What church is the true church?

[McBell]

God never makes a plan that does not work. Never in the Bible, has God said, or done anything he had to backwater on.
He created Adam and Eve to be care takers of the earth for him. Satan tried to disrupt that purpose. What did God do? Did he sit back and say, “Well, that didn’t work, so I’ll change the plan, and have good people come to heaven, and burn the rest in a hell of fire forever.” Do you think Satan is more powerful than God, to where he can force God to change his plans?
Lets say Gods plan failed;
All good people go to heaven, and the rest are rolling around in fire for ever…who are these people?
Ps 37:11

I understand.
God set Adam and Eve up to fail...

 

[roger1440]

God never makes a plan that does not work. Never in the Bible, has God said, or done anything he had to backwater on.
He created Adam and Eve to be care takers of the earth for him. Satan tried to disrupt that purpose. What did God do? Did he sit back and say, “Well, that didn’t work, so I’ll change the plan, and have good people come to heaven, and burn the rest in a hell of fire forever.” Do you think Satan is more powerful than God, to where he can force God to change his plans?
Lets say Gods plan failed;
All good people go to heaven, and the rest are rolling around in fire for ever…who are these people?
Ps 37:11

What is your understanding of the story of Adam and Eve getting thrown out of the Garden? To put it another way, what does it mean and do you beleive it? I'll comment on what you wrote, but first I need to understand what you wrote.

 

[Domenic]

What is your understanding of the story of Adam and Eve getting thrown out of the Garden? To put it another way, what does it mean and do you beleive it? I'll comment on what you wrote, but first I need to understand what you wrote.

I said what I believe. Do you not understand?

 

[roger1440]

I said what I believe. Do you not understand?

No I don't understand, that's why I'm asking. What is your belief concerning Adam and Eve?

 

[Domenic]

No I don't understand, that's why I'm asking. What is your belief concerning Adam and Eve?

They broke a law given to them by God. They caused the whole unborn human race to die. That is why God condemned them to death.

And, oh, yes, I have to say, THIS IS MY OWN OPINION. Thank you.

 

[rusra02]

I agree with the fact that Jesus clarified how one would be able to recognize one of His disciples (by the love they showed for one another), but I'm not sure which is the "one faith that practices such love." If your answer would be "Christianity," would you be willing to accept as a Christian any person who sincerely believes himself to be a Christian? Or would you exclude some people based on doctrines you personally disagree with?

Sorry for the belated response. Jesus said that not all who claim to be his followers really are. In his famous sermon on the mountain, Jesus said: "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." He then stated that "many" who claimed to serve him, even doing powerful works in his name,he would reject, telling them to get away from him and calling them workers of lawlessness. (Matthew 7:21-23) So the Bible's answer, I believe, is mere profession of being a Christian means little. What matters is the doing of God's will. Most professed "Christian" churches are not doing God's will nor following the Christ. Their works expose them as workers of lawlessness, IMO. (Matthew 7:13-20) Look for works, not just words.

 

[roger1440]

They broke a law given to them by God. They caused the whole unborn human race to die. That is why God condemned them to death.

And, oh, yes, I have to say, THIS IS MY OWN OPINION. Thank you.

So it's your "opinion" that is a "false doctrine" ? There are other ways interpret that story.

 

[Muffled]

You're confusing the concept of having a god with believing in himself as god.

Jesus referred to THE God as "his" god. Do you understand the concept of being "one's god"?




And who has the correct understanding of those verses? Who is accurately listening to Jesus, especially when certain verses require a lot of contextual ideas from the Jewish basis? For example, when Jesus says to give to anyone who asks of you and not ask for it back, what does that mean? Give me $50,000!

Who's interpretation of Jesus's words shall we go by? It's not like everything he teaches is crystal clear. Are we supposed to actually eat bread and drink wine that is TRULY his flesh and blood? Or was he being just metaphorical, but we still have to eat it? When Jesus says to obey everything the Pharisees say to do because they sit in the Seat of Moses, does that mean obey all the Talmud? Why not obey what he teaches in the "non-canonical" texts like the Gospel of Thomas? Who got to decide that work is heretical?

Yes. I believe God is His God and no-one else. The problem is that you misconstrue "His God" as being soeone other than God but that is not possible.

I go by Jesus in all things, not just what He has said in the past but what He says now about what He said in the past and what He says now.

I believe, I have the correct understanding because I have Jesus.

I beleive a person doesn't listen accurately; he hears accurately. I hear accurately because if I formed a contrary notion Jesus would correct that notion.

I don't usually get into textual problems because I go by what Jesus says. If someone requires something of me Jesus will let me know whether I should provide it.

 

[Muffled]

Jesus PRAYED to God! If he WAS God (as most post-Constantine Christians claim), why would he need to pray to ANYONE? God is the creator. He created the heavens, the Earth, the Universes, etc. Does he really need to PRAY to anyone? No! Jesus was not God. If he was, he wouldn't need to pray to anyone. Common sense. Jesus was the "paida" of God. "Paida" is the Greek word which can be translated as either SON or SERVANT. The Romans took a vote at the Council of Nicaea in 325AD and decided he was literally the son of God. Then combined this with the story of Horus and other pagan deities and decided he was the son and God at the same time. Most modern Christians are committing the worst kind of blasphemy and making excuses for it. Jesus would burn your churches to the ground and smash your idols if he was here. I kid you not. Jesus worshipped his creator, the heavenly father. He never asked to be worshipped. He was a loyal servant (paida) of God. The Romans converted you guys to THEIR religion. Wake up my brothers and sisters!!!!

I believe Jesus is God in the flesh. The mind is part of the flesh and needs contact with the Spirit. When one makes contact with ones own spirit it is called meditation. When the mind makes contact with The Spirit of God it is called prayer. In Jesus prayer and mediation are the same thing.

I believe when God is not in a body He does not need to pray. God has no other God than Himself to pray to.

I believe this is a modern myth.

I believe your statement lacks evidence.

There is absolutely no evidence to support such an absurd assertion.

I believe it is the other way around. I believe Muslims are blaspheming God by belittling Him and speaking false things about Him.

I believe Jesus is here and supports His churches.

I believe it is good that you have enough sense to recognize that those who serve God are brothers and sisters in a way but you will never be a brother or sister as we are to Jesus and each other until Jesus is in you.

 

[Muffled]

Muffled, I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but it sounds to me as if these two statements are contradictory. Could you please clarify what you mean by these statements?[/color]

I think I will be amazed if you really want to learn something as opposed to defending a doctrine but I like being amazed.

I believe they are not contradictory.

I want to keep it simple. I believe The Trinity is not three persons except by a little known definition of person that only has meaning to theologians. At any rate the theological definition in no way reflects the commonly understood definitions of the word person. BTW The theological deinition of person is member of the Trinity. Since I am not a member of the Trinity, I am not a person by this definition.

 

[Shiranui117]

I want to keep it simple. I believe The Trinity is not three persons except by a little known definition of person that only has meaning to theologians. At any rate the theological definition in no way reflects the commonly understood definitions of the word person. BTW The theological deinition of person is member of the Trinity. Since I am not a member of the Trinity, I am not a person by this definition.

No. Here's this from Wikipedia; it'll tell you the meaning of "person."

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Shermana]

No. Here's this from Wikipedia; it'll tell you the meaning of "person."

Hypostasis (philosophy and religion) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are you talking about this paragraph?

In Early Christian writings it is used to denote "being" or "substantive reality" and is not always distinguished in meaning from ousia (essence); it was used in this way by Tatian and Origen, and also in the anathemas appended to the Nicene Creed of 325. See also: Hypostatic union, where the term is used to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity. The term has also been used and is still used in modern Greek (not just Koine Greek or common ancient Greek) to mean "existence" along with the Greek word hýparxis (ὕπαρξι&#962 and tropos hypárxeos (τρόπος ὑπάρξεω&#962, which is individual existence.

Hmmm, there goes the whole "person, not being" argument out the window. It would be thus 3 different existences, not 1 existence made up of 3 beings but 3 separate existences. That would be what "Substantive reality" would imply. The idea of them being "unified" is not however substantiated.

So therefore:

The Christian view of the Trinity is often described as a view of one God existing in three distinct hypostases/personae/persons. The Latin "persona" is not the same as the English "person" but is a broader term that includes the meaning of the English "persona

It is in fact 3 different beings in this view.

Now if they're trying to compare it to the Neoplatonist use of the term, in that Body, Spirit, and Soul make up one Being, that's entirely different, since the Soul and Spirit are not different "persons" with independent wills and minds, they are components. Likewise, the Soul and Spirit are not the "Son" of the Body. The original use of Hypostasis would be more like how a machine works, except with inanimate parts. The leap from saying that "Mind (soul), Body, and Spirit" somehow translates to Son, Father, and Spirit making up one Being in unity has a big Phase 2: ? in it.

It's simply an irreconciable position. If it was reconcilable, it wouldn't be "Too complicated for the human mind to understand".

As Muffled said, the concept of "person" in this unique usage of the term seems to only have meaning to "Theologians", and even then, this meaning is "Too complicated" for their poor, frail human minds, since it's obviously so obtuse that humans must simply accept how it applies to the doctrine without understanding it in the first place.

Now the Arian idea, not only has no inconsistencies or vague, undefined wordsmithing or fabricated deviances from original Platonic Metaphysical concepts, it matches completely up with both Philo and the Targums' idea of the Jewish understanding of the Logos.

 

[Shermana]

Yes. I believe God is His God and no-one else. The problem is that you misconstrue "His God" as being soeone other than God but that is not possible.

By all means, please quote me where you got the idea that I miscontrued some other God as being His god from what I said, thanks.

I go by Jesus in all things, not just what He has said in the past but what He says now about what He said in the past and what He says now.

Remind me of what that has to do with what I asked about how we are supposed to interpret what his more complicated words are.

I believe, I have the correct understanding because I have Jesus

That's great, good for you! But what if I think that I have the correct understanding because I have Jesus? What if Joe down the street thinks so? How do you know you do? Do you hear a voice that tells you? Is it because you have convinced yourself that you are right? Did you have a direct prophetic experience? Assuming you had a supernatural experience, how did you know it wasn't demons instead? Do you think that just because you believe in Jesus that this means you have Jesus and thus your words and understanding is correct?

I beleive a person doesn't listen accurately; he hears accurately. I hear accurately because if I formed a contrary notion Jesus would correct that notion.

How would you expect Jesus to correct someone's incorrect notion exactly? Who does he choose to correct? Why doesn't he choose to correct others who disagree with your views?

I don't usually get into textual problems because I go by what Jesus says. If someone requires something of me Jesus will let me know whether I should provide it[

So once we establish how you know that you have Jesus and why Jesus doesn't correct others and why only you have Jesus and not others and such, perhaps we can discuss why you go by what Jesus says and not others who have different views. I would like to know what your expectations are of how Jesus would correct you or let you know things. Are you talking about voices in your head? Visions in your sleep? Supernatural events?