peg w

I think if the Catholic Church wants to survive, priests have to get a normal sex life. The reasons for celibacy are due to reasons founded in the dark ages. A long time ago.

Radiance3

==============
Don't worry, the Catholic Church will survive. Will clean up the mess from top to bottom. I am not sure of the Vatican. Now infiltrated by some kind of universal belief with all world's religion.

The Catholic Church was built by Christ himself.
http://www.unity.org/resources/bible-interpretation/matthew-1618-and-i-tell-you-you-are-peter-and-rock-i-will-build-my

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

I agree, for the most part with what Zemirah has posted here on this topic only. But, let’s see how Zemirah’s own words would work on another topic we’ve been discussing (I‘ll explain why)...

Following are Zemirah’s words, in Tommy’s paraphrase. As you read, ask yourself why is it important for Zemirah to listen and heed to exactly what the Bible says regarding the ministry, but not when it comes to the first commandment?

In the untold numbers of posts given by Trinitarians on the topic of God Himself, thus far, I have not seen one place where scripture has been quoted by them or anyone saying that “God is a Trinity of three coequal persons in one substance” which statement would be a complete contradiction to the expressly stated words of Jesus when he stated what the first commandment of all was... as though the first commandment according to Jesus Himself, were of no consequence. Keep in mind that Jesus’ words were written by the apostles in Greek. The Greek Jesus used was very explicit grammatically, and in English would literally read like this:

28One of the scribes... asked him, "Which commandment is foremost of all?" 29Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God (singular), the Lord (singular) is one (singular): 30you shall love the Lord (singular) your God (singular) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.... 32The scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he (singular) is one (singular), and there is none other but he (singular), 33and to love him (singular) with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” Mark 12:28-34

Jesus also qualified the first commandment with statements such as these:

“We know what we worship for salvation is of the Jews” John 4:22

Jews never believed that their God was “a Trinity of three persons in one substance”.

Other qualifications Jesus said include the following, where he clearly and explicitly explained himself regarding who he was and how he came to have such authority:

19“Jesus therefore answered them, ‘Most assuredly, I tell you, the Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father doing. For wh**ever things he does, these the Son also does likewise. 20For the Father has affection for the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does. He will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. 21For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom he desires. 22For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father who sent him.
24Most assuredly I tell you, he who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has eternal life, and doesn’t come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. 25Most assuredly, I tell you, the hour comes, and now is, when the dead will hear the Son of God’s voice; and those who hear will live. 26For as the Father has life in himself, even so he gave to the Son also to have life in himself. 27He also gave him authority to execute judgment, because he is a son of man. 28Don’t marvel at this, for the hour comes, in which all that are in the tombs will hear his voice, 29and will come out; those who have done good, to the resurrection of life; and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment. 30I can of myself do nothing. As I hear, I judge, and my judgment is righteous; because I don’t seek my own will, but the will of my Father who sent me.
31If I testify about myself, my witness is not valid. 32It is another who testifies about me. I know that the testimony which he testifies about me is true. 33You have sent to John, and he has testified to the t***h. 34But the testimony which I receive is not from man. However, I say these things that you may be saved. 35He was the burning and shining lamp, and you were willing to rejoice for a while in his light. 36But the testimony which I have is greater than that of John, for the works which the Father gave me to accomplish, the very works that I do, testify about me, that the Father has sent me. 37The Father himself, who sent me, has testified about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his form.’” (John 5:19–37)

In this passage, Jesus straightforwardly explained himself in terms that contradict the idea that he is somehow “coequal” to the Father. First, Jesus can do nothing of himself; on the other hand, nothing is impossible for God (Luke 1:47), In this manner Jesus clearly and openly refuted, in words that are very easy to understand, the “jumped to conclusion” that he, personally, claimed to be God the “I am that I am”. Next, he says he was “given” authority. This is what the very term “Christ” means, that something was “given or bestowed upon” someone, by an “anointing”, who did not have that authority inherent to his person, so it had to be given or bestowed upon them. This is why Jesus’ title is “the Anointed One” (Christ.). Every time someone uses the title of “Christ” for Jesus, they are, by that word, saying Jesus was given authority. In Jesus’ case, that authority was bestowed upon him by God. Then he reiterates that he can do nothing “of himself”. He didn’t say “of his human nature” as Trinitarians artificially ascribe he meant there, rather, in clear contradiction to the idea of coe******y of persons, he clearly, and emphatically said of his personal “self.” So when Trinitarians claim that Jesus was “God incarnate” they are literally making Jesus’ anointing superfluous. In other words, the anointing of Jesus, if the Trinity was true, would make Jesus’ anointing into a total sham.

And finally, Jesus the anointed one said no one had seen the Father nor heard his voice. Jesus, by the very fact that he could be seen and heard, was declaring that he himself was not coequal with the Father in substance or essence. If the Father loved us, and was indeed a coequal person along with Jesus, He could have just as easily appeared Himself on earth and spoke to mankind, but He didn’t, He sent His son. This is the whole gist of “Christ”ianity:

22For the Father judges no one, but he has given all judgment to the Son, 23that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father” He who doesn’t honor the Son doesn’t honor the Father who sent him .” John 5:

“1...‘Father, the time has come. Glorify your Son, that your Son may also glorify you; 2even as you gave him authority over all flesh, he will give eternal life to all whom you have given him. 3 This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ. 4I glorified you on the earth. I have accomplished the work which you have given me to do. 5Now, Father, glorify me with your own self with the glory which I had with you before the world existed’” (John 17:1, 3, 5).

Again, this was Jesus, praying intimately with His own Father, and he reiterates, to God Himself no less, that God had given him authority. Trinitarians attempt to interfere with Jesus’ own prayer to his own Father and thereby imply Jesus was not being honest with his own Father in his prayer to Him, because they reinterpret Jesus’ words into something he never said! Jesus never said, nor did the apostles, that Jesus was speaking from his human nature. Rather, Jesus was clearly talking about his ‘self”, that is, his “person”ality. Talk about arrogance, then, on the part of Trinitarians! To claim to understand Jesus better than Jesus himself!

Next, still in prayer to his own Father, Jesus says that he, Jesus Christ, will give eternal life to all his Father had given to him in the same way that the Father gave him authority over all flesh!!! Folks, our eternal life is not inherent to us, it is a gift from God through His son Jesus Christ. In the same exact manner, all authority that Jesus had and has was not inherent to his person, his “self”, but was given to him by his own Father.

“Thus, “Jesus said... ‘Don’t touch me, for I haven’t yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brothers, and tell them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’” (John 20:17)

So according to Jesus himself, God is his Father and God, just as God is our Father and God. And furthermore, God is the only “true God” and Jesus is the one whom God sent (John 17:3). To disavow there is one who sent and another who was sent is to disrespect and dispute the Father who sent him. Jesus, the scripture is very clear, did not send or anoint himself:

4“Nobody takes this honor on himself, but he is called by God, just like Aaron was. 5So also Christ didn’t glorify himself to be made a high priest, but it was he who said to him, “You are my Son. Today I have become your father.” 6As he says also in another place, “You are a priest forever…” (Hebrews 5:4–6)

The whole point of being anointed is that it is an “official” act of someone giving or bestowing honor or power on someone else. It is absolutely NOT something one takes on himself. On the other hand, the whole result of the formulation of the Trinity doctrine, which was created to repel the accusation of “three gods”, was the articulation that any action of one was an action of each of the “coequal” persons:

“…the most fundamental conception and articulation in ‘Nicene’ Trinitarian theology of the 380’s of the unity among the three is the understanding that any action of any member of the Trinity is an action of the three inseparably.” Michel René Barnes, “Rereading Augustine’s Theology of the Trinity,” in The Trinity: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Trinity, 155–156 [145–178].

The “oneness” of substance, that is essential for there to be a “trinity” rather than full blown polytheism, is that they each are and act coequally. To the contrary, according to Jesus, there was another meaning to his being “one” with His Father. This he explained again during a prayer to his Father. In this case, he prayed that his followers would be made “one” with the Father in the same way that Jesus and the Father are “one.” In fact, he reiterated the request four times:

“That they may be one, even as we are…
“That they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me, and I in you…
“That they also may be one in us
“The glory which you have given me, I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one.” (John 17:11, 20–22)

This is biblical “oneness”, not an artificial, man-made idea that Jesus is the person of the Father incarnate, or that Jesus is a “coequal person in one substance” with the Father. Rather, according to Jesus, his “oneness” with the Father is exactly the same as the “oneness” with them we will also share. So one merely needs to ask themselves, was Jesus saying that we would also be “coequal in substance” with God and Jesus, or that we would be in unity with the Father and Jesus as glorified humans, but not as literal “deity”?

“Beloved, now we are children of God, and it is not yet revealed what we will be. But we know that, when He is revealed, we will be like Him; for we will see Him just as He is. Everyone who has this hope set on Him purifies himself, even as He is pure.” (1 John 3:2–3)

Through this we begin to see the “hidden agenda” of Trinitarianism, and, ultimately, why Trinitarians want so badly and intently for Jesus to be “coequal” with the Father. It is because if Jesus is coequal with the Father, and we are ultimately to be “like Jesus”, then it only stands to reason that we will be “like God.” Thus Trinitarians have devised a sophisticated way to replicate the lie of the devil in the Garden:

“...you will be like God, knowing good and evil.’” (Genesis 3:5)

Continued in Part Two

TommyRadd Loc: Midwest USA

Part Two

So, back to Zemirah’s own words that condemn her against the Trinity doctrine she espouses:

When was it that the “Trinity of coequal persons of one substance” first became law in the Roman Catholic church? Answer: at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. That council was presided over by the pagan Emperor Constantine.

Emperor Constantine (AD 272–337) was, in point of historical and biblical fact, the legal heir to the throne of Satan, according to Jesus’ testimony in Revelation 2:12–13. That legal throne had been bequeathed to, and accepted by, Rome. This is historical fact. This same Constantine, satans’s legal heir, insisted that the Church Council of Nicaea in AD 325 adopt the Egyptian homoousios (same-substance) doctrine. That doctrine was also strongly Gnostic and defined one God as being projected out of another. Constantine was, of course, demonstrably “Christian” in name only; that is, he was a false Christian. The Council of Nicaea was his political attempt to restore unity to his empire. The purpose of the council was to settle disputes between two branches of Trinitarian clergy.

The first written mention of a trinity, as many eminent scholars agree on, was by antichristian Gnostics:

“Surprising though it may seem, there is total agreement among scholars on at least one point. Adolf von Harnack, Ignacio Ortiz de Urbina, Luis M. Mendizábal, George Leonard Prestige, Peter Gerlitz, Éphrem Boularand, John Norman D. Kelly, Frauke Dinsen, Christopher Stead—all without exception agree in claiming that the Gnostics were the first theologians to use the word homoousios…The late Aloys Grillmeir wrote: ‘The early history of the Nicene homoousios shows us that the theologians of the church were probably made aware of this concept, and thus of the doctrine of emanation, by the Gnostics.’” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,” 248. Church History 71:2 (June 2002), available at Highbeam Reasearch, www.highbeam.com. Pier Franco Beatrice is a professor of Early Christian Literature at the University of Padua, Italy. This paper was presented as a Master Theme of the Thirteenth International Conference on Patristic Studies (Oxford, 16-21 Aug. 1999)..

So, where Zemirah rightfully points out there was no “priest” in the New Testament, she conceals the much more important fact that there is no “Trinity” in either the New or the Old Testament either. And she also conceals the fact that the whole idea of “Trinity” and “coequal substance” comes from ANTI-Christians, not from the Bible, not from Jesus, not from the apostles, but via the legal heir of satan on earth, emperor Constantine. And Constantine got the idea from Egyptian mythology:

“Having…excluded any relationship of the Nicene homoousios with the Christian tradition, it becomes legitimate to propose a new explanation, based on an analysis of two pagan documents which have so far never been taken into account. The main thesis of this paper is that homoousios came straight from Constantine’s Hermetic background. As can be seen clearly in the Poimandres, and even more clearly in an inscription mentioned exclusively in the Theosophia, in the theological language of Egyptian paganism the word homoousios meant that Nous-Father and the Logos-Son, who are two distinct beings, share the same perfection of the divine nature.” Pier Franco Beatrice, “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity,”

What this scholar just said was that the idea of understanding the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as being “three persons in one substance” comes straight from paganism, not from Christianity.

No wonder then, that the Roman Catholic priests, who, like Constantine, are “Christian” in name only, but in substance and doctrines are heavily influenced by pagan categories of thought, would be the ones to also corrupt the leadership from biblical principles.

In this one point Zemirah is correct: as the leaders go, so goes the congregants.

Which explains why I am posting this here in this thread. It is because Jesus said,

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.” Matthew 7:14

Just as in the world, it doesn’t matter how “good” a person is otherwise, if they just commit one murder, they are a murderer. Or if they just commit one rape, they are a “rapist”. So it is with Christianity:

“For whoever keeps the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.” James 2:10

If this is true about respect of persons, the context of the above, how much more so of the most important commandment of all?

“Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the t***h is not in that person” 1 John 2:4

And you folks here deserve to know the t***h of the source at the foundation of all of Roman Catholic and Protestant Christianity. It was the pagan and anti-christian influenced doctrine of “one-substance” that “officially” united what was Christianity with pagan mythology.

And that, as Paul Harvey would say, is the rest of the story.

One last thing. Keep in mind, how important the Bible was, and what it explicitly said was, to Zemirah in her post. Because when she responds to this one, no matter what she says, there is one scripture that she will not be able to quote. And that is one that says, “God is a trinity of three coequal persons.” Because that would be to contradict what Jesus did say, by commandment:

28One of the scribes... asked him, "Which commandment is foremost of all?" 29Jesus answered, "The greatest is, 'Hear, Israel, the Lord our God (singular), the Lord (singular) is one (singular): 30you shall love the Lord (singular) your God (singular) with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.' This is the first commandment.... 32The scribe said to him, "Truly, teacher, you have said well that he (singular) is one (singular), and there is none other but he (singular), 33and to love him (singular) with all the heart, and with all the understanding, with all the soul, and with all the strength, and to love his neighbor as himself, is more important than all whole burnt offerings and sacrifices." 34When Jesus saw that he answered wisely, he said to him, "You are not far from the Kingdom of God.” Mark 12:28-34

“Whoever says, "I know him," but does not do what he commands is a liar, and the t***h is not in that person” 1 John 2:4

Nothing else matters if you don’t get the first commandment right. Nothing. Thus, arguing about the ministry while negating the first commandment is like arguing who is supposed to wash the dishes when there is an air raid going on and incoming nuclear bombs have been reported.

The ministry only matters to those who are in subjection to God. Those who can’t even obey the first commandment certainly aren’t going to obey any of the other ones they don’t want to either. And that is why there are many different denominations of Christianity. It’s because, in the final analysis, they all make the commandments of God to no effect depending on their personal preferences.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

It could get interesting in reading Zemirah's response/reply.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

One of his shorter posts on the subject as well

Loved the metaphor at the end...

I'll admit to be overly concerned about those dishes in the sink at times They're not going to clean themselves

kemmer

Hahahaha.... Wake up and smell the coffee; it's already here. We even have a p**********l candidate who's a man and is married to another man. They were married by a priest.

Radiance3

===============
God justifies what man does, right or wrong. God judges who can go to hell or not. Not man-made Sola Scriptura. God is the ultimate judge, not human being. There are 47,000 people like that above talking similar things. But God will decide. I don't want to judge hypocrites. That's not my work but of God alone. No one is above Him to define how other people worship God. Sola Scriptura is not my religion, but I respect however they worship God, and don't JUDGE them. These hypocrites judges and behave like God because their Sola Scriptura says so, and thinks they are the only one saved. Those who judge how others worship Christ behave like smarter than God.

The history of our Christian faith is intact for 2000 years and more. Not from 500 years ago. I try to avoid hypocrites. I believe that there are those outside of my faith that they are also saved. And how they truly love and worship God. That I respect. There are so many justifications how God saves. One of them is:
Ephesians 2:8-10
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Caligula...

kemmer

Is there another word you have to describe adherence to ancient interpretations of scripture, formulated when people thought the sun circled the Earth, and even some people in this day and age believe in the young Earth, Garden of Eden/Talking Snake stories?

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Describe = Ascribe?
Auto correct?

Stories are one thing... I view most of them as allegory...

On the other hand...Direct commandments

I also try to seek out biblical laws that ascribe to natural laws.. As I believe that God made everything as a system... If it's not found in nature it's not God's will...

Rose42

Tommy has been schooled by Zemirah numerous times. If I were her - and I’m not - I’d shake the dust off my feet and move on. He’s not receptive to the t***h and makes up his own theology - in other areas as well.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Schooled?

Wouldn't that involve actually addressing his points?

I think you mean dismissed...

What other areas does he make up theology?

Direct challenge... Post it... Or be known as a liar...

kemmer

potatoes/potahtoes.

One can't build a solid theology understandable to the masses based on a string of allegories.

The Decalogue needs less interpretation; but in it's original form, moderns have to laugh about the part forbidding coveting a neighbor's ass.

Canuckus Deploracus Loc: North of the wall

Yet another example of a commandment against homosexuality

(just a joke)