• 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!

Who Told the First Lie in the Bible ?

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Not once will you see his mother referred to as "the Mother of God"......as if such a thing were even possible. (Google "pics ancient mother worship")
Luke 1:42-43 (Elizabeth to Mary at the Visitation) … Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

There you go, “mother of my Lord.“ And I’d say that “blessed among women” is actually an understatement in the bigger picture. Saint Mary is blessed among all creatures (which does not include the Divine Son because He is not a creature). She is entirely united with the Trinity as daughter of God the Father, mother of God the Son, and spouse of God the Holy Spirit.

And speaking of the Trinity, I think we already established that belief in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was affirmed from the very beginning, not hundreds of years later.

An apostasy was foretold by Jesus and his apostles and it happened just as they said....a complete falling away from the teachings of the Christ is what we see when we examine the origins of Christendom's beliefs.
The "origins of Christendom’s beliefs" are what Christ authorized the apostles to teach, saying “whoever hears you hears me.” What they taught is what the Catholic Church still teaches. But do you yourself believe what they taught?

What do you believe identifies Roman Catholicism as Christ's church? What convinced you that it was "the right one"?
Well, there are the historical facts. And Christ said it himself. He called it “my Church” and said He would never leave it. He said the Holy Spirit would always guide it -- “He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." -John 14:26 Jesus didn’t promise that the Catholic Church would never be touched by the sins and errors of mankind, but did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

Consider that nations and world powers have come and gone; cults and religions have come and gone since Christ established the Catholic Church. Meanwhile, the Church still persists despite relentless efforts throughout its history to undermine, discredit, or destroy it both from within and without. And its teachings have remained constant since the beginning despite the attacks, false accusations, and anti-Catholic propaganda.

And you suggested googling pics to support certain points you made. Sure, there are pictures on the internet intended to illustrate how wrong Catholicism is in whatever way you please. There are blogs, articles, YouTube videos and such all attempting to do the same thing, but never with accurate information. There are entire websites devoted to trashing the Catholic Church with nothing but lies and misinformation.

Why don’t we see such intense and widespread efforts directing hatred toward other religions or Protestantism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, for that matter? Have you ever considered that it could be due to Satan’s deceptive influence on earth, and his particular hatred for a particular Church?

Maybe you should scrutinize your own church. Like if a church must constantly redefine scripture or explain it away, wouldn't that indicate a problem with its doctrines? Could they be misleading you?
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
How can the Lazarus of the parable or illustration of Luke 16 be a real person ?
Here is what I said about that to JayJayDee - "A parable told by Jesus is always a literal story. The Omniscient God knows every detail of every human experience. He does not need to fabricate imaginary events to make a point."
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
It's both: people are living souls, and animals are living souls, as mentioned at Numbers 31:28
Don't both people and animals go to the same place according to Ecclesiastes 3:19,20 ?_______
I believe that animals have spirits, and in fact have encountered animal spirits (ghost animals), but that's another topic. Animals were not created in the image and likeness of God, so their souls are not in the same category as ours. The Bible does not say where they go after physical death.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Yes, in the beginning was the Word - Genesis 1:26. According to Psalms God had No beginning. God is eternal
So, Only God was before the beginning. Jesus was Not before the beginning as God was before the beginning. - Rev. 1:5; 3:14 B
The pre-human heavenly Jesus was the beginning of the creation of God. - Rev. 1:5; 3:14 B
Jesus was before the beginning and was therefore with God at the beginning (but not with a human nature at that time). In John 1:1-2, John recalls "in the beginning" from the first Verse of Genesis and then goes on with "the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning." So in a poetic way he saying that the Word, which is Jesus, was already with God in the beginning. That is to say that the Son was with the Father before time was created. And that would make sense because God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exists outside of time. Jesus is the eternally begotten Son, which means that there was never a time when he had not yet been begotten. This is part of the eternal and timeless nature of God.

The same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 as at Acts 28:6 B.
The letter 'a' was inserted at Acts 28:6 B, whereas the letter 'a' was omitted at John 1:1
Of course the pre-human heavenly Jesus was before Abraham. Jesus was first born of every creature - Colossians 1:15
Jesus prayed in his Lord's prayer of John chapter 17 that his followers be one just as he and his Father were one.
Please notice John 17 verses 11,20,21,22
Surely Jesus was Not praying they all be God. However, they could be one in purpose, goal, faith, unity, belief, agreement, etc.
Doesn't John 14:28 say ' the Father is greater than Jesus ' ?_______
What did John write to us at John 1:18 but that 'No one at any time has seen God'. People saw Jesus
What did John write to us at John 6:46 but that Not anyone has seen the Father except Jesus
What did John write to us at 1st John 4:12 but that ' No one has ever seen God '. People saw Jesus.
Isn't what John wrote in harmony with Exodus 33:20 that No man sees God and still lives ?_______People saw Jesus and lived.

Jesus exists eternally; before, during, and after creation.
He said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." But Jesus came to earth in a human body. He came in a form that people could see and touch and still live. How else could it have been?
Yes, I agree. He prayed that the apostles would all be one, even as He and the Father are one; not that they would be God, but that they would be entirely united with each other and with God.
In His human nature on earth, he demonstrated subordination to the Father, and of course would honor his Father as such, whether on earth or in heaven.
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
Luke 1:42-43 (Elizabeth to Mary at the Visitation) … Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

You do understand that in ancient times, the title "Lord" was used of anyone who had authority over others. It is not used exclusively of God or of his Christ.

Even Sarah referred to her husband Abraham as her "lord". (1 Pet 3:6)

The House of Lords in England is not a house of gods.

There you go, “mother of my Lord.“ And I’d say that “blessed among women” is actually an understatement in the bigger picture. Saint Mary is blessed among all creatures (which does not include the Divine Son because He is not a creature). She is entirely united with the Trinity as daughter of God the Father, mother of God the Son, and spouse of God the Holy Spirit.

The fact is, someone was going to be chosen to be the mother of God's son....if it hadn't been Mary, it would have been someone else. In order to come to earth and be born as a human child, Jesus had to have a human mother. Mary was the one favored because she filled the requirements that God had in mind for the parent that would not only give birth to his son but raise him with her equally important husband, to be a devout, balanced, law abiding Jew. But Jesus gave her no special status.

The titles given to Mary by the Catholic Church are not found in God's word......that includes "Mother of God", "Our Lady", "Queen of heaven" and any other title borrowed from pagan mother worship.

btw, Mary was not the spouse of the Holy Spirit....she was the legal wife of Joseph and mother to Jesus' siblings. He was one of at least 6 children in a normal Jewish family. There is nothing in the Bible to indicate that this married woman remained a virgin. This too is a left over from pagan mother worship.

And speaking of the Trinity, I think we already established that belief in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit was affirmed from the very beginning, not hundreds of years later.

Sorry, but before the Catholic Church adopted this belief, there was no trinity in either Judaism or Christianity. Since Jesus was Jewish and the founder of the Christian faith, he did not teach a trinity of any description.

The "origins of Christendom’s beliefs" are what Christ authorized the apostles to teach, saying “whoever hears you hears me.” What they taught is what the Catholic Church still teaches. But do you yourself believe what they taught?

I divorced myself from Christendom a very long time ago because of the hypocrisy I saw. I have also studied the Bible and examined its teachings thoroughly, tracing the origins of my beliefs to establish their validity. If something is not in the Bible, then Christ didn't teach it.
I have also studied the Bible with spiritually hungry Catholic people who were taught nothing in church except its ritual and traditions. They are angry when they learn the truth....how many lies they have been taught.

Well, there are the historical facts. And Christ said it himself. He called it “my Church” and said He would never leave it.

What makes you think that the "church" Jesus was speaking about was the Roman Catholic Church? The great apostasy was already beginning before the last of the apostles died. From the second century on, the church continued to became a shadow of what Christ began. By the 4th century, "Christianity" ( or what was left of it) was ripe for a complete defection. Constantine the great, as a move to consolidate his divided empire, fused weakened apostate Christianity with pagan Roman sun worship. This is NOT the church that Christ began....and it is certainly NOT the church whose conduct proved to be the rottenest fruit ever perpetrated in the name of Christ.

He said the Holy Spirit would always guide it -- “He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you." -John 14:26 Jesus didn’t promise that the Catholic Church would never be touched by the sins and errors of mankind, but did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.

If you really believe that Christ could ever have sanctioned the vile activities of the inquisition, then you really have lost your definition of Christianity and have a very distorted view of God's love.
Google the instruments of the inquisition and tell me how "Christian" you think they were.

When Jesus said that the "gates of hell" (hades) would not prevail against it, there was no such teaching of a hell of fiery torment. He was saying that death itself would not stop the progress of Christ's church to its ultimate conclusion, since unconscious death in the grave was the only "hell" Jesus ever taught.

Consider that nations and world powers have come and gone; cults and religions have come and gone since Christ established the Catholic Church.
Actually it was a pagan Roman emperor who established the Roman Catholic Church. Christ had nothing to do with it.
There is not even a slight similarity between the first century church and what Roman Catholicism became.
There was no Pope in Christianity.....there were no priests and no nuns either...does that surprise you?

Meanwhile, the Church still persists despite relentless efforts throughout its history to undermine, discredit, or destroy it both from within and without. And its teachings have remained constant since the beginning despite the attacks, false accusations, and anti-Catholic propaganda.

The problem is, the church has copped a lot of flack mostly because of its own conduct. The accusations are not false, especially in the recent cases of child sexual abuse that has cost the church millions in compensation to victims.
Jesus said that the tree producing rotten fruit will be cut down. Catholic institutions were notorious for their heartless cruelty and high levels of physical abuse. It wasn't an isolated incident here and there...it was systemic abuse within the church all over the world. That is not lies, false accusations and anti-Catholic propaganda. That is fact.

And you suggested googling pics to support certain points you made. Sure, there are pictures on the internet intended to illustrate how wrong Catholicism is in whatever way you please. There are blogs, articles, YouTube videos and such all attempting to do the same thing, but never with accurate information. There are entire websites devoted to trashing the Catholic Church with nothing but lies and misinformation.

The pics I was referring to show that the beliefs of the Catholic Church go way back before Christianity. Their pagan origins are part of history, not part of a hate campaign against the church.

Why don’t we see such intense and widespread efforts directing hatred toward other religions or Protestantism or Jehovah’s Witnesses, for that matter?

Are you serious? You are not aware of the hate sites that exist for Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you not aware of the persecution that we have suffered for the whole of our modern day existence? While the Catholic Church was supporting the war on both sides of world conflict, Jehovah's Witnesses were obeying Jesus' commands, remaining politically neutral and loving their enemies as Jesus commanded. (1 John 4: 20, 21) And we didn't do a thing to deserve what we got. We were persecuted for obeying our master. (John 15:18-21)

Judging Jehovah's Witnesses

Jehovah’s Witnesses | Holocaust Teacher Resource Center

Have you ever considered that it could be due to Satan’s deceptive influence on earth, and his particular hatred for a particular Church?

I don't doubt satan's influence on the "weeds" of false Christianity that Jesus said were sown by him in the world. I also know that the fruits of the church are not good ones.

Maybe you should scrutinize your own church. Like if a church must constantly redefine scripture or explain it away, wouldn't that indicate a problem with its doctrines? Could they be misleading you?

Have you not asked these questions of your own church? We went back to the beginning and shed all the false doctrines that were adopted by Christendom centuries ago. We didn't redefine scripture, but went back to it as a reference and as a measuring rod for all our beliefs. Whatever we found that Christ did not teach, we got rid of it. It was a gradual process of cleansing and refining our beliefs....foretold for this "time of the end". (Dan 12:9, 10)

Jesus' words to those facing his judgment, who thought they were Christians in good standing, applies to all of us. (Matt 7:21-23) We do not want to be found to be ones that Jesus "never knew".....judged as "workers of lawlessness".
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
You do understand that in ancient times, the title "Lord" was used of anyone who had authority over others. It is not used exclusively of God or of his Christ.

Even Sarah referred to her husband Abraham as her "lord". (1 Pet 3:6)

The House of Lords in England is not a house of gods.
King David talks about what God the Father says to God the Son in his prophetic Psalm 110, which begins, “The Lord said to my Lord:”

That’s from Hebrew, but “Lord” is also the direct translation of the Greek “Kyrie,” which has been used since ancient times as a title for God. We still have this little bit of Greek in the Mass -- Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.

And I’d love to respond to absolutely everything in your post because it’s all wrong and includes a lot of baseless propaganda, but there’s just so much to cover. I’d have to go on and on, even further off the original topic of this thread. Maybe I’ll do it in some new threads.

Meanwhile:

Are you serious? You are not aware of the hate sites that exist for Jehovah's Witnesses? Are you not aware of the persecution that we have suffered for the whole of our modern day existence? While the Catholic Church was supporting the war on both sides of world conflict, Jehovah's Witnesses were obeying Jesus' commands, remaining politically neutral and loving their enemies as Jesus commanded. (1 John 4: 20, 21) And we didn't do a thing to deserve what we got. We were persecuted for obeying our master. (John 15:18-21)

Compare the total number of Jehovah’s Witnesses persecuted or martyred for their faith with the persecution and martyrdom of the innumerable thousands of Catholics, beginning with Saint Stephen in Acts of the Apostles, and continuing in various parts of the world to this very day.

Compare the histories of these two churches. You can trace Jehovah’s Witnesses back to 1872 when founded by Charles Russell, who claimed that the Bible could only be understood according to his Interpretations.

The Catholic Church and its succession of bishops can be traced back to its founding by Jesus Christ, who appointed the apostles to begin the world-wide teaching of what He wants the world to know.

Catholics wrote the books of the New Testament, so who would understand and preserve the truth of them better, the Catholic Church or a church originating in the late 19th century that rejects the divinity of Christ and makes up its own theologies?
 

JayJayDee

Avid JW Bible Student
King David talks about what God the Father says to God the Son in his prophetic Psalm 110, which begins, “The Lord said to my Lord:”

That’s from Hebrew, but “Lord” is also the direct translation of the Greek “Kyrie,” which has been used since ancient times as a title for God. We still have this little bit of Greek in the Mass -- Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.

Psalm 110:1 from Young's Literal Translation is.....

"The affirmation of Jehovah to my Lord: `Sit at My right hand, Till I make thine enemies thy footstool.'" (Psalm 82:19)

The Tetragrammaton is in that original verse. So a title ("the Lord") was substituted for God's personal name by translators and then the confusion begins as to who is "the LORD" and who is "the Lord".
There was no such confusion in the original text.

Psalm 83:18 also contains God's name but was substituted again with his title, rendering it meaningless.

"That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth." (KJV)

"That they may know that You, whose name alone is the Lord,
Are the Most High over all the earth."
(NKJV)

"And let them know that the Lord is thy name: thou alone art the most High over all the earth." (Douay-Reims)

This is how "hallowed" God's precious name is to Christendom. :(

And I’d love to respond to absolutely everything in your post because it’s all wrong and includes a lot of baseless propaganda, but there’s just so much to cover. I’d have to go on and on, even further off the original topic of this thread. Maybe I’ll do it in some new threads.

If you wish....It would be good to do a bit more thorough research which will answer all those issues. I am wondering if you have done any research at all outside the church?

Compare the total number of Jehovah’s Witnesses persecuted or martyred for their faith with the persecution and martyrdom of the innumerable thousands of Catholics, beginning with Saint Stephen in Acts of the Apostles, and continuing in various parts of the world to this very day.

Say what???? o_O Now.....talking about things being wrong.....you are surely NOT going to suggest that Stephen was a "Catholic" martyr? ! That is about a accurate as stating that Peter was the first Pope!

The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 4th century. I can categorically state with all certainty than there was no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" until Roman sun worship married apostate Christianity under the authority of an astute Roman Emperor. This pagan ruler never did become a Christian because he was a sun worshipper all his life. He was determined to consolidate his divided empire by uniting the people under one religious banner...he imposed a "universal" faith that would suit everyone.
The Christians were so weak that as long as something bore the right label...it was "Christian" enough...and as long as the pagans retained all their favorite festivals and beliefs, (under another name) they would not complain either.....this is Roman Catholicism.



Using the antiquity of the institution is what the Jews did in Jesus' day. They had gone completely off the rails religiously speaking, but since they had the temple and the priesthood and their lineage as sons of Abraham, they thought they could not be held accountable.....but at the end of the day, their long and appalling history and self-righteous conduct did not make one scrap of difference to God. (Matt 3:7-12)
When tradition replaces scripture...then man's teachings overtake God's. (Matt 15:1-9)

Compare the histories of these two churches. You can trace Jehovah’s Witnesses back to 1872 when founded by Charles Russell, who claimed that the Bible could only be understood according to his Interpretations.

When we read Jesus' parable of the "wheat and the weeds" we see him warning about something the devil would do, once the wheat was established. In the same "field" the devil would sow "weeds" of false Christianity among the genuine "wheat". The first response of the workers was that they wanted to uproot the weeds immediately, but the master said no. They were to allow to grow together right up until the harvest time. Why? Because in the earlier stages of growth, the wheat and the weeds resembled each other, so lest some of the wheat be uprooted with the weeds, they were allowed to grow in the same field. Only at the harvest time, it would become apparent which were which. The angels, as reapers, would then go and gather the weeds and dispose of them in the fire. The wheat would then be gathered into the storehouse. (Matt 13:36-42; Matt 7:21-23)

Reading the prophesies in Daniel is also enlightening. It was not until the "time of the end" (the last hundred years) that God would 'cleanse and refine' his people. "Knowledge" was to become abundant in this time period. (Dan 12:4, 9, 10) Who can deny that we live in an information age? Knowledge in abundance is certainly available now, as at no other time in history. God said it would all speed up in this time. From small beginnings, a nation would grow. (Isa 60:22) At the end of the day, we have no excuse not to know and no excuse not to obey the Christ. (2 Thess 1:6-9)

The Catholic Church and its succession of bishops can be traced back to its founding by Jesus Christ, who appointed the apostles to begin the world-wide teaching of what He wants the world to know.

A look at the history of Roman Catholicism will show you how corrupt this institution became. It wasn't the odd bad man in there, but it was the whole institution that was corrupt from the beginning. Why do you think the Reformation was so successful? It had a groundswell of support because the people were sick of the disgusting conduct of those who were literally drunk with power, getting away with murder and getting fat off the people.

Catholics wrote the books of the New Testament, so who would understand and preserve the truth of them better, the Catholic Church

Oh dear... :eek: You honestly believe that? Who told you that? Other Catholics...right?

There is not one letter of any scripture that was written by a Catholic. That is a completely delusional assumption. The "church" that Christ began was called "The Way'.
There was no Roman Catholicism when the NT was written. There is no way that Christ founded the Catholic Church. (Matt 7:16-20)

or a church originating in the late 19th century that rejects the divinity of Christ and makes up its own theologies?

Well, seeing as how God was going to "cleanse and refine" his worshippers at "the time of the end"...it stands to reason that there must have been some heavy duty purging needed to get rid of the 'impurities' and filth that had crept in over many centuries. That being the case, I'll go with the cleansing and refinements of my brothers, who you may have noticed, reject everything that Christendom teaches. The harvest time was going to reveal who was different and who was just rehashing the same falsehood under a different label.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member

Correct. The first thing at the Big Bang was Not light.
The Big Bang is all about organization ( which is in sharp contrast with man's explosion ' bangs '. No organization after bombings )
The Genesis account is written about getting ready and organizing our earth to be ready for mankind to inhabit earth.
First, according to Genesis 1:1 God created the heavens, then created the earth.
Starting with Genesis 1:1 to Genesis 2:4 is describing creation and all in them.
That account to Genesis 2:4 is constructed chronologically being divided into 6 consecutive ' creative days ' or unknown time periods.
Please notice there is nothing in Genesis that states how long each ' creative day ' was or even if they were of same or varying lengths.
There is nothing in Genesis that is out of harmony with C.M.B.R. ( cosmic microwave background radiation ) for dating earth.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
King David talks about what God the Father says to God the Son in his prophetic Psalm 110, which begins, “The Lord said to my Lord:”
That’s from Hebrew, but “Lord” is also the direct translation of the Greek “Kyrie,” which has been used since ancient times as a title for God. We still have this little bit of Greek in the Mass -- Kyrie eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison.

First of all, doesn't Psalm 110:1A refer to Matthew 22:43 - 46 and Luke 20:41- 43 ?______

The first Lord is where the Tetragrammaton stands - YHWH - for God's Hebrew name.
The second Lord does Not contain the Tetragrammaton.
The second Lord is David speaking prophetically concerning Jesus as Messiah.
Prophecy of what we can look forward to at this time of the end of all badness ending on earth.
Douay in verse 3 B says......; before the daystar, like the dew, I have begotten you.
So, who was the one doing the begotting ?________ Wasn't it the first Lord - YHWH ?_______
Of verse 5, which Lord is at ' his ' right hand ?______ Isn't that the Lord of the Tetragrammaton - YHWH ?
Since the resurrected ascended-to-heaven Jesus writes the name of ' his ' God according to Revelation 3:12, and Jesus writes the name of the city of ' his ' God, and from ' his ' God, then doesn't the heavenly Jesus still think he has a God over him ?________

Can one person occupy two thrones ?________
Revelation 3:21 mentions Jesus sitting upon his own throne, and also mentions Jesus' Father on His throne.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Here is what I said about that to JayJayDee - "A parable told by Jesus is always a literal story. The Omniscient God knows every detail of every human experience. He does not need to fabricate imaginary events to make a point."

But God did Not program obedience or disobedience into our thinking faculties. Adam did Not have to use his free will to disobey.
If Adam had lacked the ability to choose, then Adam would have been imperfect ( created with sin )
Obedience to God was meant to spring from our heart's love for God - Deuteronomy 10:12,13; 30:19,20.

Are you saying Matthew 25:31.32 is about literal sheep and goats ?_______
Are you saying Luke 15: 3-7 is only about saving a literal sheep ?______
Are you saying Matthew 13: 24-30 is about literal weed/tares and literal wheat ?_____

When Jesus called his disciples the salt of the earth, were they to be literal salt ?______
When Jesus called his disciples as the light of the world, were they to be a literal lamp ?_______
Was Jesus a literal shepherd?____ Was Jesus a literal vine ?_____Was Jesus a literal door ?______ - John chapter 10
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
[QUOTE="Forever_Catholic, post: 4234522, member: 56677"
He said "Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father." But Jesus came to earth in a human body. He came in a form that people could see and touch and still live. How else could it have been?
Yes, I agree. He prayed that the apostles would all be one, even as He and the Father are one; not that they would be God, but that they would be entirely united with each other and with God.
In His human nature on earth, he demonstrated subordination to the Father, and of course would honor his Father as such, whether on earth or in heaven.[/QUOTE]

Yes, Jesus said anyone who has seen Jesus has seen the Father, but in what sense ?

What did gospel writer John write at Douay John 1:18 but that No one has ' at any time ' seen God. Didn't people see Jesus?
What did John also write at Douay John 6:46 Not that anyone has seen the Father except him who is from God, he has seen the Father.
What did John also pen at Douay 1st John 4:12 but that No one has ever seen God.
At Douay Exodus 33:20 it says....., for No man sees me (God) and still lives. People saw Jesus and lived.

So, as Jesus explains after John 14:9 in verses 10 and 11 (compare John 12:28, 44-49 ) that Jesus faithfully represented his Father.

Jesus' spoke his Father's words, and did his Father's works. Jesus continues at John 14:28 that his Father is greater than Jesus.
At Douay John 5:17 Jesus' says his Father works even until now, and I (Jesus ) work.
God rested from His creative works, but spiritual works continue.
Since Jesus is subordinate to God both on earth and in heaven - Rev. 3:12 - then Jesus was never equal to God in power or in anything else.
 

Saint Frankenstein

Here for the ride
Premium Member
The Serpent. If we knew good and evil "like God", the world would be a much kinder place.
Bingo! Instead we have humans playing the role of deity and the movements that proclaim to create utopia on earth always end up in mass death and destruction. Nazism and Marxism claimed to be able do it and look at what happened. Now we have the transhuman/post-human movement (i.e. neo-eugenics) and that's going to lead to a future horror show, as well. Humans don't learn.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Say what???? o_O Now.....talking about things being wrong.....you are surely NOT going to suggest that Stephen was a "Catholic" martyr? ! That is about a accurate as stating that Peter was the first Pope!

The Roman Catholic Church did not come into existence until the 4th century. I can categorically state with all certainty than there was no such thing as a "Roman Catholic" until Roman sun worship married apostate Christianity under the authority of an astute Roman Emperor. This pagan ruler never did become a Christian because he was a sun worshipper all his life. He was determined to consolidate his divided empire by uniting the people under one religious banner...he imposed a "universal" faith that would suit everyone.
The Christians were so weak that as long as something bore the right label...it was "Christian" enough...and as long as the pagans retained all their favorite festivals and beliefs, (under another name) they would not complain either.....this is Roman Catholicism.

There is not one letter of any scripture that was written by a Catholic. That is a completely delusional assumption. The "church" that Christ began was called "The Way'.
There was no Roman Catholicism when the NT was written. There is no way that Christ founded the Catholic Church. (Matt 7:16-20)

Yes, Saint Stephen was a Catholic. You argue that the Church Christ established was called "the Way." Yes, that's what they called it right at first, but not for long. They chose a name that would emphasize its world-wide scope because Jesus had told the apostles to "teach all nations." The earliest known written occurrence of the word "Catholic" is from 107 A.D. in a letter from St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans. “Wherever the bishop is, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.”

Saint Ignatius was a disciple of Saint John the Apostle and the third bishop of Antioch; a father of the Church. "Catholic" had been in use long enough that it was already known as the name of the Church by the time he wrote that letter.

But you're all hung up on the term "Roman Catholic." The Roman Empire became the first Christian Nation. It was a nation of Catholics, but they were not called Roman Catholics at that time. The term "Roman Catholic" came later to distinguish the Latin Church from the Eastern Orthodox Church that broke away from it.

And yes, Saint Peter was the first Pope. Christ made him the visible head of the Church, and he became the first Bishop of Rome. That's what the Pope is today -- the Bishop of Rome.

And your bastardized version of history regarding the both the Catholic Church and Saint Constantine is nothing more than the typical anti-Catholic BS that will not hold up to objective research. You need to look beyond the heretical indoctrination you have obviously received.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Are you saying Matthew 25:31.32 is about literal sheep and goats ?_______
Are you saying Luke 15: 3-7 is only about saving a literal sheep ?______
Are you saying Matthew 13: 24-30 is about literal weed/tares and literal wheat ?_____

When Jesus called his disciples the salt of the earth, were they to be literal salt ?______
When Jesus called his disciples as the light of the world, were they to be a literal lamp ?_______
Was Jesus a literal shepherd?____ Was Jesus a literal vine ?_____Was Jesus a literal door ?______ - John chapter 10

These are all metaphorical, and were clearly seen as such. When Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches" nobody jumped up and shouted "You're not a vine!" But when He spoke of people and past events, why would there be anything metaphorical about that? He was speaking about real people and real events in real places. Don't you believe Him?
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
These are all metaphorical, and were clearly seen as such. When Jesus said "I am the vine and you are the branches" nobody jumped up and shouted "You're not a vine!" But when He spoke of people and past events, why would there be anything metaphorical about that? He was speaking about real people and real events in real places. Don't you believe Him?

Yes, Jesus ( and the Bible writers too ) spoke of real people and real events in real named places.
However, Jesus' stories or parables were Not of real people or places but illustrative stories - Luke 15:2,3
Notice the man of verse 3 is Not named. The man of verse 11 is Not named.
The story about the rich man and his steward of Luke 16:1 are Not named.
The rich man of Luke 16:9 is Not named, whereas the name Lazarus was a common name representing the common people.
As was the real person named Lazarus of John chapter 11 was a real person in a real setting in a real place.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
Yes, Jesus ( and the Bible writers too ) spoke of real people and real events in real named places.
However, Jesus' stories or parables were Not of real people or places but illustrative stories - Luke 15:2,3
Notice the man of verse 3 is Not named. The man of verse 11 is Not named.
The story about the rich man and his steward of Luke 16:1 are Not named.
The rich man of Luke 16:9 is Not named, whereas the name Lazarus was a common name representing the common people.
As was the real person named Lazarus of John chapter 11 was a real person in a real setting in a real place.

What's the difference whether they're named or not? You and I are not named in this thread, but we're both real people.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
What's the difference whether they're named or not? You and I are not named in this thread, but we're both real people.

But we are Not parables or illustrations. People mentioned in stories are Not real people.
I have open in front of me Luke chapter 13. Please notice verses 6- 9 is Not a real happening but an illustrative parable or story.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
What's the difference whether they're named or not? You and I are not named in this thread, but we're both real people.

But we are Not parables or illustrations. People mentioned in stories are Not real people.
I have open in front of me Luke chapter 13. Please notice verses 6- 9 is Not a real happening but an illustrative parable or story.
 

Forever_Catholic

Active Member
But we are Not parables or illustrations. People mentioned in stories are Not real people.
I have open in front of me Luke chapter 13. Please notice verses 6- 9 is Not a real happening but an illustrative parable or story.
Verse 6 begins "A certain man had a fig tree planted in his vineyard..." "A certain man" is not a real man? "A certain man" really means an imaginary man?
A man deciding whether to cut down a fig tree or give it another chance to set fruit is not a plausible reality?

Why do you work so hard not to believe what Jesus wants to tell you?
 
Last edited:
Top