RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
…For the Son of God became man so that we might become God…
Vlad's post of 12/27/09. Under the Thread "RCC Indulgences", Principle 3, 9th paragraph down, it states: As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock, points out in a privately circulated paper, the idea that all temporal penalties vanish when one is forgiven "is the error at the heart of the 'health and wealth gospel,' vis., 'Jesus took my poverty and sickness away, so I should be well and rich.'"
I think it is interesting that the 'health and wealthers' are in agreement with the RCC Catechism. They too believe that they will become God. The LDS believe this too.
So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?
:eek:
Typical Protestant lack of knowledge
As usual, an anti-Catholic, in this case RGS, stoops to quoteing out of context:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
…For the Son of God became man so that we might become God…:
That, of course, is NOT what the p***age actually says. This is:
460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 [COLOR="Red"]"For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."[/COLOR]80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
Note that RGS was not honest enough to inform people that he was not only taking a p***age out of context but that he was posting a quote without quote marks or attribution. If you were to look at the footnote, you would see the author is "St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B."
And, of course, when properly understood, Athanasius was absolutely correct. Look at scripture:
"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is." (1 John 3:2 ).
"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God; and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:16-17).
"And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit." (2 Corinthians 3:18)
Thus, Athanasius was right, the Catechism is right, and RGS is wrong. RGS denies scripture. The Church does not.
And Athanasius certainly was not alone among early Christians. Clement of Alexandria wrote, "the Logos of God had become man so that you might learn from a man how a man may become God.'' (Prot 1.8.4)
Athanasius said the same thing in several ways:
"The Word became man so that we might be deified.'' (De inc 54.3).
"The Word became flesh in order...that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified.'' (De Decret 14)
"The Word of God...took a human body for the salvation and well-being of man, that having shared in human birth He might make man partake in the divine and spiritual nature.'' (Vita Ant 74)
"He himself has made us sons to the Father, and deified man, having become man himself.... Being God, he later became man, that instead he might deify us.'' (Orat 1.38-39)
"Being God, He [the Son] has taken to Him the flesh, and being in the flesh deifies the flesh.... If that He might redeem mankind, the Word did come among us; and that He might hallow and deify them, the Word became flesh.'' (Orat 3.38)
"The Son of God became man so as to deify us in Himself.'' (Ad Adelph 4)
RGS is not done spreading error, however:
"I think it is interesting that the 'health and wealthers' are in agreement with the RCC Catechism."
First of all, aren't you? Do you believe in the Trinity? If you do, then you are in agreement with Catechism. Do you believe in the Resurrection? Then you are in agreement with Catechism. Thus, your point is meaningless. It is rendered especially meaningless, however, by your own inability to actually read the posted p***age. Nowhere in the following quote does Akin or Greg Krehbiel say that the Health and Wealth Protestant sectarians agree with the Catechism on any specific point at all! Greg Krehbiel is actually CRITICIZING tyour Health and Wealth heretics for NOT BELIEVING what Catholics believe. If you don't believe me, look at what you posted again:
"Vlad's post of 12/27/09. Under the Thread "RCC Indulgences", Principle 3, 9th paragraph down, it states: As Greg Krehbiel, a Protestant who has written for This Rock, points out in a privately circulated paper, the idea that all temporal penalties vanish when one is forgiven "is the error at the heart of the 'health and wealth gospel,' vis., 'Jesus took my poverty and sickness away, so I should be well and rich.'"
Greg Krehbiel is attacking what THEY BELIEVE. He is NOT saying they believe what the Catechism teaches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?
:eek:
No, I expect exactly what was always taught in Scripture and the Fathers as it is properly understood - you know, by people who can actually read a p***age rather than get it completely wrong like you just did.
Out of Context is an old RCC Trick :D
Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from. If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what? The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:
Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part 1, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 3, Paragraph 1, I. Why Did the Word Become Flesh?, #460
For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.
The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, ***umed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.
Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god. Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such? Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not what I meant, have no leg to stand upon. Duh, let's see, how does the jingle go: I know you believe you understood what you thought I said but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. RCC double talk.
But, Vlad, this brings up a very interesting comparison. You claim I am taking these plain statements out of context, therefore, these statements do not mean what they plainly say. If this is so, then why do you take two statements out of context and claim they mean exacting what they say in the physical, when in context they do not mean a eucharist at all? Namely John 6:55-56
"For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him."
Vlad Still Thinks That Elvis is part of this Discussion
Quote:
Originally Posted by
vladimir998
Uh, RGS, YOU brought up Elvis. Not me. The fact that you brought him up in a discussion of "intelligent, educated" men speaks volumes about how you think.
No Vlad, you are the one who introduced Elvis into the conversation, not me. I injected a pseudonym. I could have used Superman, Donald Duck, John Paul, or George Washington, etc. I chose to use the name of Elvis. A reasonable person can clearly see that. You are the one who introduced the person and personality of Elvis - as if that had some relevance to the discussion - not me.
In the end, anti-Catholics resort to games like this
RGS,
You wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
No Vlad, you are the one who introduced Elvis into the conversation, not me.
Nope. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST. You posted this in number 5:
"If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what?"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
I injected a pseudonym.
No. A pseudonym is an alias, a fic***ious name created to hide someone's iden***y. Who's iden***y were you protecting by saying 'Elvis' instead? Your excuse is pathetic. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
I could have used Superman, Donald Duck, John Paul, or George Washington, etc. I chose to use the name of Elvis.
Right. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
A reasonable person can clearly see that.
I, and everyone else here, clearly sees that YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
You are the one who introduced the person and personality of Elvis - as if that had some relevance to the discussion - not me.
Nope. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Your excuses are lame. YOU brought up Elvis. It's in your post FIRST.
Don't deny it. Be honest instead. Try.
Vlad Still Thinks That This Thread Is About Elvis
Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.:eek:
RGS posts error after error
Quote:
Originally Posted by
RGS
Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.:eek:
No, I think this thread - by default - has become about your errors because that's all we've seen so far.
Who Are The 35000 - Revelation 17:5
Men and their fleshly ideas about Scripture has created multiple denominations. The Scriptures are written so that those without ears to hear, cannot hear. I do not ascribe to any denomination, so I have no need to defend their existence. Bodily baptism saves no one. This is an ungodly teaching. It is a focus on fleshly actions and practises. One, of many, problems with pagan religions and many of these 35000 you speak of, is that they have no discernment to separate the physical from the spiritual. This is why the RCC is so focused on sacraments. They are taught that their physical actions will gain an advantage for them. Your switch from what you call your protestant roots to the RCC was just another physical action - it is of no value. You merely went from the frying pan to the fire. I pray that you will break the chains of all men's religions and be truly free in Christ.
I have been a Catholic. That was easy to walk away from - boring, dry, and spiritually dead. I didn't understand how dangerous the RCC was to men's souls and the world until a decade later when I met Christ. The eucharist is the centerpiece of deception. If ones buys into that horrendous lie, then they have entered into a mindtrap that is almost impossible to get free from. But Christ can deliver anyone from any situation.
I would tell you more, but it will do little good unless you are interested in truth and have fallen in love with Christ. The Christ of the Bible and of history, not the false Catholic Jesus. Trinity is an example of total falsehood. He considers it embarr***ing and beneath him to express love for not only Christ but even for his Catholic Jesus. Christ said He wished that you were either hot or cold, but the lukewarm will He spew out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tealblue
So scripture is so clear that man has created 35000 denominations. I'm sure the Catecism is very hard to understand for you because you are not Catholic. I totally understand. The only point I was trying to make is just because you don't understand it doesn't mean there is not an explanation to why it reads the way it does. Anyway the bible does teach Baptism forgives sins because it specifically says "This baptism now saves you."