I believe you are. King, your Catholic right?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The dishonest use of the name "Christian"
- Thread starter -Peacemaker-
- Start date
McBell
Unbound
You seem to have to have missed the point...
I did not say nor imply that all Christians are that way.
I will even "go on record" saying that those particular Christians are the exception, not the rule.
I merely implied that there are those from every sect of Christianity who are that way.
In that case, you would be correct. There is one in every crowd.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
no, I'm an evangelical
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the word 'Lord' is merely a title given to someone out of respect. It was applied by Sarah to her husband (Ge 18:12), by children to their fathers (Ge 31:35; Mt 21:28, 29), and by a younger brother to his older brother (Ge 32:5, 6). It appears as a title of respect addressed to prominent persons, public officials, prophets, and kings. (Ge 23:6; 42:10; Nu 11:28; 2Sa 1:10; 2Ki 8:10-12; Mt 27:63)
if you examine your bible closely, you'll notice that sometimes the word is capitalized and other times it is not. ie, LORD/Lord
The reason why our english bibles capitalize the word lord is because that is an instance where they are translating the tetragramaton (YHWH - the hebrew characters used to represent the personal name of God the Creator), our english bibles replace the 'YHWH' with 'LORD' in capitals. When the title Lord is used in any other way for any other person it is simply rendered as 'Lord' as it is when applied to Jesus by Thomas.
Read the preface to your bible and it should explain it.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
My understanding is that the word "kyrios" which is the Greek word typically used in the NT to describe Jesus is used often in the Septuagint to refer to "the Father"
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
the greek word Kyrios corresponds to the Hebrew word ʼA·dhohn′ which is Lord in english...so it can be applied to anyone. Jesus properly addresses his Father and God as “Lord” at John 20:17 because God holds a superior position and Jesus respects that position.
ie, matthew 11:25 At that time Jesus said in response: “I publicly praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth
1Cor 8:5 For even though there are those who are called “gods,” whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” Paul could rightly say there are many 'gods' and 'lords' because both these words are only titles, like president or doctor is only a title....they do not identify an individual, but rather point to a position
Last edited:
Alceste
Vagabond
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
The other one true church.
Not even close. I think there are a few bare bones beliefs that one needs to be true to the faith, primarily but not necessarily exclusively, believing that Jesus is God. I view disagreements over things like communion, purgatory, and praying to the dead to be be little more than petty squabbles relatively speaking. I don't think it's too much to ask that people refrain from using the term "Christian" if they deny his divinity.
Bob Dixon
>implying
I don't think it's too much to ask that people start referring to themselves as "Paulinist Orthodox" is they accept his divinity.
Two can play at that game, O King.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Not really. We came first. People can't hide behind arguments built on ridiculous excuses for logic to explain why they feel the apostles denied his divinity. But I suppose I can find contentment because I believe what's written in 2 Peter. I know that since the beginning of our faith people have tried to blend in and introduce what we would call destructive heresies.
2 Peter 2:1
"But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves."
Shermana
Heretic
"Nuh uh".
We have proven that the Trinity didn't develop until the 2nd century and that your "proof texts" are in dispute, you have done nothing to prove otherwise except repeat yourself and insult the opposing logic.
.
"Nuh uh". Failure to address the counter-arguments and writing them off as "ridiculous excuses for logic" noted. You can find them ridiculous all you want, but this is a debate board. You have to actually address the counter arguments without just calling them "stupid" or "ridiculous excuses for logic". I'm sorry if the counter-arguments go against your beliefs and you find them "ridiculous", but calling them such in no way shape or form makes it look like you are actually capable of proving them wrong. It's just more notches on my wall.
.
I should add that 2 Peter was heavily contested even by the Early church, most scholars agree, like many early church fathers, that it's a forged book.
Like the Trinity for example.
And of course, there's no possibility that he's referring to those of your belief, just because you said so.
You do realize that posting verses like this in no way whatsoever prove that your Doctrine was on the "right side"? Kind of like when you post the verse about how men will stick to traditions of men, right? It can go both ways. You may not like it, but that's how it goes. Even if 2 Peter was forged, at the time it was written, the Trinity would have not been developed yet. The doctrines they are referring to are probably those of the various "Gnostic" or even proto-Orthodox anti-Judaizing idea. I will happily risk the possibility of swift destruction if I am wrong.
However, I think a problem here is that you think "Denying the Sovereign Lord" translates to "Denying Jesus his Divinity", which is most likely not the original intention of the passage. It was most likely referring to the actual teachings and his place as Jewish Messiah. I'd go so far as to claim that calling Jesus "God" while totally ignoring the implications of what it meant to be Jewish Messiah would be in fact denying him and idolatry in most clear terms.
If you're not interested in actual debate and addressing counter arguments and you just want to resort to nothing but "nuh uh" and "you're wrong!" without going over the arguments, you should post in the DIR instead, that place you don't have to actually debate ideas and you can write them off and dismiss them as "Ridiculous excuses for logic" all you want. But what you're saying may in fact constitute "prosletyzing".
Now if you don't want to actually debate, we can make a providential bet.....
Last edited:
Shermana
Heretic
Technically Evangelicals are just an offshoot of the Church of Rome, they carry over most of the orthodox doctrines. Just a rebellious daughter of sorts. And like I've shown, the Popes have been quite clear that they believe Evangelicals and other non-Catholics have a nice firy spot in hell reserved for them.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
Last I checked, we moved up from "non-believers" to "separated brethern" in their eyes
Shermana
Heretic
Feel free to show a link that demonstrates they no longer believe such as the quotes from the Popes I mentioned earlier.
-Peacemaker-
.45 Cal
This is a site called Catholic Encyclopedia
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Protestantism
Progress in Church and churches
The Catholic Church of the twentieth century is vastly in advance of that of the sixteenth. She has made up her loss in political power and worldly wealth by increased spiritual influences and efficiency; her adherents are more widespread, more numerous, more fervent than at any time in her history, and they are bound to the central Government at Rome by a more filial affection and a clearer sense of duty. Religious education is abundantly provided for clergy and laity; religious practice, morality, and works of charity are flourishing; the Catholic mission-field is world-wide and rich in harvest. The hierarchy was never so united, never so devoted to the pope. The Roman unity is successfully resisting the inroads of sects, of philosophies, of politics. Can our separated brethren tell a similar tale of their many Churches, even in lands where they are ruled and backed by the secular power? We do not rejoice at their disintegration, at their falling into religious indifference, or returning into political parties. No, for any shred of Christianity is better than blank worldliness. But we do draw this conclusion: that after four centuries the Catholic principle of authority is still working out the salvation of the Church, whereas among Protestants the principle of Subjectivism is destroying what remains of their former faith and driving multitudes into religious indifference and estrangement from the supernatural.
here's a something called Catholic Dictionary
Dictionary : SEPARATED BRETHREN - Catholic Culture
Dictionary
A modern dictionary of Catholic terms, both common and obscure. Find accurate definitions of words and phrases.
SEPARATED BRETHREN
All Christians who are baptized and believe in Christ but are not professed Catholics. More commonly the term is applied to Protestants
Shermana
Heretic
Feel free to show how the term "Separated brethren" implies that they now think the Popes were wrong about who gets a nice all-expense paid roast in hell. They still believe there's no salvation outside of the church. There's a reason they say "Separated", it has more to do than just the physical choice of which church they go to. The only reason they call Protestants "brethren" is because they also claim to believe in Christ. But I don't think that in any way shape or form shows that they now think they suddenly go to Heaven and that their popes were wrong all those years that Salvation is impossible outside the Catholic Church and its sacraments and doctrines.
Notice I did not ask you for proof that they consider Protestants to be "Separated Brethren", I was not disputing that. If anything, I should ask you to demonstrate what they consider "Separated brethren" to mean in detail.
Notice I did not ask you for proof that they consider Protestants to be "Separated Brethren", I was not disputing that. If anything, I should ask you to demonstrate what they consider "Separated brethren" to mean in detail.
Last edited:
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
if you go onto read Pauls warning about some of those false heresies, its not hard to see who the apostles were warning us about
1Timothy 4:1 However, the inspired utterance says definitely that in later periods of time some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired utterances and teachings of demons, 2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron; 3 forbidding to marry, commanding to abstain from foods which God created
the church's stance on clerical celibacy does not come from any divine command. On the contrary, the Levitical priesthood were required to marry in order to keep the line of priests intact. So we should seriously ask why in the world a christian church would demand celibacy of its priests.
It is heresy.
Pegg
Jehovah our God is One
yes, ( and as a married person i would agree with him
)but he never forbid it outrightly, rather he advised it was better to be married then to be inflamed with passion.