Christianity: Is "Holy Spirit" with Catholicism or Protestantism or with no Christian-denomination?

[paarsurrey]

God IS a spirit. God is holy. God IS the only holy spirit.Not a separate "being" or "person". No other spirit is holy except God.

"God IS a spirit"

Please quote from Moses and Jesus in support of one's/yours communication. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey,
I have tried to give people on this site, some answers to questions like yours. Over and over I have been sanctioned for answering questions, on this site. They seem to want only people who make outlandish statements, and no one who can answer Bible questions. The rulers of this site say that I must say that it seems like, so and so, even though I Am quoting Bible Scripture.
You must put your request in hidden meanings.

That is one's issue with RF, and not with me, please.
"The claims and reasons, must be from the Revealed Book of a Revealed-Religion".
Right, please?

Regards

 

[Terry Sampson]

I really don't see how one negates or changes the other.

It doesn't. I just thought the transition from the first post to the second to the third to the fourth to your final fifth post was a fascinating game of bumper car moves.

 

[Terry Sampson]

"Do you and/or Islam believe that Jesus of Nazareth

• (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers? and
• (b) was resurrected (i.e. raised from the dead)?

I understand that both (a) and (b) never happened, please.

Right! I'd have been surprised if you thought they did. Thanks for confirming that you do not think they did.
Now, because you understand that (a) and (b) never happened, you and I have "two irreconcilable differences".
In addition, because you say that those events never happened, you are calling my Christian Scriptures false. That's a third "irreconcilable difference."
Also, your persistent reference to Pauline paganism and your calling my Jesus of Nazareth a Pagan-Christ are two more "irreconcilable differences".
Moreover, I'll bet that you do not have a copy nor can you guide me to a copy of any Christian Scriptures that someone showed to your prophet Mohammed or to any of his followers. In other words, you've got nothing to tell me (a) about what your Angel Gabriel showed or told to your prophet Mohammed, (b) about my Jesus, or (c) what I believe about him and because of him.
In other words, your opinion of my Jesus, my Scriptures, and my faith are absolutely unimportant to me.

Now, I'll tell you a little secret, just between you and me. I could have tolerated your silly repetition of statements:
(a) that Psalms is not in the Torah, (b) that Moses never mentioned the Trinity, and (c) Jesus never mentioned the Trinity, ... I could have kept silent if you told me that you don't believe in my Trinity because I personally do not believe that one has to believe in the Trinity--even though I do believe in the Trinity--in order to begin to understand the importance of Jesus of Nazareth.

Bottom Line: I now strongly suspect that you believed each of the five things that underlie our irreconcilable differences long before you posted this thread. And I'm finished here.

 

[paarsurrey]

Right! I'd have been surprised if you thought they did. Thanks for confirming that you do not think they did.
Now, because you understand that (a) and (b) never happened, you and I have "two irreconcilable differences".
In addition, because you say that those events never happened, you are calling my Christian Scriptures false. That's a third "irreconcilable difference."
Also, your persistent reference to Pauline paganism and your calling my Jesus of Nazareth a Pagan-Christ are two more "irreconcilable differences".
Moreover, I'll bet that you do not have a copy nor can you guide me to a copy of any Christian Scriptures that someone showed to your prophet Mohammed or to any of his followers. In other words, you've got nothing to tell me (a) about what your Angel Gabriel showed or told to your prophet Mohammed, (b) about my Jesus, or (c) what I believe about him and because of him.
In other words, your opinion of my Jesus, my Scriptures, and my faith are absolutely unimportant to me.

Now, I'll tell you a little secret, just between you and me. I could have tolerated your silly repetition of statements:
(a) that Psalms is not in the Torah, (b) that Moses never mentioned the Trinity, and (c) Jesus never mentioned the Trinity, ... I could have kept silent if you told me that you don't believe in my Trinity because I personally do not believe that one has to believe in the Trinity--even though I do believe in the Trinity--in order to begin to understand the importance of Jesus of Nazareth.

Bottom Line: I now strongly suspect that you believed each of the five things that underlie our irreconcilable differences long before you posted this thread. And I'm finished here.

I don't have any personal issue with one. One mentioned that:

"Jesus of Nazareth (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers?"

Now this never happened on the first place. Jesus was put on the Cross only for a few hours, to appease Judaism people. They demanded that Jesus be crucified to death to prove him a false prophet. And Jesus had a strong healthy physique, other two persons who were put on the cross with Jesus did not die on the Cross until and unless they were further tortured by breaking their bones.
Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross as his bones were not broken. Right, please?

Regards

 

[sojourner]

Christianity: Is "Holy Spirit" with Catholicism or Protestantism or with no Christian-denomination, please?

Regards

_____________
#35

It makes no difference. The church, as the Body of Christ, is one. The Holy Spirit, as the third Person of the Trinity, is part and parcel of the church, whether it brands itself “Catholic” or “Protestant.”

 

[paarsurrey]

It makes no difference. The church, as the Body of Christ, is one. The Holy Spirit, as the third Person of the Trinity, is part and parcel of the church, whether it brands itself “Catholic” or “Protestant.”

"The church, as the Body of Christ"

Jesus founded no Church, he need not as Jesus son of Mary (not the mythical Pagan-Christ) was a Jew and a follower of Moses' Law. He prayed in Jewish temple, not in a Christian-Church, never.

There was no Church in Jesus' time. Anybody who says "The church, as the Body of Christ" means Jesus did not have any physical body. In other words, it means, Jesus did not exist in real terms. Right, please?

Please note that for rationality and reasonableness one has to present "claims and reason from one's Revealed core Book one believes in".Right, please?

Regards

 

[sojourner]

I don't have any personal issue with one. One mentioned that:

"Jesus of Nazareth (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers?"

Now this never happened on the first place. Jesus was put on the Cross only for a few hours, to appease Judaism people. They demanded that Jesus be crucified to death to prove him a false prophet. And Jesus had a strong healthy physique, other two persons who were put on the cross with Jesus did not die on the Cross until and unless they were further tortured by breaking their bones.
Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross as his bones were not broken. Right, please?

Regards

Not according to the gospel accounts — or according to the earlier epistles. And, most compelling, not according to Roman custom. Crucifixion was an act of state terrorism. To release the crucified would defeat the purpose of the crucifixion. Death by crucifixion was the horror they perpetrated on the populace.

 

[sojourner]

"The church, as the Body of Christ"

Jesus founded no Church, he need not as Jesus son of Mary (not the mythical Pagan-Christ) was a Jew and a follower of Moses' Law. He prayed in Jewish temple, not in a Christian-Church, never.

There was no Church in Jesus' time. Anybody who says "The church, as the Body of Christ" means Jesus did not have any physical body. In other words, it means, Jesus did not exist in real terms. Right, please?

Please note that for rationality and reasonableness one has to present "claims and reason from one's Revealed core Book one believes in".Right, please?

Regards

No, that’s not what the Body of Christ means. There is ample evidence to suggest that Jesus did, in fact, exist physically, and that he was a victim of crucifixion. “The Body of Christ” is a theological concept, meaning that, after his resurrection, and through the act of Eucharist, we dwell in him, and he in us.

 

[sojourner]

"The church, as the Body of Christ"

Jesus founded no Church, he need not as Jesus son of Mary (not the mythical Pagan-Christ) was a Jew and a follower of Moses' Law. He prayed in Jewish temple, not in a Christian-Church, never.

There was no Church in Jesus' time. Anybody who says "The church, as the Body of Christ" means Jesus did not have any physical body. In other words, it means, Jesus did not exist in real terms. Right, please?

Please note that for rationality and reasonableness one has to present "claims and reason from one's Revealed core Book one believes in".Right, please?

Regards

With regard to your last sentence: no, that, too, is incorrect. One has to present Apostolic Tradition, of which the sacred texts are part.

You are correct in stating that there was no Christian Church, ad we know it, during Jesus’ life. The early proto-Church continued to go to synagogue, then met afterward for Eucharist, as a community. However, Jesus did assemble disciples, sent out apostles, and gathered them for a meal. Those acts do constitute calling together an ekklesia for spiritual purposes.

 

[paarsurrey]

With regard to your last sentence: no, that, too, is incorrect. One has to present Apostolic Tradition, of which the sacred texts are part.

You are correct in stating that there was no Christian Church, ad we know it, during Jesus’ life. The early proto-Church continued to go to synagogue, then met afterward for Eucharist, as a community. However, Jesus did assemble disciples, sent out apostles, and gathered them for a meal. Those acts do constitute calling together an ekklesia for spiritual purposes.

"Apostolic Tradition"

Jesus never supported/authorized any such tradition. If yes, please quote from Jesus. Right, please?

Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

With regard to your last sentence: no, that, too, is incorrect. One has to present Apostolic Tradition, of which the sacred texts are part.

You are correct in stating that there was no Christian Church, ad we know it, during Jesus’ life. The early proto-Church continued to go to synagogue, then met afterward for Eucharist, as a community. However, Jesus did assemble disciples, sent out apostles, and gathered them for a meal. Those acts do constitute calling together an ekklesia for spiritual purposes.

"You are correct in stating that there was no Christian Church, ad we know it, during Jesus’ life"

Thanks for one's acknowledgement, please.

Regards

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

I don't have any personal issue with one. One mentioned that:

"Jesus of Nazareth (a) was put to death by Roman soldiers?"

Now this never happened on the first place. Jesus was put on the Cross only for a few hours, to appease Judaism people. They demanded that Jesus be crucified to death to prove him a false prophet. And Jesus had a strong healthy physique, other two persons who were put on the cross with Jesus did not die on the Cross until and unless they were further tortured by breaking their bones.
Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross as his bones were not broken. Right, please?

Regards

Show proof. Wrong, p;ease

 

[sojourner]

"Apostolic Tradition"

Jesus never supported/authorized any such tradition. If yes, please quote from Jesus. Right, please?

Regards

Of course he did! He called them; he employed them; he gave them spiritual authority.

 

[sojourner]

"You are correct in stating that there was no Christian Church, ad we know it, during Jesus’ life"

Thanks for one's acknowledgement, please.

Regards

You’re conveniently forgetting the proviso at the end. You’re taking my statement out of context and misrepresenting my message.

 

[paarsurrey]

Show proof. Wrong, p;ease

The rational and reasonable argument is already given by me:
Quote

1. "Jesus was put on the Cross only for a few hours,
2. to appease Judaism people.
3. They (the Judaism people) demanded that Jesus be crucified to death to prove him a false prophet.
4. And Jesus had a strong healthy physique,
5. other two persons who were put on the cross with Jesus did not die on the Cross
6. until and unless they were further tortured by breaking their bones.
7. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross as his bones were not broken." Unquote

Prove them wrong, if one can. Right, please?

Regards

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

The rational and reasonable argument is already given by me:
Quote

1. "Jesus was put on the Cross only for a few hours,
2. to appease Judaism people.
3. They (the Judaism people) demanded that Jesus be crucified to death to prove him a false prophet.
4. And Jesus had a strong healthy physique,
5. other two persons who were put on the cross with Jesus did not die on the Cross
6. until and unless they were further tortured by breaking their bones.
7. Jesus survived a cursed death on Cross as his bones were not broken." Unquote

Prove them wrong, if one can. Right, please?

Regards

No, prove them right. Just because you it does not prove it. Wrong, please