It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I think the point that The Lord is making was that He would be willing to destroy the earth if that was what it took to bring Israel to righteousness through repentance.
Isaiah 24 comes to mind...
I think that is a holdover from the imperial cult of pagan Rome.
. . . the eternal sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father until the end of time . . .
I think you mean people reading the scripture and seeing that it does not support some Catholic beliefs.
Some people fall for the heresy of "private judgment" of Scripture . . .
I think that once the Catholic Church invented the idea of apostolic succession, they made up people to fill in the gap, and made them connected to the original Apostles, then back-dated the documents.
Did you know, Ignatius as a boy knew Beloved
John! So notice the early date.
What God supposedly wants is all too often enforced by people, and ones not very nice, who would be all too happy to burn you at the stake if you do not comply with those wishes.
. . . God is going to reveal to the world the faith is Roman Catholicism, He
wants you to become Catholic.
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: colbeI think that is a holdover from the imperial cult of pagan Rome.
. . . the eternal sacrifice of Christ offered to the Father until the end of time . . .I think you mean people reading the scripture and seeing that it does not support some Catholic beliefs.
Some people fall for the heresy of "private judgment" of Scripture . . .I think that once the Catholic Church invented the idea of apostolic succession, they made up people to fill in the gap, and made them connected to the original Apostles, then back-dated the documents.
Did you know, Ignatius as a boy knew Beloved
John! So notice the early date.What God supposedly wants is all too often enforced by people, and ones not very nice, who would be all too happy to burn you at the stake if you do not comply with those wishes.
. . . God is going to reveal to the world the faith is Roman Catholicism, He
wants you to become Catholic.
Sort of a dreadful analysis of the universe, if you think that somehow every detail of it was planned to be exactly that way, ahead of time.
An inherent theme of common-place spirituality is the idea of effortless action, letting go, the dao of not trying, and letting faith decide. The end result of this paradox is the effort that effortless action requires, the holding on to letting go, and constantly trying not to try. It becomes their religion. We should also let go of of letting go. We should also not try not trying. We should also have faith in no faith. It’s effortless. But we cannot. Happiness requires that we live in paradox and happiness we desire. Happiness requires that we go to great lengths to numb our cognitive control, numb our very nature, our senses, our entire body, and all capacities that might throw us into self-conflict—our worry, our desire for the past and future, our pessimism, our negativity, our criticism, our seeking, our want and words—for these are the capacities most proven to cause suffering. They are correct in this assertion. These tools aren’t meant for discovering happiness. But they tell us that for happiness, their greatest god, one must be without these human capacities, and to achieve this, they sacrifice themselves.
According to age old doctrine, first, as effortlessly as possible, we must deceive ourselves, a sort of mental evisceration. We must reduce ourselves to paradoxes that never actualize. For no other reason than to attempt to escape the suffering and changing world, we must divide ourselves from it into two parts: the body, and whatever is left over, an entity which has taken countless names. We must hold this as a presupposition, as given, as law. For the sake of whatever is left over, and to further create a chasm between oneself, one must see one’s body as an illusion, and what is left over, as reality. This involves a simple switch in terminology, which is the basis of all religion. We honor certain ideas with certain honorific terms, and have done so throughout history. Reality is what we call “reality”. But for a species superstitious of their words, and idolaters of their symbols, this technique works wonders on one’s own self-deception. All one needs to do to convert another (for one likes to share his happiness) like a snake charmer with such empty words as “transcendence”, “bliss” or “divinity”, a lovely tune and smoke and mirrors, to have him willing to try anything to receive these rewards.
Do you have a better Bible verse to support your position that God wants to destroy us?
There is a made up history that the Catholic Church maintains, which includes the claim that Jesus himself founded it, so anyone deviating from that are just so many heretics doomed to hell.
]Deny history, Holy Scripture is a Catholic book.
And . . so?
The Early Church Fathers believed and taught that the Mass was a true SACRIFICE.
I don't see how what you quoted applies.
I think I'll borrow from Aphorism here, since s/he did a most eloquent job of expressing my response.
I think that if you want to spend a big chunk of your free time criticizing what Christians believe, then it would be worthwhile to consult the manual and source of authority in regards to Christianity.
Why would I use the Bible to support my position? It's a very droll, outdated, inconsistent source of information.
I think you are confusing the person, God, with people claiming to speak for Him.
But do you know why I don't trust this God fellow?
I'm 60 years old, so have experienced a few things, including ones that you would call magic, so it is real to me and not just something that I believe in in a passive sort of way.
But you want to believe it's real magic.
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: colbeAnd . . so?
The Early Church Fathers believed and taught that the Mass was a true SACRIFICE.
Look at the title of the thread.
Of course I believe in a sacrifice, so that is not the problem.
What I think that you are implying is that we somehow get credit for offering Jesus to God, something that the Bible never supports.
Praise is classified as a sacrifice by the Bible, so your quote does not prove this thesis that I think you are trying to promote.
originally posted by: jmdewey60
a reply to: [post=17894866]colbe[/postThere is a made up history that the Catholic Church maintains, which includes the claim that Jesus himself founded it, so anyone deviating from that are just so many heretics doomed to hell.
]Deny history, Holy Scripture is a Catholic book.
Actual history tells us that the Catholic Church was created later.
It wasn't until Christianity was made legal that an openly institutionalized hierarchy could develop.
Pretty much at the same time that the Catholic Church became official was when the demise of a succession occurred, brought on by the attempt to crush Arianism that resulted in the deaths of thousands in the clergy, forcing the church to recruit priests from the pagan religions.
You just have a skewed idea of what "Catholic" means.
Jim accepts the Catholic Canon but tells you Roman Catholicism is not the true faith.
Jesus taught not to be called rabbi or father, and not to be the lord over others.
I've shared before, you see in Matthew, Jesus named Peter leader of the faith, . . .
There is one church in the spirit, and there is one leader, Jesus himself.
. . . there is one Church, Jesus used the singular in Matthew 16:18.
26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins. 29 I tell you, I will not drink from this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father’s kingdom.”
OK, but can you explain "it"?
It explains why I mentioned blood sacrifices and why the old animal sacrifices ended with Jesus.
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. 397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures." 398 In particular Jesus' redemptive death fulfils Isaiah's prophecy of the suffering Servant. 399 Indeed Jesus himself explained the meaning of his life and death in the light of God's suffering Servant. 400 After his Resurrection he gave this interpretation of the Scriptures to the disciples at Emmaus,401
I hope you understand that the "we" in the thread title is a short version, for the sake of space, for our combined good works as a group, the body of Christ, that is metaphorically the equivalent of the Old Testament savory aroma that was produced by the burning of animal fat on the altar.
No human is an acceptable sacrifice to Love and Goodness.
It is generally understood by biblical scholars that Paul was probably referring to the Suffering Servant story in Isaiah 53 when he wrote, "in accordance with the scriptures".
601 The Scriptures had foretold this divine plan of salvation through the putting to death of "the righteous one, my Servant" as a mystery of universal redemption, that is, as the ransom that would free men from the slavery of sin. 397 Citing a confession of faith that he himself had "received", St. Paul professes that "Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures."