If Perchance Catholicism Is Mistaken

[Dan_473]

And?

Well, it probably connect to this

Revelation 10: 8. The voice which I heard from heaven, again speaking with me, said, "Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land." 9. I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. He said to me, "Take it, and eat it up. It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey."

Which leads to this

Hebrews 9: 9. which is a symbol of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the worshipper perfect; 10. being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.

And this Reformation, is it without effect? No, it is transforming!

2 Corinthians 3: 18. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.

 

[garee]

Yes, the book is traditionally called first John. And that's what your Bible calls it. That's a Christian tradition, a church tradition.

Yes, it is in line with overall teaching. But the question I asked was why a person I would say it was written by the apostle John.

Shall we accept everything that is in line with Bible teaching as scripture?

it was written by the finger of God. Not a private interpretation of the fathers. We are warned of those who would seduce us insisting a man seen must teach us. We abide in Christ the teacher.

John fits the profile of being moved as God puts his words on the lips of John written down for us.. It does not change the authority of sola scriptura . The two witness as in all things written in the law and the prophets. Not the witness of men the fathers.

Faith that comes from hearing our God alone. The word of God is the Catholics nemesis (not of the fathers)It is still doing its job of reforming, restoring the government of God.

Not the oral traditions of the father they make the tradition of God without effect.

 

[Dan_473]

Only One source of faith as in all things written in the law and prophets(sola scriptura) Not the law of the Catholic father as oral tradition of sinful men Not some old testament queen of heaven that was named Mary.Faith comes by hearing God not mankind.


We need the faith of Christ as that which comes from hearing God .Not from men dead in their trespasses and sins

We are warned in 1 John 2:27 q and 28 of the many antichrists which were already there . We are infallibly informed by God not the Pope as the promised teacher comforter teaches us we are to abide in Him .Pull out the Pope the wild card or what the call Holy father violating another commandment made to no effect the whole deck folds. Catholicism as those who lord it over the pew Catholic faith as they must seek the approval of God..Therefore in the end of the mater usurping the faith that does come from our unseen Holy Father.

Earthly church fathers that you offered . . . blasphemy making the word of God with out effect.The revelation which Adam taught his son Seth in the seven hundreth year, saying: When God had created me out of the earth, along with Eve, your mother, I went about with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. She taught me a word of knowledge of the eternal God. And we resembled the great eternal angels, for we were higher than the god who had created us and the powers with him, whom we did not know.

These things have I written unto you concerning them that seduce you. But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.! john2:26-27

Are you saying The Apocalypse of Adam was written by a church father? I believe it is anonymous.

In your opinion, Who wrote the book of first John that you quoted? And is your opinion based on Church tradition?

 

[garee]

Well, it probably connect to this

Revelation 10: 8. The voice which I heard from heaven, again speaking with me, said, "Go, take the book which is open in the hand of the angel who stands on the sea and on the land." 9. I went to the angel, telling him to give me the little book. He said to me, "Take it, and eat it up. It will make your stomach bitter, but in your mouth it will be as sweet as honey."

Which leads to this

Hebrews 9: 9. which is a symbol of the present age, where gifts and sacrifices are offered that are incapable, concerning the conscience, of making the worshipper perfect; 10. being only (with meats and drinks and various washings) fleshly ordinances, imposed until a time of reformation.

And this Reformation, is it without effect? No, it is transforming!

2 Corinthians 3: 18. But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, even as from the Lord, the Spirit.

Yes continually reforming restoring.

I would agree the gospel goes out. Was the his point?

 

[Dan_473]

it was written by the finger of God. Not a private interpretation of the fathers. We are warned of those who would seduce us insisting a man seen must teach us. We abide in Christ the teacher.

John fits the profile of being moved as God puts his words on the lips of John written down for us.. It does not change the authority of sola scriptura . The two witness as in all things written in the law and the prophets. Not the witness of men the fathers.

Faith that comes from hearing our God alone. The word of God is the Catholics nemesis (not of the fathers)It is still doing its job of reforming, restoring the government of God.

Not the oral traditions of the father they make the tradition of God without effect.

Some human somewhere actually put the words down on paper or papyrus or whatever for the first time at some point in history.

Does it matter who that person was?

Why do you believe that God inspired the book of first John?

 

[Dan_473]

Yes continually reforming restoring.

I would agree the gospel goes out. Was the his point?

His point, I think is what we see here
2 Corinthians 3: 6. who also made us sufficient as servants of a new covenant; not of the letter, but of the Spirit.

For the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.

Psalm 16: 11. You will show me the path of life. In your presence is fullness of joy. In your right hand there are pleasures forevermore. A Prayer by David.

And
Proverbs 12: 28. In the way of righteousness is life; in its path there is no death.

 

[garee]

Are you saying The Apocalypse of Adam was written by a church father? I believe it is anonymous.

In your opinion, Who wrote the book of first John that you quoted? And is your opinion based on Church tradition?

Apocalypse of Adam ?

My opinion when seeking the approval of God would be John.

No its not built on the sacred traditions of corruptible men . calling things that are clearly not sacred, sacred . . . that simply leads down a dark path (no light)

Holy men of old where move to record his thoughts. God is not served by corrupted human hands as a will as that which Catholic must call divine. That way the fathers can Lord over.

It is simply blasphemy attributing the things of men seen to God not seen. Takes away his divine authority. No man can serve two divine teaching masters.

You would think the law of the fathers would at least list the tradition of God first and not the sacred tradition of the fathers.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the law of the fathers thus: 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.".

Did God say you shall surely die? Attributing the things seen as if they were of the unseen the (no difference).

 

[Dan_473]

Apocalypse of Adam ?

My opinion when seeking the approval of God would be John.

No its not built on the sacred traditions of corruptible men . calling things that are clearly not sacred, sacred . . . that simply leads down a dark path (no light)

Holy men of old where move to record his thoughts. God is not served by corrupted human hands as a will as that which Catholic must call divine. That way the fathers can Lord over.

It is simply blasphemy attributing the things of men seen to God not seen. Takes away his divine authority. No man can serve two divine teaching masters.

You would think the law of the fathers would at least list the tradition of God first and not the sacred tradition of the fathers.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the law of the fathers thus: 80 "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, are bound closely together and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing and move towards the same goal.".

Did God say you shall surely die? Attributing the things seen as if they were of the unseen the (no difference).

Yes, I believe you quoted from The Apocalypse of Adam in your post https://christianchat.com/threads/if-perchance-catholicism-is-mistaken.186642/post-4012489

God told you that John the apostle wrote the book we call 1st John? Cool! In your opinion, does God tell everyone the same thing about who wrote which books? Some early Christians didn't use first John as scripture. Were they just not listening to God?

 

[garee]

Yes, I believe you quoted from The Apocalypse of Adam in your post https://christianchat.com/threads/if-perchance-catholicism-is-mistaken.186642/post-4012489

I quoted Earthly church fathers that you offered . Not my idea. I do not support extra books..Why go above that which is written? Catholisicim still believes God is adding new revelations that they must call private revelations.

God told you that John the apostle wrote the book we call 1st John? Cool! In your opinion, does God tell everyone the same thing about who wrote which books? Some early Christians didn't use first John as scripture. Were they just not listening to God?

I have no idea who or what they were listening to. They are dead and cannot be questioned. Only in Catholicism can the living talk to those no longer here under the sun, the dead. Necromancy is at the foundation of Catholisism . 3,500 and rapidly rising disembodied gods with famailar spirits . . . called patron saints.

 

[Dan_473]

I quoted Earthly church fathers that you offered . Not my idea. I do not support extra books..Why go above that which is written? Catholisicim still believes God is adding new revelations that they must call private revelations.



I have no idea who or what they were listening to. They are dead and cannot be questioned. Only in Catholicism can the living talk to those no longer here under the sun, the dead. Necromancy is at the foundation of Catholisism . 3,500 and rapidly rising disembodied gods with famailar spirits . . . called patron saints.

I believe your post https://christianchat.com/threads/if-perchance-catholicism-is-mistaken.186642/post-4012489
Contains this quote:
"The revelation which Adam taught his son Seth in the seven hundreth year, saying: When God had created me out of the earth, along withEve, your mother, I went about with her in a glory which she had seen in the aeon from which we had come forth. "

That's from The Apocalypse of Adam. It is not known who wrote it, unless you have access to knowledge outside of the historical documents. I think Catholics would say it was not written by a church father.

 

[Dan_473]

I quoted Earthly church fathers that you offered . Not my idea. I do not support extra books..Why go above that which is written? Catholisicim still believes God is adding new revelations that they must call private revelations.



I have no idea who or what they were listening to. They are dead and cannot be questioned. Only in Catholicism can the living talk to those no longer here under the sun, the dead. Necromancy is at the foundation of Catholisism . 3,500 and rapidly rising disembodied gods with famailar spirits . . . called patron saints.

If someone today were to think that first John wasn't scripture, would it follow logically that they were not listening to God?

 

[Dan_473]

I quoted Earthly church fathers that you offered . Not my idea. I do not support extra books..Why go above that which is written? Catholisicim still believes God is adding new revelations that they must call private revelations.



I have no idea who or what they were listening to. They are dead and cannot be questioned. Only in Catholicism can the living talk to those no longer here under the sun, the dead. Necromancy is at the foundation of Catholisism . 3,500 and rapidly rising disembodied gods with famailar spirits . . . called patron saints.

Say garee,
Some Bibles say this
1 John 5: 7. For there are three who testify:

And some Bibles add more
1 John 5: 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That part about
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one,
Is that scripture?

 

[garee]

Say garee,
Some Bibles say this
1 John 5: 7. For there are three who testify:

And some Bibles add more
1 John 5: 7. For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

That part about
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one,
Is that scripture?

Yes it is.

There is no law that a trinity must believed .If so which one?. There are many ideas using three

I would say yes the father as Lord according to his word as the power of Spirit of Christ . One work of faith .One God no gods in the likeness of men.

We are to call no fleshly as to what the eyes see teacher or father on earth. One is our teaching father in heaven . It was the same father working in the Son of man as with us. We as did Jesus have that treasure in their earthly bodies .Knowing the power to believe is not of ourselves.

John6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.

No learning of the unseen father no coming to the Son of man seen . No one can come unless the father (not the son draw him

 

[garee]

If someone today were to think that first John wasn't scripture, would it follow logically that they were not listening to God?

I would think so.

If someone today were to think that which was written in that book and it had no tittle (1 John) .Could God still work though His living word or if there was not tittle reference it follow logically that they were not listening to God?

We seek the approval of God not seen . . . . not men seen the temporal

 

[Jackson123]

Well, if we say "Abraham God display Himself as God the Father, or Holy Spirit or Jesus. Other than that is not abraham's God", Then that means that Jews do not adore Abraham God. But we agreed earlier that the Jews do adore Abraham God. So we either have to say that Jews do adore Abraham God, and saying that Abraham God is not a trinity doesn't affect that, or we have to say that the Jews do not adore Abraham God.

This is where my belief comes from, that some Hindus adore Abraham God.
Romans 1: 19. because that which is known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. 20. For the invisible things of him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity; that they may be without excuse.

God's everlasting power and divinity can be seen in creation. It makes sense to me then, that some people in cultures that have not heard of Jesus would still be aware of God's divinity, and adore it.

Is this verse say they worship abraham god?

Not to me.

Seem to me Paul explain no excuses for nonchristian that do evil.

 

[Jackson123]

Yes, the book is traditionally called first John. And that's what your Bible calls it. That's a Christian tradition, a church tradition.

Yes, it is in line with overall teaching. But the question I asked was why a person I would say it was written by the apostle John.

Shall we accept everything that is in line with Bible teaching as scripture?

When this book call john ?

You ask shall we accept everything inline with bible scripture?

I don't think so

This is definition of scripture

scrip·ture
/ˈskripCHər/
noun
the sacred writings of Christianity contained in the Bible.
"passages of scripture"
synonyms: sacred text, Holy Writ, the Bible, the Holy Bible, the Gospel, the Good Book, the Word of God, the Book of Books
"he appeals solely to scripture for his authority"
the sacred writings of another religion.
noun: scriptures
From Oxford
Feedback

 

[Jackson123]

I think it's probably just as humans different parts of our personalities and fleshly nature sometimes get in the way of what the holy spirit is leading us to.

It you do believe purgatory teaching not lie don't you?

 

[Jackson123]

I think it's probably just as humans different parts of our personalities and fleshly nature sometimes get in the way of what the holy spirit is leading us to.

So you believe purgatory teaching is lead by Holy Spirit, or lie

 

[Whispered]

.
My eldest brother (for convenience sake, call him Larry) was ordained to the
priesthood in 1965 and remained so for 53 years prior to passing away at
the age of 78 in May of 2018.

Larry graduated from the Pontifical Gregorian University in Rome. He taught
at the University of San Diego and has served in parishes in San Diego,
Mexico, Portland, the Tohono O'odham Indian Reservation, and Huntington
Beach. Larry served as the Director of Pastoral Ministry and the first Rector
of the Conventual Church of Our Lady of the Angels at the Franciscan
Renewal Center, Scottsdale, Arizona.

In 1973, he served at University of San Diego as an Assistant Professor of
Religious Studies in the College of Arts and Sciences. Larry then served as
the University Chaplain and Director of Campus Ministry from September
1974 until June 1984.

Larry entered the Franciscan Order to become a Friar in 1987 after serving
as a priest of the Diocese of San Diego for 22 years. During his semi
retirement years, Larry, he was a priest at the Mission San Luis Rey in
Oceanside, California.

Supposing Rome's version of Christianity is mistaken? (This is only a
hypothetical question; I'm not alleging Rome is mistaken.) The ramifications
of that would be too awful to contemplate. It would mean that my deceased
brother is right now, this very moment, in Hell regardless of the quality and
the extent of his devotion to The Church. It would also mean that my
brother was a minister of darkness rather than light; thus everyone he
influenced was led down a path leading directly to the lake of brimstone
depicted at Rev 20:11-15 where they would be facing a mode of death akin
to a foundry worker falling into a kettle of molten iron.

I can only imagine the crushing, unspeakable dismay that my brother would
undergo were it to turn out that all the while he sincerely believed himself
serving Christ's best interests, he was actually serving the Devil's.

My deepest sympathies for the loss of your brother.
I think that this being a personal matter for you in that you lost your Catholic brother, maybe if you rest assured that God is merciful and knows the heart, will help.

No one comes to Jesus except the Father calls them. Your brother by your description of his devotion and credentials of study clearly loved God and felt called to faith in Christ.
People have varying opinions are regards the Roman Catholic church. Rather than wonder if the church could be wrong in its doctrine and therefore your brother shall suffer as one damned for being aligned with that church, I'd offer that you take comfort in knowing your brother dearly loved God. As your description of his faith and life implies.
And God being a merciful Father dearly loves your brother.
You will never know if the doctrine of the church would lend a different eternity for your brothers soul now that he's passed over. Please, I pray you, do not beat yourself up or let it distress you overmuch wondering if the doctrine could have damned your brother.
Rather, I pray you, cherish the comforting knowledge that your brothers love and devotion to God is a reflection of one who was called by the Father and who served in His guiding light.

God is greater than any denominational doctrine. God is mercy.
I pray for you and your peace of mind.

 

[Webers.Home]

.

My deepest sympathies for the loss of your brother. I pray for you and your peace of
mind.

Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts.
_