>the reverence given to the object passes to the prototype
It's pretty funny how you just abandoned this thread after getting completely obliterated on the law.https://desuarchive.org/his/thread/18515636You're so focused on mocking the body of Christ crucified in the world that you have forgotten to glorify God.Work on that. Yours is clearly a spirit of enmity, not charity.
>>18533338>don't follow in the example of jesus christ and throw the moneychangers out of the temple>show charity not enmityuh.. that sounds like something a demon would say
>>18533338>It's pretty funny how you just abandoned this thread after getting completely obliterated on the law.I'm not clicking on that.I prefer not to hold grudges. I'm not sure what you're alluding to about the Law.There was only ever one Law of Works and one Law of Faith, and these are unmixed in regards to salvation. Any supposed Law of Works cannot save you. You will never measure up to God's perfection.It is only once someone is saved, regenerate, and IN Jesus Christ can their works count towards their standing with God, but their works don't save them. If they work not at all, they will still be saved, but they will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven. >For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.>Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;>Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.>If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.>If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.And of course I have enmity with the World. What a silly conniption. If I did not have enmity with the world then I could never have friendship with God. All this is beside the point that Catholicism is corrupt tree. Every tree brings forth after its own kind. Therefore we see if there is an antichrist of a Pope, then Catholicism is an antichrist religion. Or else the tree is a different kind than its fruit, which is nonsensical.
>>18533023why are you upset that Catholics believe we worship the same God?
>>18533495The Catholic Church peddles patent falsities. Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe. Ergo, all who deny that Jesus Christ is God have not the same God as a Christian. >Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.You cannot have corrupt fruit from a good tree. Whatever tree the "Roman Catholic Church is", it has been corrupt since it split off from the Good Vine.
>>18533377You are clearly not walking with Christ in good faith.I don't think I've seen you doing anything here but mock and slander his church for months.The affect is so unchristian that I struggle to fathom how you could ever think you really belong to him.What happened to make you so desperate to attack the Catholic church rather than proclaim his death?Anyways if the last thread I linked to ITT is anything to go on your spiteful cringe crusade against the hecking papists is negatively affecting your formation, that is to say your religious comprehension and ability to discern core tenets of the faith.Like, you simply don't understand the law and what Christ said about it. Specifically concerning divorce, the law given to Moses for the children of Israel is *not* how things were in the beginning, bit represent God condescending to them due to their hardness of heart. If I had to guess you still believe something akin to total depravity despite rejecting original sin on baseless grounds. I've seen much better arguments against original sin than anything you have forwarded. David's first son with Bathsheba was destroyed by God because of David's sin, which according to you is something God simply wouldn't do. That fact isn't exactly advanced Bible study material, which makes me wonder about who exactly is teaching you this stuff.Come back when you're have the humility to admit you are demonstrably mistaken, instead of slinking away unmanfully.
>>18533508I don't have anything against them in particular so I won't comment on that. I personally believe they do a lot of good in many places. That being said your logic does not follow. Let's say someone writes about you a biography and someone else writes about you the same thing but then adds that you converted to Catholicism at the end. Are these two works referring to the same subject (You)?
>>18533516>Let's say someone writes about you a biography and someone else writes about you the same thing but then adds that you converted to Catholicism at the end. Are these two works referring to the same subject (You)?If one of these "biographies" was a lie, then one of them would not be referring to me, but a lie about me. And certainly if someone acknowledges the lie as truth, they are either deceived, or a liar themselves.
>>18533520>would not be referring to me, but a lie about meHow can it be a lie about you when you just said it's not referring to you in the first place? That just doesn't make sense. Why can't you just say that they both refer to you but one has a lie in addition?
>>18533525I hope you're trolling because this is pretty funny. Here are two antichrists pogging out over their minifig,
>>18533483>I prefer not to hold grudges.Really? Because it's manifestly obvious that you are perpetuating a grudge with the Catholic church constantly.You aren't willing to look at your past mistakes and actually reckon with them out of shame."The LAW is the LAW is the LAW." That is what you said. Well Jesus seems to disagree with you concerning marriage. His kind of marriage is actually different than the kind the Israelites had.>fruitand what exactly is the fruit of your tree other than endless division and even antinomianismas the Lord said, those who do not gather with me scatter abroad
>>18533538>and what exactly is the fruit of your treeThe fruit is doctrine. The parable is about false prophets. Jesus Christ is a Vine, and the bad branches he prunes off of himself. >Well Jesus seems to disagree with you concerning marriage. His kind of marriage is actually different than the kind the Israelites had.It's not different at all. Jesus Christ reiterates "save for the cause of fornication." Which is the same Law Moses gave to the children of Israel. It is the traditions of men which perverted this Law into being "for any cause." This is not Moses' doing, nor the Lord's, but the tradition of men.
>>18533527Partially, but I still want to know your reasoning. Okay let's try this way. Given the fact that Jesus identifies the Jews as knowing what they worship John 4:22 Before the incarnation did the Jews believe that Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe? If no then that means you identify your God to be the same God they have which did not include Jesus Christ in the godhead. If yes then that is impossible since the Son only became Jesus after he took on a human nature and was birthed by the virgin Mary.
>>18533546>Before the incarnation did the Jews believe that Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe?Jesus does not say this prior to the incarnation, obviously.However, before then, NO, one did not have to know the name "Jesus Christ" to be saved. One DID, however, have to put his faith and trust in the LORD, calling on him in humility. We see the very example in the story of the publican praying "God be merciful to me a sinner." Among the Jews prior to the incarnation, there was a faithful remnant who had saving faith in the LORD. When Jesus came, they immediately believed on him, knowing him to be the very Christ, because the Holy Ghost working in their hearts, without dissimulation, confirmed within them that the God of the Universe which they worshiped was the very same Jesus Christ they met and heard preached. John the Baptist as well preached boldly of Jesus Christ, and putting faith in him. Those who "believed John's baptism" believed on Jesus Christ.
>>18533554>Jesus does not say this prior to the incarnation, obviously.>However, before then, NO, one did not have to know the name "Jesus Christ" to be savedOkay so them not believing the statement "Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe" does not prevent you from identifying the God they worshiped with the God you worship. Meaning it's not a sufficient cause for you to reject the Catholic reasoning here regarding our common belief in the same God>One DID, however, have to put his faith and trust in the LORD, calling on him in humility. We do this now! Also if by the capitalized LORD you mean YHWH as the NIV bible does. Then Abraham was also not aware of this name but surely you don't believe he worshiped another God than you do
>>18533566>Okay so them not believing the statement "Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe" does not prevent you from identifying the God they worshiped with the God you worship. Meaning it's not a sufficient cause for you to reject the Catholic reasoning here regarding our common belief in the same GodIt is implicit that every true believer who ever lived believed in Jesus Christ.Secondarily, Muslims are not without excuse, especially when they visit nominally Christian holy men, who SHOULD be expounding the scriptures to them, and proving Jesus Christ to be God.Thirdly, there is no Muslim alive who does not know that Christians purport Jesus Christ to be God. Refutation of Christianity is written in the very Quran.
>>18533542>the fruit is doctrinewhich parable are you referring to exactly, there are a few which draw upon this imagery the fruit I know of is repentance, forgiveness and acts of love, faithdoctrines are of the letter of the law, not it's spiritanyone can understand and reiterate certain doctrines without necessarily believing in them and putting them into practice in their lives, because that is an intellectual exerciseyou cannot directly identify doctrine with faith, that's a mistake because someone can in fact possess correct doctrine but themselves be faithless to itfor example, the Pharisees taught doctrines and did not themselves uphold themmaking them hypocritical >not different at allJesus would beg to differ.He says explicitly that from the beginning it was not so. But because of the hardness of their hearts, Moses allowed them to put away their wives.Reread Deuteronomy 24, I just checked and it's clear to me that this law allows divorce simply because a husband is not satisfied with his wife.If what you say is true, Jesus' teaching on this matter is nonsensical and his reprimand means nothing at all. Clearly, this is not so.
>>18533578>because he hath found some uncleanness in herThis was always to mean "fornication"Jesus was reprimanding the pharisees for ignoring Genesis, that a man and wife are to be one flesh, by command of God. Fornication is to make oneself the flesh of another, as Paul writes. >the fruit I know of is repentance, forgiveness and acts of love, faithdoctrines are of the letter of the law, not it's spiritthis is unfortunately not what the parable is about.>Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.>Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?...>A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit^^^Being the most important point. A prophet does not bring forth devilish fruits, such as kissing the blasphemous book of lies known as the Quran. Nor does he have fellowship with abject blasphemers such as Mormons. No, we are commanded to not even bid them godspeed. And Christ, when he himself was accused of being a false prophet said thus>Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.The tree is not a little good or a little bad. It is either good or bad. And if it's bad, we see that Christ is very willing to "remove the candlestick" of the church (or to prune and burn that false prophet) "from out of its place"
>>18533567>It is implicit that every true believer who ever lived believed in Jesus Christ.Are you saying every true believer knew who Jesus Christ was before the incarnation so they could believe in this future man from their perspective? If you're just going to say they knew of the Messiah well that's not saying much because the early Jewish conception is radically different from the Christian one and ours is way closer.>without excuseThat's not relevant the question here is about the identity of God. And as we have established not believing the statement "Jesus Christ is the God of the Universe" is not grounds for you to claim a different identity. It doesn't matter what is the reason that claim is being rejected, it could be ignorance like the early Jews or whatever else. What's your take though on modern believers in the Torah/OT who deny Jesus being God? Who else can they be possibly identifying as God beside the same God the Israelites worshiped?
>>18533596>Who else can they be possibly identifying as God beside the same God the Israelites worshiped?At best, a god of their own imagination.We see the Ethiopian Eunuch reading the prophets, an Old Testament believer in truth. He believes the prophets. As soon as Jesus Christ is expounded to him, he understands, and believes Jesus Christ to be the Son of God. Apollos is another example.
>>18533600>Ethiopian Eunuch reading the prophets, an Old Testament believer in truth. He believes the prophets.Okay before knowing of Jesus Christ he clearly had some idea of God that wasn't just out of his own imagination but rather out of scripture like modern Jews do. Did he in this state believe in the same God as you do?
>>18533585>This was always to mean "fornication"That does not follow from what Jesus says.Because he says, from the beginning this was not so. There is a big-time disconnect there you're not discerning. Jesus himself in no uncertain terms is immediately contradicting your thesis.Anyways, if the fruit were doctrine, then the Pharisees would have been in good standing.As Jesus said, to do as they say but not as they do. This means, they were teaching at least some doctrines that were correct. But they weren't *living* by them. That's what Christians are supposed to do, set an example to the world of Christ's own life in them. City upon a hill, etc. It's a public and visible calling.Clearly then doctrine alone cannot be identified with the fruit of his kingdom, of which he said it would be taken from these people in that Temple and given to a nation (ethnei, literally gentiles) bearing fruit thereof.If one's righteousness does not exceed that of the Pharisees, who were hypocrites, this one will in no wise inherit what he promised. Jesus' perfect law is better and more strident than that of Moses, which was just a shadow of what was to come. The law of Moses punished murder and adultery, Jesus' law forbids even hateful thoughts and lustful stares.His perfect sacrifice too is inestimably better than the sacrifices of Moses, which were a shadow of things to come.Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.What is mercy except a work? How are you supposed to be merciful without acts of charity and forgiveness?
>>18533608He was not modern. And did not have modern beliefs. The concept which I am explaining is not difficult. There are biblical examples I have shown. Look to them.
>>18533611>He was not modern.This sounds like special pleading honestly. What does him being modern or not have to do with it? Let's say there was a Jewish man in a remote village today, he's completely in love with the Torah, Prophets, etc. But has never even heard of Jesus, like the Ethiopian Eunuch. How can the fact that he exists today have any bearing on which God he worships?
>>18533612Look man, I want to interject here.I'm someone who has distinctly modern ideas about who may be saved. But the over eager ecumenism of the conciliar Catholic church takes things too far, and actually does a disservice to these people of other religions by advocating a kind of perennialism which actually has it's roots in occult circles.The Muslims explicitly deny that Jesus is God. As do the Jews.In what sense can it be said that we worship the same God?No, the religion of Judaism and Islam are not the way Jesus spoke of.They might know *of* the Father, but they do not truly know him because Jesus and his Father are one.Their adherents may be saved, but it is *despite* their religion rather than because of it.If they are saved, it's because they lived out the commands of Jesus. To forgive, love, to care for the poor and forgotten. They listened to that aspect of the Logos they were created with, which is Jesus' voice. They loved the truth, went unrecognized by the world.It is for this reason that I do not despair for those who have never heard the gospel, or the name of Christ, or knew his church, outside the sadness I feel that they never had the same opportunity I did.It is this opportunity I have that reminds me that the weight of judgement is heavier on me then them. Because I came to knowledge of the truth, to whom much is given much more is required.Verily, as the Lord said; if I had not told them, there would be no sin. And yet because I told them, they have no more cloak for their sin.Like the beloved disciple who lost his clothes in flight from the soldiers during the episode in the garden, and Johnathan before David, we are naked before Christ.To shed these ragged garments of sin, and be clothed anew in fitted robes of white prepared for us.
>>18533023Couldn't you figure this out by double-clicking an icon and opening a program instead?
>>18533023Holy... I didn't know this Pope was that based.Well... Actually I did know. Great Pope!
Let me try and explain how out of his depth Solitaire really is here.Muslims, nominally at least, do not think of the Koran as an idol.Or even an icon, that is an image.Even though they consider it to be coeternal with God, somehow for reasons it is not his image.His terms would simply not apply.If he were to apply the same logic to the Koran that he does the Bible, then Sola Scriptura itself would constitute idolatry.Since it pertains to the bible, supposing that it as a book is the highest authority in Christ's church.Although it is not able to lay hands in blessing, or die for the faith, and it is not immediately identifiable with Christ himself though it comes from him and is an extension of the Word of God.In as much as your hand, or things held, are not identifiable with your entire self.Any nonbeliever may quote it, pronounce the words.Like confusing the letter of the law with it's spirit.Yet somehow, it must be the highest authority in Christ's own established church. To the absolute exclusion of the chosen men Christ selected for his service of revelation to all mankind.That is, the gospel was not given to a book but to certain men who have taken on it's promulgation.Last I checked, the Catholic church does not consider Mohammed to have been a true prophet.
bump
>>18533512I don't pretend to have divine knowledge, but god has granted me some faculties and literally everything tells me the Popes have broken with the teachings of Christ.Whatever reason David's son died, it bears little relation to what the Catholic "church" is doing in the current year.>13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.>14 Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.>15 And Nathan departed unto his house. And the LORD struck the child that Uriah's wife bare unto David, and it was very sick.>16 David therefore besought God for the child; and David fasted, and went in, and lay all night upon the earth.
