If Perchance Catholicism Is Mistaken

.

At Luke 7:40-50, an incident in the Lord's life is told.

A common courtesy extended to guests in people's homes back in his day
was to offer them some water to wash their feet, give them a kiss of
greeting, and a dollop of fragrant lotion for their hair. I don't know what the
problem was, but Jesus' host denied him that whole routine.

One of the common courtesies in our day is that of extending our
condolences to someone who's lost a loved one.

I've placed the topic of this thread on a number of forums across the
internet and it's curious to me how few Christians expressed the slightest
sympathy for my loss; which is just common courtesy.

Incidentally, the dinner host was a Pharisee. It's interesting that Jesus got
more respect from common folk than he did from the religious elite. What is
there to be proud of as a member of the one true church when one's
sensitivities are those of a cave-dwelling Neanderthal?
_

I would think it could be. You would have to look as to how the word Michael designed by God is used in the Bible. It means. . . coming as a query. . . "Who is like God??" (unseen) obviously no one. Even the Son of man, Jesus refused to stand in that good holy place of faith.

Messenger or the word angel (angelos) seems to be where some differ. Some would say in the last days God has not spoken to us through his Son as the messenger and witness. . . . our High Priest of the new order.. and others say it does apply. It would seem to hinge on the word messenger . Like apostles, sent ones. The father sent the Son .The high Priest sent to set the example of the new order.

Hebrews 3:1Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

A greater distant from mainline would seem to be is the blood issue as to how they would define "drink the blood" which is similar to the Catholic understanding making it about real literal blood and not what blood as a metaphor represents in the parables. One performs a work by denying it and the other by pretending what you see and eat are not what they seem to be . . use your imagination.

Yes, that sounds right.

The only commonality between Roman Catholics and Muslims is that they both change God into an image that they can accept. Romans 1. Romans 10 tells us that we must believe in Jesus Christ according to what the bible teaches about Him. In other word we must believe with a correct knowledge of Christ to be saved.

We must know more than just the name of Jesus Christ. There remains only one way to be saved. There is only one God who is God.

Mega churches tend to be over inclusive and dilute the gospel with man driven decisions not Holy Spirit wrought conversions to Christ.

For the cause of Christ
Roger

What I'm hearing is that your answer to the question of who decided what books should be in the Bible is
The Jews.

Then I would ask,
Which Jews?

Back when I used to have a physical copy of the Septuagint, translated by Jews in Alexandria, it included several books not found in many Protestant Bibles today. And some extra parts to Daniel, I believe.


I agree that the Jews, at least some of them, divided the scriptures at the time into the law the prophets and the Psalms. But as I understand it, there was not a list of which books were in those sections that all Jews agreed on.

Regarding the New testament, it was a common thing, as I understand it, for people to write books in someone else's name. The official name for this is pseudepigrapha.

earlier I talked about whether the book of Jude should be in the New testament. I heard that Martin Luther said no. It claims to be written by Jude. I believe Jude was a very common name back then, related to Judah.

I also talked about this above
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/didache-roberts.html
Is it in line with the rest of the New testament? Should it be accepted?

I do not have a Catholic Bible to give up. The Catholics have a canon, the Protestants have a Canon that many of them agree on, although the episcopalians use a different Canon. I heard from a Lutheran pastor that lutherans as a group never agreed on a Canon.. The Eastern Orthodox, a very large group second only to Catholics, also have a different Canon.

So, and I don't mean to sound snarky in any way, but you can pick one of the above or compile one of your own.

Also, yes we do have a document that we call 2nd Peter, which refers to the letters of Paul as scripture.

But first we may wish to ask
Is 2nd Peter scripture? Was it written by Peter? Again, it's possible for someone to write a letter and claim it's from Peter. Not necessarily with bad motives, sometimes disciples of a teacher would write a letter in the teacher's name, I've heard.

There's an Apocalypse of Peter which it looks like some early Christians like to read
http://earlychristianwritings.com/text/apocalypsepeter-roberts.html

Also, I had a memory of talking about this exact train of thought with you earlier. I did some searching and found this post from trofimus. If you follow it backwards, I believe we talked about the same subject.

https://christianchat.com/threads/k...e-vs-modern-english-bible.163358/post-3462209

So all the Jews were using a single list? It might depend on which historian you ask, but my feeling is that there were multiple lists that different Jews were using back then.

I hear what you're saying, and using the same logic we can say

The specification who is God by the Jews is not the same specification by Christians.


For Example Christian God have a Son,His name is Jesus.

The Jew's God do not have a son (or if he does it's definitely not Jesus).

So using the above logic, and I'm not saying it's wrong, but using the same logic we would have to say that the Jew's God is not the Christian God.

I apologize for not offering my condolences. The topic for me as a whole is a difficult one for me to discuss, and I answered you with my heart and shared how I personally deal with, and learned to deal with the loss of an unsaved loved one.

Drawing from my own loss, I did not keep yours in the forefront of my mind and for that I am truly sorry.

And I am, in fact, sorry for your loss.

Thanks!

I would say that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, but that Jehovah's witnesses are seeking to worship the same God, the one true God who created heaven and earth, and the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob. They are just misled about other things.

I don't understand why you were talking about alleged commonality between Roman Catholics and Muslims, they look very different to me.

I can agree that correct knowledge of Christ is required for salvation. Again, is that correct knowledge arrived at by each individual reading the Bible for themselves? Or is the correct knowledge found in and by the body of Christ operating as a whole?

The Jewish God says HE is the I Am, this means, His acknowledgement of Himself, His description of Himself is that He exists.

The God of Islam says (la ilhaha ilallah - There is no God but Allah)

So in order to acknowledge it's existence as a god, it must first negate all else.

The issue with negating all else being necessary before you can affirm, is that you can't negate what doesn't exist to be negated.

So in spite of the plethora of various "gods" that the pagans worshipped in early history (Ancient Sumer, the Mesopotamian cultures that lived around the early Jews etc) all the God of Abraham needed to say was I AM.

Why? Because other gods either didn't exist except in the minds of people or simply weren't Gods in the same manner as the I AM was God.

This is actually quite a contrast to the Islamic God who must negate what exists before the affirmation of its existence, specifically, its saying its not God so long as anything else exists (whose existence we must negate)

Noting they are both Semitic languages so there is more similarity than difference in styles of the two languages.

Secondly, the Name of God was given to Moses as the name of God who said, I AM the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

First, God repeated the Abrahamic covenant with three generations, first with Abraham, then with Isaac, and lastly with Jacob.

This descriptor then, The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is specific to one God, the I AM. The God who exists. the God over the Jews - the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

This full name which is a description is never once found in the Qur'an, or ahadith.. not even one time.

I could go on for days, but in the two texts - the Bible and the Qur'an it is clearly two separate entities, and the later is simply trying to convince you he's the first, and doing a very poor job of it.

So if the Catholics think Muslims will be in their heaven, well, I don't find it likely I'll be there, as I left Islam to follow a different God.

All that said, isn't this off topic?

I pointed you to the AUTHORITY of Christ, and this is your feeble response about historians and Jews? Which means that you do not wish to deal with spiritual matters honestly.

The Catholic Church has DISHONESTLY twisted the Scriptures and changed the Gospel as well as Bible doctrine. And you wish to continue in the same direction.

Jew God as oN the old testament also have a son and that is Jesus.

Not all jew interprate old testament correctly

But quran state God do not have son.

Jew that say God do not have son, is because he not interprate old testament correctly

Muslim that say God do not have son interprate quran correctly

If you follow my conversation with Jackson backwards, I think it relates to a Catholic document called lumen gentium, or something like that.

So what would be your opinion of this
Jews and Christians worship the same God.
When Jews say that Jesus of Nazareth is not God's son, that does not mean that they are then worshipping a different God.

It is not a feeble response, I believe it was you who appealed to the Jewish Canon.

I presented a piece of evidence that indicates that the Jews were using books that many Protestants do not today include in their Canon. I talked about a physical copy of the lxx that I had when I was younger.

If you wish to present a piece of evidence that indicates that all the Jews agreed on which books were in the law, the prophets, and the Psalms, please do so.

Also your reasoning assumes that the book we call Luke is reliable. Why would a person think that, without looking at Christian tradition? There were many gospels floating around in the early centuries.

Well, going along with that line of reasoning, the Jewish person who is not interpreting the old testament correctly, which would be nearly all of them, would they be worshiping the same God as Christians? They would say that God did not have a son named Jesus.

Here's another piece of evidence that you can look at online if you wish

https://orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

Of course, like I talked about above, I wouldn't want to pressure anyone into looking into issues of canonicity. The results can be life changing, but they can also be disturbing.

Jews that is not interprate old testament correctly to the point do not believe Jesus as God not whorship Abraham god.

Jews that are atheis not whorship Christian God.

Catholic is not whorship Christian God because Christian God never teach to pray to Mary.

Muslim is not worship Christian God because between muslim and Christian God have different specification

Quran say Jesus son of Mary, Moses sister

So in moslim Jesus eartly mother is Moses sister.