Catholics are not Christian?

a reply to: ChesterJohn

You both will study, argue and listen to other men and you will never come to the knowledge of the truth.

And you Sir are holy beyond man's knowledge and everything you say is Gospel according to you.

You put yourself above all men claiming that you know God's mind.

You Sir need to listen to Jesus when he said, "The meek shall inherit the world."

You will not inherit because you claim knowledge that is God's and God's alone.

P

originally posted by: Akragon
Catholic means Universal...

Ignatius used it first in the very early second century.

Talking about Ignatius...
The Apostolic Fathers—Truly Apostolic?:

BY THE start of the second century C.E., false teachings had begun to muddy the clear waters of Christian truth. Just as inspired prophecy had foretold, after the death of the apostles, certain ones abandoned the truth and turned instead to “myths.” (2 Timothy 4:3, 4, footnote) About 98 C.E., John, the last surviving apostle, warned of such erroneous teachings and of people “who [were] trying to mislead” faithful Christians.—1 John 2:26; 4:1, 6.

Soon, men who came to be known as the Apostolic Fathers arrived on the scene. What stand did they take in the face of religious deception? Did they heed the apostle John’s divinely inspired warning?

Who Were They?

The expression “Apostolic Fathers” has been applied to religious writers who may have known one of Jesus’ apostles or may have been taught by disciples who learned from the apostles. Generally, these men lived from the close of the first century C.E. on into the middle of the second century.* Among them were Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Papias of Hierapolis, and Polycarp of Smyrna. Writing during the same period were the unnamed authors of works known as The Didache, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Martyrdom of Polycarp, and the second letter of Clement.

...
* = The writers, theologians, and philosophers generally referred to as the Church Fathers lived between the second and the fifth centuries C.E.

Insignificant Modifications?

Certain currents of early “Christian” thought actually deviated from the teachings of Christ and his apostles. For example, contrary to the practice instituted by Jesus at the Lord’s Evening Meal, known also as the Last Supper, the author of The Didache advised the passing of the wine before the bread. (Matthew 26:26, 27) This writer also stated that if no body of water was available to perform baptism by immersion, pouring water on the head of the baptism candidate would suffice. (Mark 1:9, 10; Acts 8:36, 38) The same text encouraged Christians to observe such rituals as obligatory fasting twice a week and recitation of the Our Father exactly three times a day.—Matthew 6:5-13; Luke 18:12.

For his part, Ignatius envisioned a new organization of the Christian congregation, with just one bishop presiding “in the place of God.” This bishop would hold authority over many priests. Such inventions opened the way for further waves of unscriptural teaching.—Matthew 23:8, 9.

Matthew 6:7:

When praying, do not say the same things over and over again as the people of the nations do, for they imagine they will get a hearing for their use of many words.

Matthew 23:8, 9:

8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One.

a reply to: whereislogic

Paul is the "apostle" to the heretics.

He said "I am your father." Violating the command you just quoted Jesus as forbidding because he never met Jesus and fulfilled the prophecy of Jesus in Matthew about false prophets in every mentioned way. Perfectly, and Revelation confirms it.

Ignatius wrote a ton of epistles, I have them but I don't care for them.

However Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter and the Recognitions of Clement is, aside from the words of the Messiah, the most thorough and sound theological doctrine I have ever read regarding the God of Israel. It discusses evolution vs. creation and atomic theory as well as Epicurean and Greek philosophy without insulting them.

It's complimented by the near identical Homilies which shows that it was a wideley read and revered document. Copies exist that are as old as the New Testament.

You could call it literally the Acts of Peter, but it is much longer and more entertaining than the New Testament and void of Pauline influence leading scholars to conclude that it was a Nazarene/Ebionite writing that uses Simon Magus to satirize Paul's theology.

I also own all of the Apocrypha except for the Epistle of Barnabas and a few others I will be purchasing soon.

The general rule is everything pre Nicea is worth a read. Especially curious is Clement of Alexandria the pro Gnostic Church Father who was an allegorist and the most renown of the end early fathers.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Not really, we either believe God's word or we don't there is no I believe what I believe and you what you believe to it.

There is no need for name calling I will have to flag you on this as it violates the T&C Gnosisisfaith/Taxiarch.

Paul did meet Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. And as previously stated you do not believe the word of God on that fact, and therefore you don't believe any of God's words.

Funny Paul never claimed to be a 13th apostle (he would actually be the 14th but not to Israel). He does say he is an apostle to the gentiles. the other Apostles were not sent to the Gentiles they were sent to the House of Israel scattered from Jerusalem to the uttermost parts of the earth.

You err again by not knowing the scriptures Paul called the meeting in Jerusalem because of the of the error of those who claimed to be sent from Jerusalem. James summoned no one, and the conclusion was no gentiles was to be put under the Mosiac law, and the twelve were sent to the circumcised (Israel) with the gospel of the kingdom, and Paul and Barnabas were sent tot he Gentiles with the gospel of the Grace of God.

Paul made no nazirite vow. a Nazirite was not to shave their heads until they were not longer going to be a nazarite. Never read about Samson. Paul never was a Nazirite. Now he vowed to go to Jerusalem and followed the instruction so James to shave his head and pay for those who were also there as a testimony. Wrong decision on Paul's part as it resulted in his being arrested.

James the brother of John wrote the letter of James to the 12 tribes of Israel, Not James the brother of Christ. and under the gospel of the kingdom works are required. Under the Gospel of the grace of God no works required for redemption, for justification or the imputation of righteousness.

You really need to rightly divide the word and understand the differences of the three different Gospel presentation in the NT.

No Luther was a roman catholic who started an offshoot of the RCC in Lutheran's. And he couldn't reconcile Romans with James just as you can't. Why? Like him you fail to rightly divide the word of truth according to the three Gospel presentation.

You call it cheap, but the gospel of the grace of God is the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus.

Claiming to know the Bible and actually knowing are two different things. And from you erred inference to Paul being a Nazirite, and not knowing the differences of the three Gospels, and not able to follow the instruction of God to rightly divide the word of Truth only proves your claim and your words don't match up. So it is not true.

The scriptures of James and Romans don't go together because James the brother of John wrote knowing only the gospel of the Kingdom for the lost sheep and house of Israel. Failure to separate the body of Christ from Israel is nothing short of replacement Theology.

But you said earlier you are not Christian and that the bible is all fiction. So you don't believe ANY OF IT. To you Israel was not ever a nation until 1947. Why? I quote you, "the Bible is historical fiction". If that be true Israel never was a nation in the past because all the OT is historical fiction.

No, my friend it is you who have issues with God and the Bible, and who follow a false doctrine and theology. For if you do not believe the word of God then you can only be believing false teachings about the word of God. Which by the way is all fiction according to you. So to argue Bible facts leaves you as a hypocrite because you believe it is all fiction and not facts. Which no reasonable man of wisdom would ever engage in trying to argue Fiction for it would be futile.

a reply to: Taxiarch

Originally posted by Taxiarch
I am also more Gnostic than Christian, big into Nag Hammadi, I just started reading Philo Judaeus today (vol. 1) who is like an early Jewish Gnostic that speaks of the Logos which is translated Reason but in Christianity it means Word and Reason, something I have yet to look into as to why.

I used to be heavily into Valentinus who taught the standard evil demiurge; love the Nag Hammadi Library, although more recently I’ve been drawn into the mystical world of Rosicrucianism.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
So I view the Bible as a parable or allegory yet believe that YHWH is the demiurge and not God Most High, which the Bible actually supports.

Yes the allegories in the Bible light the way to the truth…

There’s quite a few different angles on the demiurge from neo-platonic to the standard demiurge and there’s also the rather unique/strange view on it by the Gnostic Cerinthus. All of the Gnostic thinkers where just trying to reconcile the evil in the OT with a just and loving God.

I used to be of the same view as yourself, with the whole Yaldabaoth being the evil God etc...but then I moved into a more unique and “rounded” perspective…

Strangely enough Yaldabaoth has a lion face, which is kind of symbolic with the whole Lion lying down with the Lamb. The lion being symbolic of our evil egos within us, and the Lamb representing the spirit of God and truth etc…

I believe YHWH is the sacred name for the Spirit of God. Now I know what you’re thinking “No Way Dude!!! lol”… but it’s the “I AM”, it’s the “I will be what I will be” It’s the spirit becoming what it becomes i.e. the Soul. It was men (and possibly technically advanced humans/entities) in my opinion which abused it, by doing evil in it’s name etc...They made others believe in a high and mighty overlord daddy figure, when all along they new the hidden mysteries…in fact glimpses of the truth of the one true God can be found in the OT.

And I’m paraphrasing here; God in the OT says “I create the Evil and the Good”, which sounds terrible, but it’s also in alignment with Gnostic thought and the book “Thunder, Perfect, Mind” which you’ve no doubt read, based on the knowledge in your posts.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
You're right that the Mosaic law was not much expounded upon by Jesus in the New Testament, but Peter masterfully does so in the best book you have never read, Recognitions of Clement, a book possibly as old as the New Testament or written/revised shortly after.

It is a deep book that discusses evolution vs. creation, atomic theory and the Torah, as well as the teachings of Jesus on, and like I said Jesus was an interpreter of the Torah, not an abolitionist of.

Wait; you mean there’s a book written sometime between the 2nd and 3rd centuries which covers Evolution and Atomic theory…seriously…? Does it cover the “Cambrian Explosion”, and “Quantum Mechanics” lol too…?

Clement of Alexandria is someone I need to research and study into more deeply…been meaning to get round to that for quite some time; so thanks for reminding me.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Which makes its transition to Sethian Gnosticism interpreting the god of Abraham as a malevolent and vindictive lesser god and Abraham as a dupe. So I am not one who follows the god of Abraham or the demiurge, my God is God Most High the Great (unseen) Spirit and followers of the Great Spirit don't need laws or oaths being addicted to Righteousness and Truth.

Absolutely; followers of the one true God, discover/know that the Laws were written in their hearts all along.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
But the Jewish followers of Jesus were staunch Yahwists who needed a way to interpret their Holy Books without seeing God as a demiurge so he introduced a thing called the parable as a means of reconciling common sense with the brutal stories of the Old Testament, the point, lost on modern Christianity, being that the Torah did not need to be taken literally to be fulfilled.

Yes, Jesus continued that tradition of teaching in parables just like in the OT. The reason it’s taught that way IMO is because people have to search for God themselves internally. The problem with Christianity, is that many parts of it are incorrect literal interpretations of parables and the coded phraseology used; which were meant to be viewed metaphorically. In many cases though these incorrect literal interpretations were just an honest mistake by people, through no fault of their own etc…

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Peshers, Midrash and Mishnah and the Zohar all do the same thing as does Philo Judaeus, who I believe every person who studies the Bible should consider a Prophet and study vigorously as his allegorical and philosophical doctrines of interpretation are second to none (I have read parts of his work but just got vols. 1&2 yesterday).

Never heard of Philo Judaeus, but anything which looks at allegorical interpretations has to be worth a look. I will have to check him out.

Originally posted by Taxiarch
Truth be told James and the Holy Spirit decreed that only the 4 laws in Acts were all that was required of Greeks, Romans and the nations so as not to burden them with laws that were never required of non Jews.

But the NT also declares that people should study the scriptures like the Bereans so obviously some value is placed in the entire Tanakh, not for legalism but morality and esoteric wisdom.

So I basically agree with you.

Well, that makes a change lol (people agreeing with me I mean) on these boards at least…


- JC

originally posted by: Taxiarch
What church do you belong to, I bet it's a cult. I am a Gnostic, I have Knowledge of the Truth by the Great Spirit of God Most High through the Logos of God. You have issues.

Gnosticism IS in fact cult indoctrination.

No ifs ands or buts about it.

It also has no more credibility than any other cult out there.

In another thread you talked about Sabbateans having invaded every religious denomination and yet you appear completely oblivious to what they have done with Gnosticism.

And yet you want to talk about others issues?

Some have said that Gnosticism was considered to be the Scientology of the Second Century, and I completely agree...

Satanic practices throughout the world can be traced in an unbroken line directly back to Gnosticism...

Curse of Canaan

The current Illuminati religion is based on Gnosticism...

Simon Magus -- The lluminati's Jesus?

To understand how people are being brainwashed by The Illuminati to hate God and accept the coming Anti-Christ ... You must understand gnosticism! Even the first century church had to deal with these heretics... They claim that the devil is the savior and our God is a devil! They invert the truth!

Illuminati Satanic Gnosticism EXPOSED

oops

a reply to: Taxiarch
A slightly more accurate translation of what Paul said about the word "father" is:

1 Corinthians 4:14-16

I am writing these things, not to put you to shame, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15 For though you may have 10,000 guardians* in Christ, you certainly do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus, I have become your father through the good news. 16 I urge you, therefore, become imitators of me.

* = Or “tutors.”

He did not use the word "father" as a religious title neither did he want others to call him father.

Please read and note the context of Matthew 23:1-12. Jesus begins speaking about the Pharisees, who were a prominent sect of Judaism. They were legalists, sticklers for observance of every detail of the Mosaic Law. They liked to dress and act in such a way as to call attention to themselves. Their religion was one of ostentation—their style of clothing, their principal places at meals, their front seats in the synagogues, and their titles of honor. They even claimed greater respect than that which was given parents. They wanted to be called father. However, Jesus shows that all his followers are equal as God’s children. Any title that suggests the opposite is a haughty usurpation of something that belongs to God. Thus, Jesus forbids the use of the word “father” as a title of honor in a religious sense. Jesus insists that his followers have only one Father in the faith, Jehovah.

Is it not clear that many clergymen are standing on ‘holy ground’ reserved for God and his Son, and that much reverence is diverted from them to imperfect men? True Christians today avoid using flattering religious titles, and they avoid the practice of setting men on ecclesiastical pedestals. Among Jehovah’s Witnesses the only form of address for ministers is “brother.” (2 Peter 3:15) That is in harmony with what Jesus said: “You are all brothers.”—Matthew 23:8, NJB.

Source: Should Christians Use Religious Titles?
Regarding your mention of Clement of Alexandria (cause I was out of space below and didn't want to post 3 comments in a row):

“Christianity” Becomes a Philosophy

The philosopher Celsus mockingly described Christians as “labourers, shoemakers, farmers, the most uninformed and clownish of men.” This mockery was too much for the apologists to bear. They determined to win over public opinion by resorting to a new tactic. Once rejected, worldly wisdom was now used in the service of the “Christian” cause. Clement of Alexandria, for example, saw philosophy as “true theology.” Justin, though claiming to reject pagan philosophy, was the first to use philosophical language and concepts to express “Christian” ideas, considering this type of philosophy “to be safe and profitable.”

From this point on, the strategy was, not to oppose philosophy, but to make supposed Christian thought a philosophy higher than that of the pagans. ...
...
This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy.
...
The word “soul” appears over 850 times in the Bible, including more than 100 times in its Greek form. It basically refers to mortal, living creatures, either human or animal. (1 Corinthians 15:45; James 5:20; Revelation 16:3) The apologists, however, twisted this Bible teaching by linking it with Plato’s philosophy that the soul is separate from the body, invisible and immortal. Minucius Felix even asserted that belief in the resurrection had its early beginnings in Pythagoras’ teaching of the transmigration of the soul. How far Greek influence had led them from the teachings of the Bible!

Source: The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked . . . Punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire, and not dying, it is impossible for them to have [an end] put to their misery.—Clement of Alexandria

Like Clement, those who promote the teaching that hell is a place of torment assume that the human soul is immortal. Does the Bible support this teaching? Consider what God’s Word says by having a look at my thread "One myth leads to another".

originally posted by: Taxiarch
a reply to: whereislogic

However Clement of Rome was a disciple of Peter and the Recognitions of Clement is, aside from the words of the Messiah, the most thorough and sound theological doctrine I have ever read regarding the God of Israel. ...

It's complimented by the near identical Homilies ...

You could call it literally the Acts of Peter, but it is much longer and more entertaining than the New Testament and void of Pauline influence leading scholars to conclude that it was a Nazarene/Ebionite writing that uses Simon Magus to satirize Paul's theology.

...

The general rule is everything pre Nicea is worth a read. Especially curious is Clement of Alexandria the pro Gnostic Church Father who was an allegorist and the most renown of the end early fathers.

Canon: Insight, Volume 1

Christian Greek Scriptures. The writing as well as the collecting of the 27 books comprising the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was similar to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Christ “gave gifts in men,” yes, “he gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelizers, some as shepherds and teachers.” (Eph 4:8, 11-13) With God’s holy spirit on them they set forth sound doctrine for the Christian congregation and, “by way of a reminder,” repeated many things already written in the Scriptures.—2Pe 1:12, 13; 3:1; Ro 15:15.

Outside the Scriptures themselves there is evidence that, as early as 90-100 C.E., at least ten of Paul’s letters were collected together. It is certain that at an early date Christians were gathering together the inspired Christian writings.

We read that “near the close of the 1st cent., Clement bishop of Rome was acquainted with Paul’s letter to the church at Corinth. After him, the letters of both Ignatius bishop of Antioch and Polycarp bishop of Smyrna attest the dissemination of the Pauline letters by the second decade of the 2nd century.” (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, edited by G. W. Bromiley, 1979, Vol. 1, p. 603) These were all early writers—Clement of Rome (30?-100? C.E.), Polycarp (69?-155? C.E.), and Ignatius of Antioch (late 1st and early 2nd centuries C.E.)—who wove in quotations and extracts from various books of the Christian Greek Scriptures, showing their acquaintance with such canonical writings.

Justin Martyr (died c. 165 C.E.) in his “Dialogue With Trypho, a Jew” (XLIX), used the expression “it is written” when quoting from Matthew, in the same way the Gospels themselves do when referring to the Hebrew Scriptures. The same is also true in an earlier anonymous work, “The Epistle of Barnabas” (IV). Justin Martyr in “The First Apology” (LXVI, LXVII) calls the “memoirs of the apostles” “Gospels.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I, pp. 220, 139, 185, 186.

Theophilus of Antioch (2nd century C.E.) declared: “Concerning the righteousness which the law enjoined, confirmatory utterances are found both with the prophets and in the Gospels, because they all spoke inspired by one Spirit of God.” Theophilus then uses such expressions as ‘says the Gospel’ (quoting Mt 5:28, 32, 44, 46; 6:3) and “the divine word gives us instructions” (quoting 1Ti 2:2 and Ro 13:7, 8).—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1962, Vol. II, pp. 114, 115, “Theophilus to Autolycus” (XII, XIII).

By the end of the second century there was no question but that the canon of the Christian Greek Scriptures was closed, and we find such ones as Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian recognizing the writings comprising the Christian Scriptures as carrying authority equal to that of the Hebrew Scriptures. Irenaeus in appealing to the Scriptures makes no fewer than 200 quotations from Paul’s letters. Clement says he will answer his opponents by “the Scriptures which we believe are valid from their omnipotent authority,” that is, “by the law and the prophets, and besides by the blessed Gospel.”—The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II, p. 409, “The Stromata, or Miscellanies.”

The canonicity of certain individual books of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been disputed by some, but the arguments against them are very weak.
...
With the death of John, the last apostle, this reliable chain of divinely inspired men came to an end, and so with the Revelation, John’s Gospel, and his epistles, the Bible canon closed.

Apocryphal Texts

Some Apostolic Fathers accepted extra-Biblical texts as if they were inspired. Clement of Rome, for one, cites the apocryphal works Wisdom and Judith. The writer of The Epistle of Polycarp refers to Tobit to give credence to the idea that the giving of alms has power to deliver the giver from death.

In the second century C.E., false gospels spread spurious accounts of Jesus’ life, and the Fathers frequently lent credence to them. Ignatius, for instance, quoted from the so-called Gospel of the Hebrews. And regarding Clement of Rome, one source says: “Clement seems to know Christ, not through the Gospels, but through noncanonical writings.”

A Tidal Wave of Error

By resorting to myth, mystic ideas, and philosophy to explain the Christian faith, these men opened the way for a tide of error. Clement, for example, referred to the mythological story of the phoenix as proof of the resurrection. The phoenix, a legendary bird said to rise from its own ashes, was associated with sun worship in Egyptian mythology.

Another writer who demeaned Scriptural truth was the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. He interpreted the Mosaic Law as if it were mere allegory. According to him, clean animals—chewers of the cud with split (cleft) hooves—represented people who meditate on, or chew over, God’s Word. The split hoof, said the writer, symbolized that the righteous man “walks in this world” while at the same time looking forward to life in heaven. Such interpretations are not based on Scripture.—Leviticus 11:1-3.

The Witness of the Apostle John

During the first century, the apostle John warned: “Beloved ones, do not believe every inspired expression, but test the inspired expressions to see whether they originate with God, because many false prophets have gone forth into the world.” (1 John 4:1) How appropriate these words were!

By the end of the first century, many so-called Christians had already abandoned the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Far from resisting the rising tide of apostasy, the Apostolic Fathers rode its waves. They adulterated truth with poison. The apostle John said of such individuals: “Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God.” (2 John 9) For all sincere seekers of Scriptural truth, this divinely inspired warning was—and remains—crystal clear.

Source: The Apostolic Fathers—Truly Apostolic?

a reply to: whereislogic

that is a long research you did. It is good we have more research like that. It is good if the religious start talking about tose questions all over internet, not always as intelligent or respectful as yours. I don't know the truth of the discussed matter and don't pretend to know it. Apparently what we have sealed in 4th century is NOT what was taught by Jesus and his immediate disciples. Otherwise there wouldn't be rewriting of books in first place (there is NONE found papyrus so far to date earlier than 160-170 AD, most of them dated from 3rd century).

originally posted by: 2012newstart
that is a long research you did. It is good we have more research like that.

Citing Jehovah’s Witnesses AWAKE! is not research, it is indoctrination.

It is no different from Taxiarch's post which he was attempting to refute.

What the JW's are presenting is a counterfeit gospel just like Gnosticism, Catholicism, and many others just like them.

In order for a counterfeit to be effective it must look just like the real thing.

This is the reason why cults always use Scripture as bait for false credibility.

See posts here and here for more on this.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: ChesterJohn

here is what God's mind says on your reply

And you Sir are holy beyond man's knowledge and everything you say is Gospel according to you.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
You see my words were not my own but exactly what th e Bible says about people like Taxiarch who are ever learning but never able to come to the truth.

My words are not gospel, they are hardly good news to some, they are truth of the mind of God as found in his preserved word, by which we can judge all things by.

You put yourself above all men claiming that you know God's mind.

1Cor 2:16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.
Php 2:5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: Each believer has the mind of Christ

You Sir need to listen to Jesus when he said, "The meek shall inherit the world." You will not inherit because you claim knowledge that is God's and God's alone.

Matthew 5 was pre cross instruction for Israel to live in the promised Kingdom.
As far as my inheritance Eph 1:10-14 That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: In whom also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will: That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory.
Col 3:23, 24 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men; Knowing that of the Lord ye shall receive the reward of the inheritance: for ye serve the Lord Christ. My inheritance is not my own but that of every believer not because of what we have done but because of Christ Jesus.

I claim nothing of myself I only have the word of God, which is his mind and his wisdom that all believers can have and hold in their hands sand hide in their hearts.

have a nice day.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. You see my words were not my own but exactly what th e Bible says about people like Taxiarch who are ever learning but never able to come to the truth.

No! You miss the point. This little verse is talking about you ... just you! Take it to heart! Learn from it, but, sadly you won't.

What you and many others seek .... is power over others less righteous than yourself.

You need to find your meekness! Alas, it will not be found by you, not yet at any rate.

P

a reply to: Murgatroid

I didn't know whether or not the poster is JW. Neither do I support or deny what he/she presents here.
I said that MORE RESEARCH NOT LESS is needed on the banned books and few details we have about the early Christianity between 33 AD and 325 AD when everything was sealed in the first absurdity form declared as "teaching of Jesus and Apostles" (to be followed by even more absurdity later).

Therefore, I congratulate the idea of pope Francis to organize Nicaea 2 council. I am only afraid his good intentions will never be materialized under the current establishment. Or will they show backbone after so much material posted online when the people are already aware? It has nothing to do with JW or any other particular denomination. It has to do with what Jesus said and did in real, and not what we got in doctored books 2 centuries later.

a reply to: 2012newstart

I congratulate the idea of pope Francis to organize Nicaea 2 council.

Hang on... there was already a second Nicaea in 787ad

What are you talking about?