the author of Babylon Mystery changed his mind....

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I think i see what the issue is here... The problem is your "definition" of God... as compared to mine...

I believe you see God as a person... The bible speaks of God sitting on the right hand of God...

19So then after the Lord had spoken unto them, he was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.

I Don't see God as a "person"...

Genesis says God made us in his image... I have issues with this... Though all life is made perfect... there are far prettier things then us...

All life is a reflection of God... Manifestation would be a better word...

And we are hardly his best creations honestly.

You see God, Jesus and the Holy spirit as 3 people... Correct?

Originally posted by Akragon
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I think i see what the issue is here... The problem is your "definition" of God... as compared to mine...

Huh? I think we both have the same idea of "God". Creator of the universe and all there is within?

I believe you see God as a person...

A "person" as in an entity with a mind, will, and emotions, then yes.

The bible speaks of God sitting on the right hand of God...

That's at least two..

I Don't see God as a "person"...

A "person" as in people, humanity, a human? No, God isn't a human. He added humanity to His divinity at the incarnation, but that's just adding something to what's already there.

Genesis says God made us in his image... I have issues with this... Though all life is made perfect... there are far prettier things then us...

Look at the Hebrew word for 'image", it doesn't mean a mirror-image, or carbon copy.

And we are hardly his best creations honestly.

Depends on what the measuring stick is. Are we as majestic as the stars in the night sky? heck no. Are we as beautiful as a dew-kissed rose? Of course not. But we are the only creature in the cosmos created in the image of God.

You see God, Jesus and the Holy spirit as 3 people... Correct?

When you die someday your body will decompose and your soul and spirit will move along to the afterlife. Do you see your body, spirit, and soul as 3 different people or are you one?

Originally posted by wildtimes
No, the Catholics don't. You and lonewolf are both mistaken on that. The Catholics consider her a saint and venerate her, they do not "worship" her as "God" or "part of God."

Veneration of the saints, including Mary, is not worship. Catholics worship God alone.

adapted from Catholic Update Do Catholics Worship Images?
Stories and Prayers, by Teresita Scully

Do Catholics worship the saints? To worship someone is to acknowledge that the one who is worshiped is divine, is God. Sometimes we can confuse cultural gestures of reverence for gestures of worship. In doing so, we often judge not as God does, by what is in the heart, but rather by appearances (see Jn 8:15, Is 11:3).

Catholics hold saints in esteem because they are such wonderful images or mirrors of Christ. Paul several times exhorts his readers to be imitators of him: "Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ" (1 Cor 11:1, also Phil 3:17, 1 Cor 4:16).

Mary is the first saint, and holds high honor today, as she did in the early Church. Over the course of history, devotion to Mary has taken many forms, and even has been confused with worship. Church teaching has consistently placed Mary in the company of the saints, however.

from www.americancatholic.org... "Do Catholics Worship Mary?"

edit on 7-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-3-2012 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)

Thanks wildtimes, correct...Mary is very special but she is not God. She is the mother of God. Some Christians refuse to accept this. They desire
another "protest." Love, honor and veneration are not "worship."

Our Lady is smiling on you. Way to go.


colbe

p.s. Mary will appear to Protestants after the Great Warning, when they
lose their heresies, she can't now...though there may be exceptions.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

A "person" as in an entity with a mind, will, and emotions, then yes.

Thats what i thought... i don't see God as an entity either, though im sure if HE wanted to... he could appear as such...

IF you consider all of creation "an entity" i suppose that works. Though i wouldn't consider "all of creation" an entity...

That's at least two..

A "person" as in people, humanity, a human? No, God isn't a human. He added humanity to His divinity at the incarnation, but that's just adding something to what's already there.

So life wasn't divine before the creation of earth?

Look at the Hebrew word for 'image", it doesn't mean a mirror-image, or carbon copy.

Image (Strong's #6754)
The word צלם (tselem) is literally a shadow which is the outline or representation of the original.

Depends on what the measuring stick is. Are we as majestic as the stars in the night sky? heck no. Are we as beautiful as a dew-kissed rose? Of course not. But we are the only creature in the cosmos created in the image of God.

So says "the book"...

I disagree... whole heartedly.

When you die someday your body will decompose and your soul and spirit will move along to the afterlife. Do you see your body, spirit, and soul as 3 different people or are you one?

My soul and spirit?

Are they not one and the same? Some consider the soul to be the body... and the spirit is... well the spirit of course

When i die, my body is no longer mine... it returns to what it was made of...

So it won't matter... cause its matter...

Originally posted by colbe


www.catholicthinker.net...
_ _ _

It is the same method atheists use in seeking to discredit the Bible and Christianity altogether—not just the Catholic Church. By this method, one also could condemn Protestant and Evangelical denominations such as the Assemblies of God, Baptist, Church of Christ, Lutheran, Methodist and Nazarene: Basic things such as prayer and kneeling in prayer would have to be rejected, as pagans knelt and prayed to their gods. Water baptism would have to be rejected, for pagans had numerous rites involving water. The list could go on and on.

By this method, even the Bible would have to be rejected as pagan. All of the following practices or beliefs mentioned in the Bible were also known among pagans: raising hands in worship, taking off shoes on holy ground, a holy mountain, a holy place in a temple, offering sacrifices without blemish, a sacred ark, a city of refuge, bringing forth water from a rock, laws written on stone, fire appearing on a person’s head, horses of fire, the offering of first fruits, and tithes.

By this method, the Lord himself would be pagan. The woman called Mystery Babylon had a cup in her hand; the Lord has a cup in his hand (Ps. 75:8). Pagan kings sat on thrones and wore crowns; the Lord sits on a throne and wears a crown (Rev. 1:4; 14:14). Pagans worshiped the sun; the Lord is the "sun of righteousness" (Mal. 4:2). Pagan gods were likened to stars; the Lord is called "the bright morning star" (Rev. 22:16). Pagan gods had temples dedicated to them; the Lord has a temple (Rev. 7:15). Pagan gods were pictured with wings; the Lord is pictured with wings (Ps. 91:4)."....

Now if I could eliminate all their other objections (protests).

I posted Woodrow's examples from Scripture 3 times in this thread and no one bites. They can't disagree with the words of their fellow non-Catholic brother.

This makes me happy, maybe, non-Catholic Christians reading this thread will say "yes" at the Great Warning.


take care everyone,


colbe

Originally posted by The GUT
Yeah, I'll stay out of the Catholic/Paganism debate.

I will ask you, as a fellow believer, do you think the Catholic Church is a reflection of the first century church? I don't think so.

Yes, read up what the early church believed. You have the internet.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

The Greek uses meizon twice in that verse. Once to say that there has never been born a man "greater" than John in the history of the world. Jesus also says that every person in the kingdom of heaven is "greater" than John.

reply to post by Akragon

No, it means ANYONE in Gods kingdom is "greater" then John... read the entire verse...

28For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is not a greater prophet than John the Baptist: but he that is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he.

And in that context obviously its correct... Greater still means greater... It had nothing to do with strength.

Hey, good morning, guys.
I haven't quite got through your whole exchange, yet, but both of you are making a point that clearly speaks to reincarnation and "perfection" of the soul. In my opinion, what Jesus was saying was that of all humans born, John was the best of perfected souls who had come back for a last go-round with a very mature and adept "soul". He was also born of a virgin (Elizabeth), in her middle age, and Mary was her cousin, who stayed with her while they both gestated. John was born first, but was a sublime (that is, graduated to the greatest level of human's ability to do so) and perfected soul, ready for reunion with the Divine. His "father" was an angelic host.

Jesus was born perfect, and may or may not have been "incarnated" before. His "father" was the head honcho. He was/is always a perfected part of the Divine. "He", this example of what humans are to strive for, was here to let us know that eventually after much work and many lifetimes we, too, will be ready to be reunited with the Divine, like John.

He may even have come periodically (as, for example, Buddha, or other major avatars, but still a representative of a soul that incarnates to advise the rest of us as to what the objective is.)

He appeared when civilization was in upheaval, in order to say, "All right, look! You are way off task. This is what you are aiming at... be more like me. John is a perfect example. I came direct from the source to tell you that. I am the spokesman for the Divine.
You are students, and must learn via your body's machine and being born again over and over, to behave in this manner.
Forget all this power and priests and riches and social superior/inferior distancing!
You are all, you humans born of women, part of the Divine! I am here to show you what is the finished product. Listen, watch, and then emulate. Strive for it. You will have to work at it, looking inward, and it will take many cycles to achieve. But you can do the same things I do, if you will only focus!"

So, he is saying that John is the best of humans incarnate, and that in the "kingdom" rest the souls that have, like John, finished their journey and no longer have to be born again. Therefore, John is our example of the "greatest" incarnate human type, yet those already in the kingdom are even "greater" in that they are no longer required to "learn" anything more. They got it.

Originally posted by 547000

Originally posted by The GUT
Yeah, I'll stay out of the Catholic/Paganism debate.

I will ask you, as a fellow believer, do you think the Catholic Church is a reflection of the first century church? I don't think so.

Yes, read up what the early church believed. You have the internet.

That's one of the silliest things things I have ever heard. I have the Bible and other writings, I can see and read for myself what the early church believed and it's not a super-rich entity full of iconography...just to name a couple of things that Jesus and the Apostles wouldn't go for.

Let me reiterate: I love the layman Catholic folk. They are full of love and good works. It's the 'religiosity' of the Church leadership itself that I can't find in the Word. Word.

reply to post by The GUT

It's the 'religiosity' of the Church leadership itself that I can't find in the Word.

Sure you can brother! it's called the "Nicolatians".

"Nicolatians" is an untraslated Greek word.

"Nikos" = to rule

"Laity" = the people


No one in the church should be ruling over the congregation, Jesus detailed what a true leader would do, serve the flock. Christ washed the feet of His disciples to show what a true leader is, a servant.

reply to post by Akragon

IF you consider all of creation "an entity" i suppose that works. Though i wouldn't consider "all of creation" an entity...

No, you misunderstood what I said. I said God is the Creator of the universe, and (the Creator) of all there is within (same universe).

I didn't mean to imply that I was saying God is everything in the universe. Nor did I intend to imply that all of creation is an entity.

Sorry if I worded it earlier in a confusing manner.


God, the Creator of the universe, and (Creator of) all there is contained within (the universe).

reply to post by wildtimes


I don't believe in reincarnation, but in your scenario about John, are all the other people alive on Earth at the time Jesus said that about John less than human? Or were they all just as much human as John, even though Jesus said he (John) was "greater than" every other person that had been born?

It's my contention that "greater" (meizon) in the instance Christ used it to refer to the Father refers to Him being greater in rank, or honor, it's not not a denial of His own deity.

Christ is just humble, and honors His Father as the Mosaic Law commands.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

in your scenario about John, are all the other people alive on Earth at the time Jesus said that about John less than human?

Not at all! They are equal to John in that everyone has the Divine Spirit. Those born of women who were not as enlightened as John were younger 'souls', or 'negligent' and using their enlightened state for wrongdoing.

John was incarnated as a teacher, a messenger or herald, if you will, that Christ was coming after him.

John was spiritually ready to rejoin the Divine, the others alive were not. Those who had advanced previously and are now "in the Kingdom" chose not to come back...because they don't have to. John either: didn't have to, but chose to; or was recruited by the Divine to do so (tag-team style between him and Jesus).

And guess what? It worked pretty well, until the powers slaughtered them both, threw away the notes taken by devotees that they didn't like, and made up their own.

Voila: the Bible! A manufactured dogma devised by MEN, who had the power to LEAVE OUT the parts that didn't suit their agenda.
Seriously, how can you not see that?!

reply to post by wildtimes

Not at all! They are equal to John

Stop right there, you've just made my point, unknowingly perhaps, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Yes, they certainly are equal to John in every way in regards to being human or not.

So, backing this thread up a tad bit, Akragon said Christians are wrong about the Trinity, and used for his proof text for this philosophy that Jesus said "The Father is greater than I." Akragon said that verse clearly shows that since Jesus said the Father was greater than He was that was an admission to Him (Jesus) not being God. (Or invariably = less than God)

Jesus uses the same Greek word (Meizon) to describe John compared to every other man to ever been born. And you've stated that calling John "greater than" is in no way implying the other men born of women are less than fully human.


Again, much appreciation.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


The issue here is not his divinity... He is the son of God, of that there is no doubt... but there is not a 3 in one God...

28And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, and perceiving that he had answered them well, asked him, Which is the first commandment of all?

29And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is ONE Lord:

30And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment


And to your recent statement...

I didn't mean to imply that I was saying God is everything in the universe.

THAT... is actually my belief.

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Christ is just humble, and honors His Father as the Mosaic Law commands.

What does the Law say about claiming that your father is greater than you?
The Law says that The Lord would choose from among his brothers a prophet through whom He would speak, in much the same way as He chose to do so through Moses. Later, Jesus claimed to be that person foretold of, so Jesus would automatically be in an inferior position, seeing how God chose what he was to say.

The thread is about debunking those who say Catholicism is pagan. The thread applies to Protestant Christianity too because our brothers and sisters believe some of the faith. Protestants won't discuss the OP, the fact one their own sees this truth. They bring up instead Protestant explanation of Christian history. Usually complete in a couple of sentences or a paragraph. Funny, if it wasn't sad. Non-Catholic Christians must come to the fullness of faith. Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic and down here, the Remnant is Roman Catholic.

~ ~ ~

catholicknight.blogspot.com...


...One of the ways Protestantism continues to survive and flourish is through a propaganda tool I like to call "alternate histories," and no form of Protestantism does this better than Evangelical Fundamentalism.

This is how it works. Fundamentalists see history as a problem - a big problem - that if their people were exposed to, it would result in the loss of their followers. So how do you deal with such a problem? Simple. You just "change" history. That's right, you change the story, to make it fit your purposes. This is what they do, and they've been doing it for a very long time. They didn't start it you see. Their spiritual forefathers started it centuries ago. The first one to do this was Martin Luther of course, the father of the Protestant Reformation. His "alternate history" was really very simple, and it wasn't really a retelling of "history" at all. Rather it was a labeling of sorts. He simply labeled the institution of the papacy as the "Whore of Babylon" written of in the Book of Revelation. It was a clever little strategy that helped him win a few more converts, and politically portray himself as the lone hero standing up to the "colossal tyrant" of Rome -- a classic "David and Goliath" comparative. What Luther started, others would build on centuries later. The Protestant English crown was adept at twisting current events to villainize the Catholic Church. The history of the Spanish Inquisitions, as reported by the English, is a classic example of this kind of propaganda."...

reply to post by colbe

Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic

LOL! Thanks for the head's up!

Seriously, is Gandhi in heaven? How about Buddha, did he get rejected at the pearly gates? How about Martin Luther King, the Protestant preacher and civil right's activist, named after your nemesis, Martin Luther?

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by colbe

 

Everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic

LOL! Thanks for the head's up!

Seriously, is Gandhi in heaven? How about Buddha, did he get rejected at the pearly gates? How about Martin Luther King, the Protestant preacher and civil right's activist, named after your nemesis, Martin Luther?

I don't know who is Heaven, God is the judge.

Windword, I said, everyone in Heaven is Roman Catholic.

Most of the book of Revelation describes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass offered in Heaven.

reply to post by colbe


Which heaven?

There might be a few, and apparently some of them are more like hell...

reply to post by colbe


Protestants often in speaking of Christian history they'll mention one of the councils, the Council of Nicea which really happened, the rest is a "story." Makes no sense including Nicea, the Council of Nicea is a Roman Catholic council. ???

More on their "alternate history"....

When the Great Warning happens, pray our brothers and sisters accept
the true faith.


catholicknight.blogspot.com...


The "alternate history" basically goes like this. If you're an Evangelical reading this, it may sound familiar. Here it goes in a nutshell. According to the propaganda, the Church established by Jesus Christ and the apostles went into hiding after the first century and never emerged until the Protestant Reformation 1,400 years later. During the interim period, Christians were first persecuted by the Pagan Roman empire. Then in 312 AD, Emperor Constantine had a brilliant idea, so the propaganda goes. He thought, "if you can't beat em - join em!" So he brought together all the Pagan priests of Rome and told them to start imitating the Christians, mixing Pagan worship with Christian rhetoric, thus creating a new hybrid religion called "Catholicism." Thus the secret Pagan religion of Catholicism was born, and of course the pope serving at the head of this new "Babylon" religion, must be none other than the "Antichrist" himself."...