of holding such a bizarre belief which is demonstrably
un-Scriptural.
Peter.
zer.onic
>
> Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics
> do not pray TO the Saints, we ask for intercessionary prayers from them.
> That is, we ask for Mary and other Saints to pray WITH us on our behalf.
How do you ask them?
More importantly isn't it Jesus Christ who is interceeding on our behalf,
not dead fellow believers.
zer.onic
I think the point Hiscoming has been trying to get across, or at least the
one that comes to my mind is that there is a distinct lack of recognition by
'homosexual christians' and their defenders that honmosexuality is sin. So
to declare celibacy is not the same as acknowledging that it is the desire
that is wrong.
So when Jesus said 'whoever lusts after a woman has already committed
adultery', He is in effect saying that desire is wrong, not that the desire
is OK because if you don't commit the physcial act it doesn't count.
So whilst there is a difference between being tempted and actually acting
out the temptation, Jesus said to ask God to lead us away from temptation.
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
>
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zVETc.35$Bk...@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
>
> > Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics
> > do not pray TO the Saints, we ask for intercessionary prayers from them.
> > That is, we ask for Mary and other Saints to pray WITH us on our behalf.
>
>
> How do you ask them?
The point is, the Creed says we believe in 'the communion of saints'
(Apostle's Creed), and as we believe the departed Saints are not 'gone' but
alive with Christ, then there's no reason why we should not ask their
prayers to be added to ours, just like asking living Christians to pray with
us and for us. Petitioning the Saints to intercede for us, during our
prayers, is not the same thing as worshipping them in place of God, which
would indeed be idolatrous.
>
> More importantly isn't it Jesus Christ who is interceeding on our behalf,
> not dead fellow believers.
>
Yes, that is true, and in a sense it is not *essential* to ask the Saints
(or living Christians) to pray with us, but it is a recognition of our
'shared heart' and togetherness in Christ, alive or departed.
Peter.
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Well, I get the distinct impression from 'Hiscoming' that he is actually
saying that people of homosexual *orientation*, ie who only find their own
sex 'erotically interesting' rather than the opposite sex, are intrinsically
damned, that Salvation is NOT available to them NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO. If
that is NOT what he's saying, why doesn't he explain? (This, after all, is
a separate issue from what sexual *activity* is to be considered 'sinful'.
That would require another debate.)
I am saying that their temptations are no different, intrinsically, from
temptations to err that heterosexuals might get. We are all on a level
footing, as Christ made clear in the Sermon on the Mount, so let 'He who is
without sin cast the first stone' and 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.
The basic 'Hiscoming' problem is a return to the broken Cain-Abel fraternity
that requires a 'victim', a 'scapegoat'. Someone to 'bash' so that
Hiscoming can feel better about his own sin by pointing at someone else or
some other people and going on about them.
He is the guy who says, "I thank you Lord that I am not like other men",
instead of the God-ordained fraternity which recognises us all as on an
equal level, all hopeless without Grace, and yet as human beings, each one
of us immessurably of value and loved by God. All any of us should ever be
saying is, "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner"
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:cfls9q$pfu$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
Easy to check.
You have Paul's letters of instruction and doctrines, see if there are any I
disagree with. {;o;}
I bet I can show 'umpteen' where you and he really disagree, Jim Lad.
<huh! huh!>
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> is not sin, then you HAVE to accept that the mere state of BEING
'homosexual'
> (ie *attracted* to one's own sex) CANNOT, in itself, be sin.
[You are mistaken Peter as in many things you teach, this is mainly do to
poor scholarship and failure to study the Scriptures in sufficient depth.]
If it is not a sin then why did Paul call such homosexual lust for another
.... "VILE AFFECTION".
"24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25 Who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature
more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27 And
likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and
receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28
And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
them over to a reprobate mind,"
Romans 1:23-28 (KJV)
Paul also warns of not having * 'inordinate affection' for someone.
[*2d depraved passion, vile passions -Strong's Greek & Hebrew Dictionary]
" 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication,
uncleanness, *inordinate affection*, evil concupiscence, and covetousness,
which is idolatry: 6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the
children of disobedience: " Col 3:5-6 (KJV)
Also he forewarned of those who would show such a mind-set of men and women
who would be without the 'natural affection" that God has given to be used
between man and woman.
"Without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32 Who knowing the
judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not
only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them." Romans 1:31-32
(KJV)
"For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud,
blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 Without natural
affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of
those that are good, 4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more
than lovers of God; 5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power
thereof: from such turn away. " 2 Tim 3:2-5 (KJV)
Thus we are to "Turn away" from such perverted people who have no "Natural
affection" as in the 'Natural affection' that man has to woman as ordained
by God.
Did God excuse the sins of homosexuality when He demanded their death under
the Mosaic Law?
"13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them
have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their
blood shall be upon them." Lev 20:13 (KJV)
Did they scream back, "well you made us feel like this, so why blame our sin
on us."
Thus even if homosexuality was an 'irresistible' feeling, still the
condemned "VILE affection" part remains.
So God still did not excuse their "Abomination" of having sex together,
which is "Fornication" anyway.
And how is it that even "Effeminate" men will be barred from the kingdom of
God?
Unless of course you are "Deceived" like the Homophiles of today.
"Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor
covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the
kingdom of God. "1 Cor 6:9-10 (KJV)
Or.....
" 9 Do ye not know that unrighteous persons shall not inherit the kingdom of
God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor
those who make women of themselves, nor who abuse themselves with men, 10
nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor abusive persons, nor the
rapacious, shall inherit the kingdom of God " 1 Cor 6:9-10 (Darby)
Jeff...
Hiscoming
>
> So gay people cannot be Christians, EVEN IF they are totally celibate?
You have been misled by your denomination/cult leaders. Gay like any other
sinners can become Christian. But they will have to forsake their
sin/abomination like any other saved sinner. Homosexuality is an
abomination/sin and you can not become a Christian without repentance. The
same thing hold for bestiality even though your denomination is silent on
it. I know that God will expose them also, especially the one that have been
secretly ordained.
> Jesus said that he is the Way, Truth and Life. No-one comes to the Father
> but by Him. A clear statement of Who He is, a Person of the Trinity. It
is
> not for us to know whom Christ might favour, from other religions. We
only
> know the promises in Scripture for those of us who hear and respond to the
> Gospel message, we know little or nothing about those who never hear the
> Gospel, can't understand it, or who lived before Christ's ministry on
earth.
> Christ was plain about it, He alone knows who is Saved.
Your response is avoiding the isseue.
So, your leader is right to say that those muslims, Hindus, Buddhist and
other pagans can come together in one faith without renouncing their
religion? That is demonic. Those who have been praying to the dead will
definitely talk to demons who will eventually mislead them.
> Your ignorance can be quite astounding! Roman Catholics and
Anglo-Catholics
> do not pray TO the Saints, we ask for intercessionary prayers from them.
> That is, we ask for Mary and other Saints to pray WITH us on our behalf.
>
..
God will always expose false 'christians' who are plague to the Church of
Christ today. The denomination/cult have deceived many people by writing
their own books. Thus, they misled people to worship demons instead of the
true God.
Where is it in the Holy Bible where we are told that the angels, Mary and
the saints should make intercession for us?
Hebrews 7:25
Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God
by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.
Romans 8:26
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we
should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for
us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
Romans 8:27
And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit,
because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
Romans 8:34
Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen
again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession
for us.
You need to hear proper gospel and be saved.
Hiscoming
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
news:cfnptk$e1a$2...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
It takes the Holy Spirit-filled to understand another Holy Spirit-filled.
Hiscoming
He believes in his denomination/cult book more than the Holy Bible. That is
why he always refers to his denomination/cult book.
Hiscoming
> > > > You believe homosexuality is not a
> sin/abomination.
> > I
> > > > know you share this belief with your denomination/cult leaders.
> > > But of course, the perfect 'Hiscoming' has never lusted after anyone,
> Peter.
>
Salvation is available to everyone, but we all must agree with God that we
are sinners and must leave our sins behind. We can not justify
sin/abomination and at the same time claim to have the Spirit of Christ in
us.
The false christians do not like to be told that they are not with Christ.
But we need to tell them so that they can really know and receive the truth
and be saved.
Bible Right
>
> >
>
> It takes the Holy Spirit-filled to understand another Holy Spirit-filled.
>
Or you might have said, "I thank you Lord that I am not like other men...."
Stop trying to imply that I am not a Christian (that is SO mind-numbingly
arrogant of you), and instead try and put your point across rationally
without resorting to editing scripture, and remember your place before God,
lest your arrogance should turn on you and destroy you.
You, like I, can only say, "Lord have mercy on me, a sinner".
Your brother in Christ,
Peter.
Bible Right
I already have. It is you that is in danger of heaping coals on your head
for casting stones at others.
Peter.
Bible Right
At least Hiscoming FINALLY admitted that ANYONE can be saved if they repent
and turn to Christ. Now Jeff is jumping on the blasphemous bandwagon of
claiming that some people are beyond God's Grace.
Peter.
Bible Right
Well, you're not in a position to make that judgement.
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
we
> > are sinners and must leave our sins behind. We can not justify
> > sin/abomination and at the same time claim to have the Spirit of Christ
in
> > us.
> >
> > The false christians do not like to be told that they are not with
Christ.
> Well, you're not in a position to make that judgement.
> Peter.
Wrong! Anyone is, who knows the Scripture.....
"A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; 11
Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of
himself." Titus 3:10-11 (KJV)
Jeff...
Jim Docherty
mellowing Jeffrey.
You cannot show me 'umpteen' anything. You carry on with your sordid
little
anti-Christian agenda and I will carry on as a practising Roman Catholic.
Sheep go to Heaven
Goats go to Hell ;o)
Jim
Jim Docherty
Bible Right
Ok, in that case I am equally placed to make that judgement.
Peter.
Jim Docherty
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > The 'invisible' Spiritual Church of Christ will
> >remain, in which all Christians are One in Christ, whether they agree with
> >one-another or not.
>
> Really?
> "10 Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that
> ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but
> that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
> judgment " 1 Cor 1:10 KJV)
>
> "By their fruits [or lack of them] shall ye know them"
>
> Jeff...
>
> Really nailing your colours to the mast now Jeffrey. Are you scoffing at
John Cooper
> Stop trying to imply that I am not a Christian
But Petros, old chap, it's just so blindingly obvious. However I have a
plan which will naturally separate the Christians from the 'Christians'.
What I propose is this:
That each church set up a 'Bible-reading meeting', where the Bible is read,
without interpretation, by a competent reader, for the space of 1 hour each
week. This will give people the chance to hear for themselves what the
Bible actually says. It cannot fail to have an effect on those who hear it,
one way or the other. Some will be attracted to it, others will be repelled
by it. Those in the latter group will no doubt object that people need
teaching [which is true], and that people might misinterpret the Bible
unless it is explained for them [which is true too - although I don't see
that it is a valid excuse not to run the idea].
There is much to be gained from reading a whole book of the Bible in one go,
or at least a goodly portion of it - one can read Mark's Gospel out loud in
1 hour flat. It helps put things in context, and reminds people of what
this is all about. Often people hear things they have never heard before in
church, and certainly have never read at home.
I ran a 'Bible-reading meeting' for the Christian Union whilst at
university. We didn't get a lot of people turning up, but we got a
hard-core, and sometimes unbelievers would show up just to listen in their
lunch-hour. They were facinated. Sometimes Muslims and Sikhs would come
too and listened intently. It nearly always led to another hour's
spontaneous discussion afterwards.
I remember whilst reading through Deuteronomy - the sense of the power and
authority in God's words filled the room and impressed us all, as did the
tragic prophecies about the Jews. And whilst I was reading Revelation, we
had a thunderstorm, with sound-effects in just the right places. They
positively laughed their way through Judges at the unexpected funny bits -
the so-human follies of humans who never change.
John is a powerful Gospel to read in context, as an unfolding plot, and so
is Esther. Ladies just love Ruth.
Moths are attracted to the light, whilst woodlice shun it. A church that
gives the Bible a very prominent position will edify those who love the
truth, naturally cleanse away erroneous ideas and potential heresies, and
act as a tonic and a vitamin, balancing that church's life.
It will antagonise those who detest sound doctrine (for example, those who
have forced the preaching of the word into a 10 minute slot - the rest of
the time being filled up with 'worship' and silly repetative choruses), and
will obviously upset those who want to keep the flock ignorant of what the
Bible actually says about the issues of the day, and who want to wean the
Christians off the Book.
I can't think of an easier way to force a division between the Christians
and the 'Christians', as it is difficult to publicly stand up to the Bible
(and still manage to convince the majority that one is a kosher Christian),
and it resolves the problem of expulsions, as the division will be perfectly
natural and voluntary.
John Cooper (1.Timothy 4:13)
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>
> "1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in
> message news:3N2Uc.124$H07...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:zoRTc.1129$dP1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> > >
> > > "Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> > > > Salvation is available to everyone, but we all must agree with God
> that
> > we
> > > > are sinners and must leave our sins behind. We can not justify
> > > > sin/abomination and at the same time claim to have the Spirit of
> Christ
> > in
> > > > us.
> > > >
> > > > The false christians do not like to be told that they are not with
> > Christ.
> >
> > > Well, you're not in a position to make that judgement.
> > > Peter.
> >
> > Wrong! Anyone is, who knows the Scripture.....
> > "A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
of
> > himself." Titus 3:10-11 (KJV)
> > Jeff...
> Ok, in that case I am equally placed to make that judgement.
> Peter.
Only as long as your 'judgement' is in line with Scriptural harmony and
comparison.
BTW. I have not noticed you did not answer my other post on homosex
pevertion and 'Effeminates' Peter.
Jeff...
Hiscoming
>
> "Hiscoming" <hisc...@btopenworld.com> wrote in message
> news:cfoi9o$53l$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
> >
> > >
> >
> > It takes the Holy Spirit-filled to understand another Holy
Spirit-filled.
> Stop trying to imply that I am not a Christian (that is SO mind-numbingly
> arrogant of you),
>
I do not doubt your love for God. But the true love for God must be
demonstrated through agreement with and obedience to God.
There is danger in loving God without knowledge. Ignorance kills - eternal
death.
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.
Romans 10:
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to
establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the
righteousness of God.
Jeremiah 4:22
For my people is foolish, they have not known me; they are sottish children,
and they have none understanding: they are wise to do evil, but to do good
they have no knowledge.
Bible Right
Some guys are naturally effeminate, even though they are heterosexual. It
doesn't make sense to apply that literally, so I assume the word to be a
mis-translation, or a no longer understood euphemism of the time. Most
likely it meant 'weak and ineffective', ie people whose faith was shallow,
and would not stand up when tested even to the slightest degree.
As for sexual morals, and today's consept of 'Christian marriage', it would
be blown away if we went back to first century practices. For a start, we
could all have several wives, unless we are bishops...(St Paul said it was
best for bishops to only have one.) It was also fine for Solomon to have
several hundred wives and concubines, so were biblical morals really that
great? I think the age of consent laws were pretty well non-existant, as
well. You can keep your first century morals, thank you very much, with
their multiple marriages, including girls we would consider too young today,
slaves and slave beating, good old biblical child beating. The 'good old
days' eh?
Peter.
Bible Right
"John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cfr5ej$8um$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:jfRTc.1119$dP1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
>
> > Stop trying to imply that I am not a Christian
>
> But Petros, old chap, it's just so blindingly obvious.
That YOU are not? Yes I quite agree! You display nothing at all in any of
your posts that indicates that either you or 'Hiscoming' even begin to
understand the bible you keep on about. That's because you are right, it IS
blindingly obvious that neither of you has the Holy Spirit opening your
hearts to the Truth of the Gospel. All you have instead is a dead, cold,
empty robotic religion. The rest of your post was rubbish so I cut it. You
are evil to make a statement like the one above, which proves you do not
have the Holy Spirit. I doubt very much whether either of you has any heart
for God whatsoever, sad to say. May God forgive you for your awful comment.
The spirit you have within you is not the Holy one, that's for sure. If you
can say I'm not a Christian, then I can say that YOU are not a Christian, so
there! :-p
Peter.
Bible Right
>
> I do not doubt your love for God.
Well thanx for that, at least. I hadn't read this before I replied to
Wicked John's post, so I apologise. Not to him, but to you.
Peter.
Bible Right
>
> "John Cooper" <bl...@bishop1960.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cfr5ej$8um$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
> > "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:jfRTc.1119$dP1...@newsfe6-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> > > Stop trying to imply that I am not a Christian
> >
> > But Petros, old chap, it's just so blindingly obvious.
>
> That YOU are not? Yes I quite agree! You display nothing at all in any
of
> your posts that indicates that either you or 'Hiscoming' even begin to
Apologies here to Hiscoming only, as he at least recognises I have love for
God.
Peter.
zer.onic
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
news:cfgm8p$vmd$1...@news5.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Visible splits in the visible church are actually a healthy thing as they
> prevent the religio-political tendency going too far. (Without trying to
> change the subject I think the history of the Roman Catholic organisation
> stands as witness that.)
Well you can't even bring yourself to say Roman Catholic Church. It's
the 'Roman Catholic organisation' is it. That gives the measure of you
my
friend. Ok, your opinion, now give us a history lesson and hopefully you
won't forget what you were talking about this time.
It's a worldwide organisation that is in part a religious 'church' and in
part a political institution.
Jim Docherty
zer.onic
-------
Are you disagreeing that it is in part religious and in part political?
Remember the Vatican is a state that issues it's own passports and has a
seat at the UN.
Yet Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world".
zer.onic
>
> "zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
> > >
> >
> > > Roman Catholics and Anglo-Catholics
> > > do not pray TO the Saints, we ask for intercessionary prayers from
them.
> > > That is, we ask for Mary and other Saints to pray WITH us on our
behalf.
> >
> >
>
> The point is, the Creed says we believe in 'the communion of saints'
> (Apostle's Creed), and as we believe the departed Saints are not 'gone'
but
> alive with Christ, then there's no reason why we should not ask their
> prayers to be added to ours, just like asking living Christians to pray
with
> us and for us. Petitioning the Saints to intercede for us, during our
> prayers, is not the same thing as worshipping them in place of God, which
> would indeed be idolatrous.
I assumed the 'communion of saints' meant living believers, not certain dead
ones! Praying to dead believers to ask them to pray for you is nothing like
asking living believers to pray for you.
I don't think your interpretation of the 'communion of saints' would have
been any creed of the original apostles!
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Hopefully, you and I can agree to differ on this one, whilst still
acknowledging each other as Christians... ;-)
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
Mammon. How long will your little sect survive? ..........................Get real!
The Church of Christ has certainly survived 2,000 years, but the RCC has made sure it is not a part of it.
Meanwhile Jim check out all the other 'wicked acts of sin' your pompous Pontif is commiting.
Matt 23:8-10 (KJV)."And call no man your
father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."1 COR 11:4 (KJV) "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head. "
Rev 17:5 (TLB) "
A mysterious caption was written on her forehead: "Babylon the Great, Mother of Prostitutes and of Idol Worship Everywhere around the World."Indeed! What describes better this shameful sect of the centuries of 'abominations' the RCC has been guilty of committing against the body of Christ since it's inception?
The vile Inquisition was only a small part of it's criminal treachery committed against Christ's brethren.
Jeff...
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
> "Bible Right" <bible...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
And which one are you Jimmy?
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:cfqtau$21b$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
>> Visible splits in the visible church are actually a healthy thing as they
>> prevent the religio-political tendency going too far. (Without trying to
>> change the subject I think the history of the Roman Catholic organisation
>> stands as witness that.)> Well you can't even bring yourself to say Roman Catholic Church. It's> the 'Roman Catholic organisation' is it. That gives the measure of you my> friend. Ok, your opinion, now give us a history lesson and hopefully you> won't forget what you were talking about this time.
The shameful and tainted history of the Roman Catholic Organisation is a sick and vile account of the criminal and evil killing and torturing of the faithful brethren of Christ who defied and refused to capitulate to the heresies and unlawful acts of this "Great Whore" which has and still is "Deceiving the nations" with her brazen Pomp, 'adultery' and 'fornication'.9 "And now think hard: his seven heads represent a certain city built on seven hills where this woman has her residence. Rev 17:9 (TLB)ROME............
Rev 17:5 (TLB) "A mysterious caption was written on her forehead: "Babylon the Great, Mother of Prostitutes and of Idol Worship Everywhere around the World."Indeed! What describes better this shameful sect of the centuries of 'abominations' the RCC has been guilty of committing against the body of Christ since it's inception?
The vile Inquisition was only a small part of it's criminal treachery committed against Christ's brethren.
Jeff...
Matt 23:8-10 (KJV)
Jim Docherty
> > > What! Even when he tells us to respect Tradition? Stone me! You must
be
> > mellowing Jeffrey.
> > You cannot show me 'umpteen' anything. You carry on with your sordid
> > little anti-Christian agenda and I will carry on as a practising Roman
> Catholic.
> > Sheep go to Heaven
> > Goats go to Hell ;o)
> > Jim
>
> And which one are you Jimmy?
>
>
>
have got
that connection Jeffrey or are you getting rusty in your 'crusade'?
Noticed you ignored
the earlier point you crafty old bigot.
Not quite the Biblical scholar you claim to be eh!
Jim
Jim Docherty
is
> why he always refers to his denomination/cult book.
>
>
from the
Holy Bible. He has fallen into the same trap as all Scripture freaks.
Tell us something we don't know.
Jim
Bible Right
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in message news:hisVc.256$o56...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Jim Docherty
Jim Docherty
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in message news:VBOUc.512$T51...@newsfe1-gui.ntli.net...
Keep taking the tablets Jeffrey. Finish the dose, they will work..................................................eventually!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
"Jim Docherty" <Jim.Do...@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:cg72r8$p38$1...@titan.btinternet.com...
Grovelling sarcasm does not erase the blatant hypocritical sins of your Pontiff and the infamous Roman Catholic Organisation, its sins "have reached highest heaven" and they leap out for all to see, believers and unbelievers alike.
Let us all thank God many of your diocese will be bankrupted and will fold up after the massive millions upon millions of dollar payouts for the evil sins of your perverted priests who [sin further by calling themselves "Father".] have been denied the privilege of marriage.
Yet another disgraceful sin of the RCC. "forbidding to marry"
Paul stated...."9 But if you can't control yourselves, go ahead and marry. It is better to marry than to burn with lust. " 1 Cor 7:8-9 (TLB)
These priests are so frustrated sexually they have sex with children instead of getting married as instructed. Thus showing the stupidity and evil consiquences of refusing to obey what Scripture teachers.
The RC sect is bound up in error and wicked practises from top to bottom, and your history proves it to this very day. Ugh! "The Great Whore" indeed.
Jeff...
"Babylon the Great, Mother of Prostitutes and of Idol Worship [The Pope worshipping the image of the Virgin Mary ] Everywhere around the World."
Jim Docherty
>
> "zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
.
> It takes the Holy Spirit-filled to understand another Holy Spirit-filled.
What a pompous statement. You have to be a member before the Holy Spirit
touches you.(? ) You guys have totally missed the Message.
zer.onic
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
news:cftv07$80c$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> > It's a worldwide organisation that is in part a religious 'church' and
in
> > part a political institution.
> >
> > It is the Church of Jesus Christ that has survived 2000 years in the
world
> of
> Mammon. How long will your little sect survive?
> ..........................Get real!
> MATTHEW 16: 17-19
> -------
>
> Are you disagreeing that it is in part religious and in part political?
> Remember the Vatican is a state that issues it's own passports and has a
> seat at the UN.
> Yet Christ said "My kingdom is not of this world".
>
>
> Wrong context, 'give unto Caesar' springs to mind. Do you live in a cave
or in
the Western Isles perhaps? I believe there is a time warp there if it is
the latter.
That would certainly explain the rubbish you spout!
Jim
MATTHEW 16: 17-19
-----------
I don't follow your reasoning. Do you accept that the Roman Catholic
organisation has both religious and political elements?
Jim Docherty
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Well of course it has. How could it survive 'visibly' otherwise. Now,
your
point being??
zer.onic
I was answering your objection of my referring to the Roman Catholic
"organisation", rather than as a 'church'.
The point being that the real worldwide 'church' of Christ is the believers,
not a religio-political institution (which may have believers as its
members).
zer.onic
The bible does not say it is wrong to love. David loved Jonathan, the bible
does not describe it as a 'vile affection', neither was Christ's love for
Lazarus or John a 'vile affection'. Paul's Romans passage is about
idolatry. He likens idolatry to *heterosexuals* turning to their own sex in
a way that is unnatural for them.
Erm, isn't it the case that when
'*heterosexuals* turn to their own sex in a way that is unnatural for them'
they are called 'homosexuals'?? Thus you are saying Paul likens
homosexuality to idolatry?
zer.onic
I'm not sure about 'agreeing to differ' as that implies I would accept your
practice as being valid (but not to my 'taste'), doesn't it?
As I don't accept it as being valid per se (and not a matter of 'taste' or
whatever), I can only say you must do what you think is right!
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
>your point being??
Bible Right
"1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist" <Nospa...@thanks.com> wrote in message news:lq7Wc.748$wE1...@newsfe3-gui.ntli.net...
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
Which is what each Christian must do. I believe that Jesus promised true
believers eternal life, and therefore their souls have not been
extinguished.
Peter.
Bible Right
"zer.onic" <rs...@news.group> wrote in message
No, that's not my understanding of it at all. They remain heterosexuals, as
they remain attracted naturally to women. As I've said elsewhere,
homosexuals CANNOT become heterosexuals by any known means, and the reverse
is also true. But heterosexuals can commit homosexual acts (it often
happens in prisons, for instance) and homosexuals can commit heterosexual
acts (they often marry, as society pressurises them into it, but such
'marriages' usually fail.)
Peter.
1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist
----- Original Message -----From: Bible RightNewsgroups: england.religion.christian,uk.religion.interfaithSent: Sunday, August 22, 2004 11:18 PMSubject: Re: The Blasphemy of CATHOLICITY>Oh, Jeff you WALLY!>Peter.
Better a wally, then a dummy Peter {;o;}>Oh, Jeff you WALLY!