RCC Catechism Teaches that Man can become God

[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…

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?

[vladimir998]

As usual, an anti-Catholic, in this case RGS, stoops to quoteing out of context:

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.

Originally Posted by RGS

So Vlad, as the RCC catechsim states, do you expect to become God?

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.

[RGS]

Nothing was quoted out of context. You're not a god yet (and never will be), and just because you say it doesn't make it true. There's no need to quote that part of a text that is irrelevant to the discussion. It is irrelevant that Athanasius (and he is not a saint) was quoted. What is relevant is that the RCC teaches the same heresy that Athanasius taught. The three Scriptures quoted here do not teach that a man will become God. God has already spoken on this issue in numerous places, one of which is Isaiah 43:10 ..."before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

Conclusion is that the RCC is wrong, as are the health & wealthers, as is Athanasius, as is the LDS, as is Vlad. Men will not become God. Isaiah 48:11 ..."I will not give my glory unto another."

And thank you for quoting Athanasius, but why would anyone be interested in the ramblings of a heretic?

Originally Posted by vladimir998

author is "St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B."

"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)

[vladimir998]

RGS,

You wrote:

Originally Posted by RGS

Nothing was quoted out of context.

Yes, it was.

Originally Posted by RGS

You're not a god yet (and never will be), and just because you say it doesn't make it true.

1) What I say is much more likely to be true than what you say. That is for two reasons: 1) anti-Catholics are more likely to post falsehoods if it advances their cause, and 2) anti-Catholics are less likely to get things right because they care little about the truth.

Originally Posted by RGS

There's no need to quote that part of a text that is irrelevant to the discussion.

It is relevant. After all the rest of the context of that section and the other quotes from St. Athanasius show what he meant - and what he meant is NOT what you claim.

Originally Posted by RGS

It is irrelevant that Athanasius (and he is not a saint) was quoted.

1) It is VERY relevant that he was quoted. If he wasn't quoted then the quote would not have appeared at all.

2) He is a saint. He is perfected. You're not.

Originally Posted by RGS

What is relevant is that the RCC teaches the same heresy that Athanasius taught.

There was no heresy. There was only your dishonest attempt to twist what Athanasius clearly meant according to the context of his writings.

Originally Posted by RGS

The three Scriptures quoted here do not teach that a man will become God.

Neither did Athanasius - when you read what he wrote in the proper context.

Originally Posted by RGS

God has already spoken on this issue in numerous places, one of which is Isaiah 43:10 ..."before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."

And that has nothing to do with what we're talking about since St. Athanasius wasn't claiming what you falsely claim he did.

Originally Posted by RGS

Conclusion is that the RCC is wrong, as are the health & wealthers, as is Athanasius, as is the LDS, as is Vlad. Men will not become God. Isaiah 48:11 ..."I will not give my glory unto another."

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Your conclusion is meaningless. 1) You're objectively wrong as every scholar - including every Protestant scholar of any repute - knows. They know what St. Athanasius meant. 2) Anti-Catholics, who routinely post falsehoods and make ridiculous errors, are in no position to conclude anything about the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by RGS

And thank you for quoting Athanasius, but why would anyone be interested in the ramblings of a heretic?

Maybe that's why so few people take note of your posts?

[RGS]

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."

[tealblue]

John 10:34

15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
35
If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,

Scripture says you are gods but we all know thats not what it sounds like its saying. Same with the catechism. Why can't you just accept thats not what catholics teach? There is no record of that even being taught.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

Once again, it is irrelevant where the quote came from.

You're contradicting yourself. First, you said it mattered it was in the CCC, but now you say it doesn't matter where it came from. Where it came from determines its context and resolves the false issue you're making. Where it comes from means EVERYTHING.

Originally Posted by RGS

If it came from Athanasius, fine, if it came from Elvis Presley, so what?

That's an irrational statement. If Elvis, a Protestant with an enormous ego who was lauded as if he were a god, said this we would probably have reason to take it LITERALLY as he said it. He would know he was insane or ******, but we could take him literally. But a saint, who stoutly defended the doctrine of the Trinity his whole life, no, we would know better than to make the mistake you did. Context and origins matter.

If you were to say, "I believe the Bible is inspired" I would know that means a different thing from me saying, "I believe the Bible is inspired." We both believe it is inspired, but I believe that includes the Book of Judith and you don't. Context and origins matter. What you're doing now is what anti-Catholics do so often: They often make a claim, and when that claim is soundly destroyed, they start claiming that nothing really matters except the claim itself. The merits of the claim don't matter. The logic of the claim suddenly doesn't matter. The proof for the claim doesn't matter. Only the claim - no matter how *****ic it is - matters to the anti-Catholic.

Originally Posted by RGS

The simple fact is that the RCC uses this information and quite clearly states the following in their catechism:

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.
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.

Where are the quote marks? Seriously, why do you post it without the quote marks? Can't you even be honest with what you post? This is actually how it reads:

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 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."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

Originally Posted by RGS

Two times in the same paragraph, the RCC catechism very plainly states that men can become either God or a god.

Nope. Only an anti-Catholic would say that's what the p***age actually means. That's why this statement comes first: "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"

The Church sees the later two statements THROUGH the first one and knows the context of all the statements in the paragraph. You clearly either do not know the context or just don't care to admit it because it would destroy your anti-Catholic fantasy.

Originally Posted by RGS

Now, if that is not what was meant, then why is it written as such?

Because it was written for intelligent, educated men who would know the context of the p***ages. How do I know? Read the preface! John Paul II wrote: "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and ***ist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine."

Thus, it was expected that the CCC would be used to formulate regional catechisms so the CCC is more like a content resource that is supposed to be used by already educated and catechized people as a resource. Although it can be used in ecumenical efforts, that too implies dealing with educated people of other faiths. What it does not imply is that the CCC is to be taken out of context or taken hyper-literally by anti-Catholics who are often poorly educated and poorly read when the early Church Fathers are quoted. And that's what happened here in this thread.

Originally Posted by RGS

Those who write and then later claim that what I wrote is not wha I meant, have no leg to stand upon.

Those who quote an early Church father out of context don't even have a stump to stand on.

Originally Posted by RGS

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.

Nope. Just the usual anti-Catholic failure to know what he was talking about. As I already showed with multiple quotes from St. Athanasius, you clearly do not understand him. And most likely you don't WANT to understand him.

Originally Posted by RGS

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.

Because I actually know what I am talking about. Your problem is that you don't. Anyone who has ever studied the Early Church Fathers knows what St. Athanasius meant because he talked about it a number of times. We all know that St. Athanasius believed in EXACTLY ONE GOD - the Trinity. Thus, there's no way he believed in a literal deification of men so that they actually became gods like God. Such a thing was impossible according to St. Athanasius' belief system. Yet any well catechized Catholic or Orthodox instantly knows what he meant. St. Athanasius mean that we become - through the power of God in Heaven - purified and glorified beings. So pure and so glorified compared to our old earth bound selves that we would appear like gods to people here now. See 2 Peter 1:4-11 if you don't believe me.

Originally Posted by RGS

"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."

Christ meant it literally. And people knew it and they left Him. And He let them go.

http://matt1618.freeyellow.com/sacrifice.html

[RGS]

So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?

Originally Posted by tealblue

John 10:34

15 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'?
35
If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside,

Scripture says you are gods but we all know thats not what it sounds like its saying. Same with the catechism. Why can't you just accept thats not what catholics teach? There is no record of that even being taught.

[RGS]

Thanks Vlad for pointing out the confusion of RCC teaching as only you can: "Because it was written for intelligent, educated men who would know the context of the p***ages. How do I know? Read the preface! John Paul II wrote: "This catechism is not intended to replace the local catechisms duly approved by the ecclesiastical authorities, the diocesan Bishops and the Episcopal Conferences, especially if they have been approved by the Apostolic See. It is meant to encourage and ***ist in the writing of new local catechisms, which take into account various situations and cultures, while carefully preserving the unity of faith and fidelity to catholic doctrine." In other words, the RCC can teach contradictory things from multiple authorities any time and any place it wants to. In fact, truth changes when it is convenient to change. The Scriptures however, do not change, and can be relied upon.

By the way, when you attempt to critique by referring to "intelligent, educated" men, it doesn't speak well of someone like you that thinks Elvis is a center of discussion. It's obvious that you have some issues that can't be solved here, and grasping valid thoughts and expressions from written materials is also obviously a challenge that you have not grasped. But of course you do understand, your purpose it to avoid valid discussions by infusing constant confusion.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?

Because they are proof of the first quote in the CCC paragraph. We share in God's divine nature. He shares Himself with us as a gift.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

Thanks Vlad for pointing out the confusion of RCC teaching as only you can:

You're the one confused. You're also the one who doesn't understand what you're talking about. YOU.

Originally Posted by RGS

In other words, the RCC can teach contradictory things from multiple authorities any time and any place it wants to.

Nope. It means you are simply not intelligent of knowledgeable enough to understand - which is clear from your repeated posts in which you demonstrate that you have no idea of what you're talking about. You don't care about the context of the quotes. You don't care about what they mean. And you failed terribly to prove they meant differently than what the context showed they meant.

Originally Posted by RGS

In fact, truth changes when it is convenient to change. The Scriptures however, do not change, and can be relied upon.

Nope. The truth doesn't change - just as the truth of St. Athanasius' quote never changed and only poorly educated and poorly catechized people misunderstand him.

Originally Posted by RGS

By the way, when you attempt to critique by referring to "intelligent, educated" men, it doesn't speak well of someone like you that thinks Elvis is a center of discussion.

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.

Originally Posted by RGS

It's obvious that you have some issues that can't be solved here,

No, what's obvious here is that you lost this debate after the first response posts from me. You had no idea about what you were posting. you compounded that problem after that.

Originally Posted by RGS

and grasping valid thoughts and expressions from written materials is also obviously a challenge that you have not grasped.

That's hilarious coming from you since you're the only one at fault here in understanding written documents! Notice I also posted evidence (I was the only one who did so) that proved the original context and meaning of St. Athanasius' statement. And everyone lurking here knows it too. The only ones who would disagree are other anti-Catholics.

Originally Posted by RGS

But of course you do understand, your purpose it to avoid valid discussions by infusing constant confusion.

Since I am the only one who posted other quotes from St. Athanasius which proved you wrong and other quotes from the Fathers, from scripture, and so one which explain the quote in question, I clearly am the only one here making any attempt as a 'valid discussion'. Run away, RGS. Everyone here know you lost this argument. You're just desperate to get out of the thread. Everybody know that too.

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

So, if men becoming gods or God is not being taught in the catechism, why are those plain statements in there?

What if someone reads the bible and says that according to john 10 that we are gods then how do you respond? Because if you read it sounds like Jesus is saying we are Gods. There are alot of what looks like contradictions in scripture but we explanations for them. So how come you can't accept the explanation thats given to you? I mean the Nicene creed is clear about being one God.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

What if someone reads the bible and says that according to john 10 that we are gods then how do you respond? Because if you read it sounds like Jesus is saying we are Gods. There are alot of what looks like contradictions in scripture but we explanations for them. So how come you can't accept the explanation thats given to you? I mean the Nicene creed is clear about being one God.

John 10:34-38 is a rebuke to the Jews that were preparing to murder Christ right there on the spot. The first part of the rebuke is that they did not understand the Scriptures, because even though it is written "Ye are gods," if one reads the Scripture in its original context (Psalms 82) it is clear that those "gods" were merely men. These men were unable to respond to what Christ said, because they did not have the knowledge to respond with the proper response, they only had murder in their hearts and wanted to kill God. The second part of the rebuke is that these Jews did not recognize Him or believe in Him, even with all the miracles He had performed. The Kingdom of God had come to them and they did not know it and had no excuse for not knowing.

The Scriptures are clear about there being only one God. The Nicene Creed breaks down when it speaks about the "apostolic Church". The word "Church" means one thing to an RC, but it means something entirely different to a Christian. The Nicene Creed teaches one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but the Bible does not teaches that baptism can forgive sins. The RCC catechism is not clear. I will defend the Scriptures, but it is not my *** to defend the Nicene Creed nor the catechism nor any organization that may or may not call itself a church. If the catechism were true to the Scriptures I would not have a problem with it. Surely you must frequently see the contradictions in the RCC, why is that not disturbing to you? God is not the author of confusion. The RCC is the author of confusion.

[RGS]

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.

[vladimir998]

RGS,

You wrote:

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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.

[RGS]

Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.

[vladimir998]

Originally Posted by RGS

Vlad still thinks that this thread is about Elvis.

No, I think this thread - by default - has become about your errors because that's all we've seen so far.

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

John 10:34-38 is a rebuke to the Jews that were preparing to murder Christ right there on the spot. The first part of the rebuke is that they did not understand the Scriptures, because even though it is written "Ye are gods," if one reads the Scripture in its original context (Psalms 82) it is clear that those "gods" were merely men. These men were unable to respond to what Christ said, because they did not have the knowledge to respond with the proper response, they only had murder in their hearts and wanted to kill God. The second part of the rebuke is that these Jews did not recognize Him or believe in Him, even with all the miracles He had performed. The Kingdom of God had come to them and they did not know it and had no excuse for not knowing.

The Scriptures are clear about there being only one God. The Nicene Creed breaks down when it speaks about the "apostolic Church". The word "Church" means one thing to an RC, but it means something entirely different to a Christian. The Nicene Creed teaches one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, but the Bible does not teaches that baptism can forgive sins. The RCC catechism is not clear. I will defend the Scriptures, but it is not my *** to defend the Nicene Creed nor the catechism nor any organization that may or may not call itself a church. If the catechism were true to the Scriptures I would not have a problem with it. Surely you must frequently see the contradictions in the RCC, why is that not disturbing to you? God is not the author of confusion. The RCC is the author of confusion.

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."

[RGS]

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.

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."

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

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.

Ok what about truth? Who's truth are we talking about? Every single person who picks up a bible comes up with a different conclusion about what it all means. And yes including me. Yes the bible is inerrant but not the reader. You now how many people have told me that they are right because they have the holy spirit guiding them? And then I hear that we mostly agree on the essentials. So does the holy spirit only guide on the essentials. Jesus was very specific we are to have one faith and one baptism. Jesus also commanded the apostles to preach the nations. Throughout the roman empire and the east you have the Catholic church and no one else till the 16the century.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

Ok what about truth? Who's truth are we talking about? Every single person who picks up a bible comes up with a different conclusion about what it all means. And yes including me. Yes the bible is inerrant but not the reader. You now how many people have told me that they are right because they have the holy spirit guiding them? And then I hear that we mostly agree on the essentials. So does the holy spirit only guide on the essentials. Jesus was very specific we are to have one faith and one baptism. Jesus also commanded the apostles to preach the nations. Throughout the roman empire and the east you have the Catholic church and no one else till the 16the century.

Let's give it a try. Let me guide you through something that is easy to understand, and move from there into something that requires more thought and study. Please read these Scriptures from John 6 KJV:

22The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

23(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks

24When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

I think you will agree with me. These Scriptures are very easy to understand. Namely, a group of people were looking for Jesus and they found Him. If you go further back into the chapter, you will see that this group of people were the ones that Jesus did His miracles in front of the day before by multiplying loaves of bread and feeding them.

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Now there is a lot of action in verse 26. First, Jesus didn't answer their question. Because He had performed a miracle (walking on water) just to get where He was. And he pointed out to this group: "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles." So, why should He tell them the answer to their question - which involved another miracle - when they were not interested in the previous miracles they had witnessed? Jesus further said, you are only here looking for Me because you are hungry and want more free food.

I'll wait to see if you are still with me, before I proceed.

RGS

[tealblue]

Originally Posted by RGS

Let's give it a try. Let me guide you through something that is easy to understand, and move from there into something that requires more thought and study. Please read these Scriptures from John 6 KJV:

22The day following, when the people which stood on the other side of the sea saw that there was none other boat there, save that one whereinto his disciples were entered, and that Jesus went not with his disciples into the boat, but that his disciples were gone away alone;

23(Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks

24When the people therefore saw that Jesus was not there, neither his disciples, they also took shipping, and came to Capernaum, seeking for Jesus.

25And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?

I think you will agree with me. These Scriptures are very easy to understand. Namely, a group of people were looking for Jesus and they found Him. If you go further back into the chapter, you will see that this group of people were the ones that Jesus did His miracles in front of the day before by multiplying loaves of bread and feeding them.

26Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

Now there is a lot of action in verse 26. First, Jesus didn't answer their question. Because He had performed a miracle (walking on water) just to get where He was. And he pointed out to this group: "Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles." So, why should He tell them the answer to their question - which involved another miracle - when they were not interested in the previous miracles they had witnessed? Jesus further said, you are only here looking for Me because you are hungry and want more free food.

I'll wait to see if you are still with me, before I proceed.

RGS

I'm perfectly with you on this one. Jesus didn't answer them basicaly because they were seeking only physical food to physicaly eat and were not interested in miracles.

I think I know where you are going with this but I will let you continue.

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

I'm perfectly with you on this one. Jesus didn't answer them basicaly because they were seeking only physical food to physicaly eat and were not interested in miracles.

I think I know where you are going with this but I will let you continue.

Thanks for sticking with this for now. I'm in no hurry to get anywhere though. It's the trip to get there that brings out so much good oil. The happy face at the end of verse 23 was not my doing. A happy face is a colon with an end parenthesis. That is what was at the end of verse 23, and the program on this site converted that to a happy face.

Next is verse 27.

27Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.

In verse 26, having refused to answer their question, Jesus then chastised them for not desiring to know Him because of His miracles. Now in verse 27, He gives them some sound advice. In other words, don't come to Me to gain food (bread and fish in this case) that will perish. What you really need is food that will endure to eternal life. Well, there is no physical food that will endure to eternal life, so He must be speaking of something spiritual. Since He is making the ****ogy of meat/food with something spiritual, then He is describing something spiritual that is consumed. Since it is not physical food that is consumed, but spiritual food, then it cannot be consumed in the stomach. It is consumed in your mind, soul, and spirit after entering through your ears or eyes (if one reads it). Then He goes onto explaining where this spiritual food will come from. After all, they haven't a clue where to get spiritual food. Physical food they can grow or hunt, but where do they get spiritual food? He tells them that the Son of man can give spiritual food to them. Then He tells them the qualifications that the Son of man has: "for Him hath God the Father sealed." Those qualifications are that the Son of man is chosen and sealed already; He has a mark of approval; He has a mark of authority; He has a mark of righteousness. One could go much further with all the meanings of this sealing: for example, if He is sealed by God the Father then He is also sealed by the Holy Spirit. God's seal cannot be broken. He is totally living under the protection of the Holy Spirit.

Now He has their attention a little. But their focus is still not where it should be. This is revealed by what they say in verse 30, but we are not there yet.

28Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

29Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Now for their question in verse 28, Jesus gave them the answer they needed in verse 29.

30They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?

Now verse 30 reveals all kinds of things going on. First, they do confirm that they understood that when He said, "believe on him whom he hath sent" and when He said, "the Son of man", they understood that He was talking about Himself. Because they asked Him to prove Himself: give us a sign and show us your work?

At this point, you and I as the readers should be incredulous. What do they mean, are they so dull, why do they need a sign? Why do they need to see Him work or understand His work? Did they forget in less than one day? Don't they remember the multiplied loaves and fish? It's like, duh? Where were they when all of those miracles were going on? Were they napping, and their wife woke them up with a lap full of bread and fish, and they missed the whole miracle? One would not think so. They were obviously spiritually blinded. They did not have hears to hear nor eyes to see. These same people could read these same Scriptures right here and now and would not understand them any more now, than they did then. God can and does give spiritual blindness to those that refuse the truth. And He does this when He wants to bring judgment on someone.

I'll continue on after you let me know that you're still with me up to this point. If you have any questions, let me know. But, please, let's not jump ahead. There is too much to savor in the journey, we don't want to miss any of it.

RGS

[tealblue]

This is basicaly where our differences start to show in verse 27. Jesus is comparing meat that fills us physically to meat that fills us spiritually. Some versions say meat and some say food. Either way the ***umption is that the word meat or food symbolizes a spiritual ONLY meaning. In our view Jesus is talking of a both physical and spiritual food. He says in verse 27 that this food is something that he will give us.(meaning he hasn't given us yet)

[RGS]

Originally Posted by tealblue

This is basicaly where our differences start to show in verse 27. Jesus is comparing meat that fills us physically to meat that fills us spiritually.

Agreed.

[/QUOTE] Some versions say meat and some say food.[/QUOTE]

No problem.


[/QUOTE] Either way the ***umption is that the word meat or food symbolizes a spiritual ONLY meaning.[/QUOTE]

How can this be an ***umption? He clearly stated, do not work for food that perishes. After making a preparatory statement like that, is He then going to turn around and offer food that perishes in place of the food that perishes? This is a total contradiction. Why would God contradict Himself?





[/QUOTE]In our view Jesus is talking of a both physical and spiritual food. He says in verse 27 that this food is something that he will give us.(meaning he hasn't given us yet)[/QUOTE]

How can you have a "view"? Taking the conversation at face value, with the information that has been given up to this point, how can you draw the conclusion that He is contradicting Himself by saying don't work for physical food, but BTW I'm going to give you physical food that I just told you not to work for? If these are the rules of conversation, then why converse? All one has to do is say two contradictory things in the same sentence and then no matter what the listener hears, you can tell him he didn't hear correctly. By definition this is not conversation nor the purpose of conversation. By definition this is called confusion. What say you?