- This topic is empty.
- Posts
I am starting to understand that people who really believe in God are the best of believers they can pray with anyone and anyplace undersandingg that there is no other God to prayt to.
I thought Jesus was God and really God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God but he wasn't God. I realize now that I can be in God and God in me thanks to what Bodhitharta and some of what Gene was saying was saying.
EFJ,
Welcome!
So glad that you are here, and that you have heard some truth that's become a revelation for you. Good stuff.
Love,
MandyQuote (Everlasting father Jesus @ Sep. 14 2009,08:38) I am starting to understand that people who really believe in God are the best of believers they can pray with anyone and anyplace undersandingg that there is no other God to prayt to. I thought Jesus was God and really God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God but he wasn't God. I realize now that I can be in God and God in me thanks to what Bodhitharta and some of what Gene was saying was saying.
I hope your wandering and searching will lead you to Jesus our GodQuote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 14 2009,11:22) Hi CA,
You have discarded the words of life and yet advise others?
Nick,
If you look on the “No one believes in the trinity” thread you will see that bodhitharta has led efj to doubt that Jesus was crucified. This is why I could never be an anti-trinitarian. You should thank the Lord for protecting you from denying our Lord was crucified.thinker
Hi TT,
So you could not question catholic beliefs bacause BD is islamic?Hmmmm.
An odd way of justifying deception by your fear of deception
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 14 2009,11:48) Hi TT,
So you could not question catholic beliefs bacause BD is islamic?Hmmmm.
An odd way of justifying deception by your fear of deception
So it doesn't concern you that bd has led a man away from the belief in Christ's crucifixion?thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 14 2009,11:53) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 14 2009,11:48) Hi TT,
So you could not question catholic beliefs bacause BD is islamic?Hmmmm.
An odd way of justifying deception by your fear of deception
So it doesn't concern you that bd has led a man away from the belief in Christ's crucifixion?thinker
This is indeed a grave matter.Private Interpretation of the Scriptures, due to human weakness, is destined to bewilder the seeker.
Doubt seems to be a commodity with many here.
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 14 2009,11:09) Quote (Everlasting father Jesus @ Sep. 14 2009,08:38) I am starting to understand that people who really believe in God are the best of believers they can pray with anyone and anyplace undersandingg that there is no other God to prayt to. I thought Jesus was God and really God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God but he wasn't God. I realize now that I can be in God and God in me thanks to what Bodhitharta and some of what Gene was saying was saying.
I hope your wandering and searching will lead you to Jesus our God
Ca,You are confused! You don't believe that God is Jesus, you believe that God is composed of 3 persons. EFJ used to believe that God is Jesus and you don't even believe that do you? I know thinker has made it clear that God is not Jesus but do you say that God is Jesus?
Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 14 2009,12:01) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 14 2009,11:53) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 14 2009,11:48) Hi TT,
So you could not question catholic beliefs bacause BD is islamic?Hmmmm.
An odd way of justifying deception by your fear of deception
So it doesn't concern you that bd has led a man away from the belief in Christ's crucifixion?thinker
This is indeed a grave matter.Private Interpretation of the Scriptures, due to human weakness, is destined to bewilder the seeker.
Doubt seems to be a commodity with many here.
CA,
Yes it is a grave matter. My heart was broken when I read on another thread that efj now questions that Christ was crucified. You erroneously blamed it on “sola scriptura” and you continue here.Sola Scriptura cannot be blamed for this one because efj explicitly said in his OP that he has been influenced by Bodhitharta. Guess what CA? Bodhitharta does not hold to “sola scriptura.” He has consistently argued against the fact of the crucifixion from both the scriptures AND THE QURAN.
A man of your backgroud and intelligence show know to put things in the proper perspective. If you have any sense of fairness you will retract your statement blaming the Protestants for this.
thethinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 14 2009,22:51) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 14 2009,12:01) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 14 2009,11:53) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Sep. 14 2009,11:48) Hi TT,
So you could not question catholic beliefs bacause BD is islamic?Hmmmm.
An odd way of justifying deception by your fear of deception
So it doesn't concern you that bd has led a man away from the belief in Christ's crucifixion?thinker
This is indeed a grave matter.Private Interpretation of the Scriptures, due to human weakness, is destined to bewilder the seeker.
Doubt seems to be a commodity with many here.
CA,
Yes it is a grave matter. My heart was broken when I read on another thread that efj now questions that Christ was crucified. You erroneously blamed it on “sola scriptura” and you continue here.Sola Scriptura cannot be blamed for this one because efj explicitly said in his OP that he has bee influenced by Bodhitharta. Guess what CA? Bodhitharta does not hold to “sola scriptura.” He has consistently argued against the fact of the crucifixion from both the scriptures AND THE QURAN.
A man of your backgroud and intelligence show know to put things in the proper perspective. If you have any sense of fairness you will retract your statement blaming the Protestants for this.
thethinker
I see. Well I must grant you that in this case, if the argumentation of our Muslim friend was the ONLY thing that persuaded him, then Sola Scriptura was not directly responsible. Though I don't know what led him to such bewilderment. There's your retraction.I do want to, in the same breath, speak for myself. I had many years spent in my search for truth without realizing that while Scripture was our to be a formal rule of faith, it was to be taught in and by the Church. And that it was never intended to be divorced from the Church and Sacred Tradition.
See St. Thomas Aquinas:
“The formal object of faith”, he says, “is the First Truth as manifested in Holy Scripture and in the Church's teaching. Hence if anyone does not adhere as to an infallible and Divine rule to the Church's teaching, which proceeds from the Church's truth manifested in Holy Scripture, such an one has not the habit of faith, but holds the truths of faith not by faith but by some other principle” (II-II, Q. v, a. 3).
I am especially sad that he made this change of direction yesterday on the feast of the Exaltation of the Glorious Cross.
CatholicApologist said:
Quote I see. Well I must grant you that in this case, if the argumentation of our Muslim friend was the ONLY thing that persuaded him, then Sola Scriptura was not directly responsible. Though I don't know what led him to such bewilderment. There's your retraction. CA,
I respect you for retracting your accusation and I thank you. All is good between us. Just so you know WJ and I have in numerous posts opposed bodhitharta in reference to his denial that Christ was crucified. We employed the same passages of scripture that you would have employed. WJ has employed many of the passages on the Holy Spirit that you did earlier today. If these are exemplary of “private interpretation” then you are also guilty.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 15 2009,05:56) CatholicApologist said: Quote I see. Well I must grant you that in this case, if the argumentation of our Muslim friend was the ONLY thing that persuaded him, then Sola Scriptura was not directly responsible. Though I don't know what led him to such bewilderment. There's your retraction. CA,
I respect you for retracting your accusation and I thank you. All is good between us. Just so you know WJ and I have in numerous posts opposed bodhitharta in reference to his denial that Christ was crucified. We employed the same passages of scripture that you would have employed. WJ has employed many of the passages on the Holy Spirit that you did earlier today. If these are exemplary of “private interpretation” then you are also guilty.thinker
No problem.There is a commentary by Haydock on the “private interpretation” passage of 2 Peter 1:20, 21. I think this sums up what I am referring to:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Hi CA,
Submit to the catholic abomination?
You cannot serve two masters and Jesus is God's appointed King.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 15 2009,06:27) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 15 2009,05:56) CatholicApologist said: Quote I see. Well I must grant you that in this case, if the argumentation of our Muslim friend was the ONLY thing that persuaded him, then Sola Scriptura was not directly responsible. Though I don't know what led him to such bewilderment. There's your retraction. CA,
I respect you for retracting your accusation and I thank you. All is good between us. Just so you know WJ and I have in numerous posts opposed bodhitharta in reference to his denial that Christ was crucified. We employed the same passages of scripture that you would have employed. WJ has employed many of the passages on the Holy Spirit that you did earlier today. If these are exemplary of “private interpretation” then you are also guilty.thinker
No problem.There is a commentary by Haydock on the “private interpretation” passage of 2 Peter 1:20, 21. I think this sums up what I am referring to:
Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Thank you for the info on “private interpretation.” I am glad we now agree that Protestantism is not responsible for efj's new doubts about the fact of Christ's crucifixion. This is a very grave matter and I hope that God will confirm efj in the truth so that he may not suffer damnation with bodhitharta. I hope also that God might lift the veil from bodhitharta's eyes.thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 15 2009,06:43) CatholicApologist,Sep. wrote:[quote=thethinker,Sep. 15 2009,05:56]CatholicApologist said:
Quote
There is a commentary by Haydock on the “private interpretation” passage of 2 Peter 1:20, 21. I think this sums up what I am referring to:Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Thank you for the info on “private interpretation.” I am glad we now agree that Protestantism is not responsible for efj's new doubts about the fact of Christ's crucifixion. This is a very grave matter and I hope that God will confirm efj in the truth so that he may not suffer damnation with bodhitharta. I hope also that God might lift the veil from bodhitharta's eyes.thinker
Your welcome. Glad to help clear things up between us.Not to drag this on, but when you say “Protestantism is not responsible”, where do you “close the Canon on Protestant denominations” so to speak?
Who get's to decide who is Protestant and who is not?
I'm interested to know.
Hi CA,
What is the use of protesting against apostasy but clinging to it's false foundations?
Vanity, vanity .. uselessness.Quote (CatholicApologist @ Sep. 15 2009,07:01) Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 15 2009,06:43) CatholicApologist,Sep. wrote:[quote=thethinker,Sep. 15 2009,05:56]CatholicApologist said:
Quote
There is a commentary by Haydock on the “private interpretation” passage of 2 Peter 1:20, 21. I think this sums up what I am referring to:Ver. 20. No prophecy of the scripture is made by private interpretation; or, as the Protestants translate it from the Greek, is of any private interpretation, i.e. is not to be expounded by any one's private judgment or private spirit. (Witham) — The Scriptures cannot be properly expounded by private spirit or fancy, but by the same spirit wherewith they were written, which is resident in the Church.
Ver. 21. For prophecy came not by the will of man at any time. This is to shew that they are not to be expounded by any one's private judgment, because every part of the holy Scriptures is delivered to us by the divine spirit of God, wherewith the men were inspired who wrote them; therefore they are not to be interpreted but by the spirit of God, which he left, and promised to his Church to guide her in all truth to the end of the world. Our adversaries may perhaps tell us, that we also interpret prophecies and Scriptures; we do so; but we do it always with a submission to the judgment of the Church, they without it. (Witham)
Thank you for the info on “private interpretation.” I am glad we now agree that Protestantism is not responsible for efj's new doubts about the fact of Christ's crucifixion. This is a very grave matter and I hope that God will confirm efj in the truth so that he may not suffer damnation with bodhitharta. I hope also that God might lift the veil from bodhitharta's eyes.thinker
Your welcome. Glad to help clear things up between us.Not to drag this on, but when you say “Protestantism is not responsible”, where do you “close the Canon on Protestant denominations” so to speak?
Who get's to decide who is Protestant and who is not?
I'm interested to know.
I have previously clarified on a thread I started “What is a Protestant?” A pure Protestant is one who holds that justification is by faith alone.thinker
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
