Zone1 And Jesus said "Depart from me, all you..." What? Evil believers? No, "Evildoers"

[forkintheroad7]

He will turn away many who will claim that they have done great things, even miracles, in His name, but will be rejected because, as He puts it, He never knew them.

To know Jesus and have Jesus know us

One needs to be in HIS Church

 

[hadit]

Yes, I am well aware of what repentance means. I get that you believe that when you die, God will only see what is Christ's within you, that he won't see you, because Jesus covered up all of that. That is your faith. I am merely pointing out, that being the case, God pays no attention to anything you do after you accept Jesus, because Jesus is all he sees. Taking Christ's righteousness, your belief is that you and Christ are now equal when it comes to righteousness/justification. Therefore, that you continue to do what is right is laudable in the eyes of humans but useless in the eyes of God as your faith is that all God sees in you is Jesus.

Obeying God's commands is not "useless" in the eyes of God. Showing His love and compassion to others is not "useless" in the eyes of God. They are if I'm trying on my own to impress God with how much I'm doing for Him, but not if I'm doing them out of love and obedience.

 

[Meriweather]

When I see a Biblical concept repeated over and over again, I take it very seriously. Justification by faith is not found in just one verse, plucked out to make someone feel good about themselves. It's all throughout the Bible, repeated over and over again, to the point that you don't need any further explanation to grasp it. The worst murderer on death-row has the same access to justification before God that Mother Theresa had. That's the beauty of the Gospel, full justification before God is available to EVERYONE, freely.

My point is that in your proof-texting you take one word such as 'justification' and do not study the context nor the Biblical definitions of all the other words translated into English.

This is why I am focusing on your (Protestant) belief that Christ's justification/righteousness is now yours; that Christ's righteousness and justification is all that God sees in you and that your righteousness/justification is therefore equal to that of Jesus. I have no problem with your faith, your belief until you use it to attack an (I'll say) equally valid belief that righteousness/justification is from Christ, and that God does not see my righteousness/justification as equal to his Son's. He sees all the righteousness/justification I do possess as from his son.

 

[hadit]

To know Jesus and have Jesus know us

One needs to be in HIS Church

Yes, we need to be part of the Body of Christ, those who call on His name and put their trust in Him. I know where you're trying to go with this, so stop it. The Catholic Church is not the only true church, there are Christ followers everywhere, in all churches. Some use tortillas for Communion, some are baptized in muddy rivers, some take a methodical approach to living Godly lives, some read the Bible in Swahili, and so on and so forth. Just stop it already.

 

[Meriweather]

I think you are hung up on the idea that someone can be justified totally by faith, yet that's what the Scripture tells us. Remember this one from Romans 4?

4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

You didn't tell me how you can ignore that.

I don't ignore it. I read it correctly. Catholics have a different perspective of justification than the one you hold. You see that someone can be totally equal to Christ in justification/righteousness by their faith that Christ is Lord and Savior. With that faith you believe that this someone's justification/righteousness is equal/the same as the righteousness that is found in Christ and there is not an iota of difference that God sees.

I, too, believe faith is credited as righteousness. ONCE AGAIN, our difference is that your faith sees that righteousness as equal to/the same as the righteousness of Jesus, while my faith says that righteousness is from Jesus, but it certainly is not equal to his righteousness.

 

[Meriweather]

Obeying God's commands is not "useless" in the eyes of God. Showing His love and compassion to others is not "useless" in the eyes of God. They are if I'm trying on my own to impress God with how much I'm doing for Him, but not if I'm doing them out of love and obedience.

You missed the point which is, since you claim Jesus' justification/righteousness as yours just as much as it is his, and God only sees in you the righteousness that is Christ's, then any small attempt you make (or any great sin you may commit) is indeed useless in the eyes of God. He only sees Christ's justification/righteousness in you, correct? You can't have it both ways. I am not saying you shouldn't do good and avoid sin, I am merely pointing out according to your own faith, that no matter what it is you do or don't do, God only sees Christ's righteousness/justification. Again, laudable that you do good and avoid sin, but totally unnecessary once you declared Jesus as your Lord and Savior as at that point God only sees Christ's righteousness in you, nothing else.

 

[forkintheroad7]

I wish people would take their personal conversations to PM-ville.

 

[Meriweather]

I know where you're trying to go with this, so stop it. The Catholic Church is not the only true church, there are Christ followers everywhere, in all churches. Some use tortillas for Communion, some are baptized in muddy rivers, some take a methodical approach to living Godly lives, some read the Bible in Swahili, and so on and so forth. Just stop it already.

NO! You are totally CLUELESS as to where I am and where I am going! I am merely pointing out two different perspectives of the Christian faith, and that is all I am doing. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs, your faith. Nor is there anything wrong with mine. We have two different perspectives of God's plan, but we agree that God has a plan and that it is a great plan.

You tell me to stop it already? Fine. Discussion over. I mistakenly thought these differences were something about which you wished to converse. My apologies.

 

[BreezeWood]

But the original topic is Jesus rejecting people who are attempting to enter Heaven

only those who have accomplished the goal set by the heavens for a&e will be granted judgement, to have succeeded or not - for admission to the everlasting.

 

[hadit]

NO! You are totally CLUELESS as to where I am and where I am going! I am merely pointing out two different perspectives of the Christian faith, and that is all I am doing. There is nothing wrong with your beliefs, your faith. Nor is there anything wrong with mine. We have two different perspectives of God's plan, but we agree that God has a plan and that it is a great plan.

You tell me to stop it already? Fine. Discussion over. I mistakenly thought these differences were something about which you wished to converse. My apologies.

Dude, I wasn't talking to you in that post unless you're a sock.

 

[hadit]

You missed the point which is, since you claim Jesus' justification/righteousness as yours just as much as it is his, and God only sees in you the righteousness that is Christ's, then any small attempt you make (or any great sin you may commit) is indeed useless in the eyes of God. He only sees Christ's justification/righteousness in you, correct? You can't have it both ways. I am not saying you shouldn't do good and avoid sin, I am merely pointing out according to your own faith, that no matter what it is you do or don't do, God only sees Christ's righteousness/justification. Again, laudable that you do good and avoid sin, but totally unnecessary once you declared Jesus as your Lord and Savior as at that point God only sees Christ's righteousness in you, nothing else.

I do not believe that once I am saved and reborn that I cannot again sin or fall short of God's glory. What I do believe is that the Holy Spirit is within me to convict of sin and empower me to avoid it.

 

[ninja007]

I say this Scripture where Jesus says Depart from me, you evildoers, I never knew you

definitely, all by itself (but there are others that support it)

shows us there is NO

onceSavedAlwayssaved

it is a FALSE belief and if one holds onto it without changing, the person will end up in Hell, and Jesus implied most people do.

Mt 7:21
etc

never knew you. key word never. they werent saved.

 

[ninja007]

Some of the verses used to substantiate this teaching are the following:

• “for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins,” (Matt. 26:28).
• “The Jews, therefore, began to argue with one another, saying, How can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus, therefore, said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves,'” (John 6:52-53).
• 1 Cor. 11:27, “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord,” (1 Cor. 11:27).

Can we conclude from the above verses that the Communion Supper actually involves the change of the elements into the mystical Body and Blood of Christ? Let’s take a look.

First – there is no indication that the words were meant to be literal​

Nowhere in scripture do we find this teaching. We see scriptures refer to the elements as the body and blood, but we also see Jesus clearly stating that the words He was speaking were spiritual words when talking about eating his flesh and drinking his blood:


“It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63).


He did not say they were literal words; that is, He did not say that they were His actual body and blood.


But, a Catholic might object and say that Jesus clearly said, “This is My blood…” and “This is my body…” This is true, but Jesus frequently spoke in spiritual terms: “I am the bread of life,” (John 6:48); “I am the door,” (John 10:7,9); “I am the resurrection and the life,” (John 11:25); “I am the true vine,” (John 15:1), etc. In the context of John 6, Jesus is telling His disciples that they must eat His body and blood (John 6:53). He clearly says He was speaking in spiritual terms, “…the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life,” (John 6:63).

Second – the elements of the communion supper were still referred to as bread and wine​

After The institution of the communion supper, both the elements were still referred to as bread and wine.


“And while they were eating, Jesus took some bread, and after a blessing, He broke it and gave it to the disciples, and said, “Take, eat; this is My body.” 27 And when He had taken a cup and given thanks, He gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you; 28 for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins. 29 “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom,” (Matt. 26:26-29).


After Jesus said, “This is my blood,” (Matt. 26:28), he said, “But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Fathers kingdom,” (Matt. 26:29). Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as “the fruit of the vine” if it was his literal blood? He called it wine.


“For I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus in the night in which He was betrayed took bread; 24 and when He had given thanks, He broke it, and said, “This is My body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of Me.” 25 In the same way He took the cup also, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me.” 26 For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes. 27 Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner, shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup,” (1 Cor. 11:23-28).


If the elements were changed and were really the body and blood, then why does Paul refer to the element of bread as bread and not the literal body of Christ?

Third – there is no indication the disciples thought the elements changed​

There is no indication in the biblical accounts of the Last Supper that the disciples thought that the bread and wine changed into the actual body and blood of Christ. Are we to believe that the disciples who were sitting right there with Jesus actually thought that what Jesus was holding in his hands was his literal body and blood? There is no indication that they thought this.

Fourth – there is no indication the disciples worshipped the elements​

We see no indication at all that the disciples worshipped the elements. The adoration of the Eucharist is practiced during the Mass. Catholicism says, “Moreover, the Catholic Church has held firm to this belief in the presence of Christ’s Body and Blood in the Eucharist not only in her teaching but in her life as well since she has at all times paid this great Sacrament the worship known as “latria,” which may be given to God alone.”1 Where is the worship given the Sacrament by the disciples anywhere in the New Testament? It is not there.

Fifth – the supper was instituted before Jesus’ crucifixion​

The Mass is supposed to be a reenactment of the sacrifice of Christ. Therefore, according to Roman Catholic theology, the bread and wine become the broken body and shed blood of Christ and are, somehow, the crucified body and blood of Christ. But how can this be since Jesus instituted the Supper before He was crucified? Are we to conclude that at the Last Supper, when they were all at the table, that when Jesus broke the bread, it actually became His sacrificial body–even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? Likewise are we to conclude that when Jesus gave the wine, that it became His actual sacrificial blood – even though the sacrifice had not yet happened? That would make no sense at all.

Sixth – the Roman Catholic view is a violation of Levitical law​

The Roman Catholic interpretation of the Eucharist requires the participant to eat human flesh and drink human blood. Remember, Roman Catholicism teaches that the bread and the wine become the actual body and blood of Christ. Essentially, this amounts to cannibalism. What does the Scripture say concerning this?


“For as for the life of all flesh, its blood is identified with its life. Therefore I said to the sons of Israel, You are not to eat the blood of any flesh, for the life of all flesh is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off,” (Lev. 17:14).


Notice that the scripture says that you are not to eat the blood of any flesh. It would certainly appear that the Roman Catholic view is in contradiction to the Old Testament scripture since it advocates the eating of the blood of Christ. To the RCC it is not just symbolic; it is the actual eating and drinking of the body of Christ.


Some Roman Catholics respond by saying that Jesus had instituted the new and everlasting covenant in which the sacrificed body and blood of Christ was reality. Therefore, because it was a new covenant, it was also the sacrificed body and blood. But this cannot work because the new covenant could not yet be instituted until after the death of Christ as the Scriptures state.


“And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it,” (Heb. 9:15-16).


Therefore we can conclude that the Levitical law was still in effect because the new covenant had not yet been established. So, the Roman Catholic position would have Jesus himself violating Old Testament law by having the disciples drink the blood–if it were literal blood.


Yet another response is that in Mark 7:19 it says, “‘because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?’ (Thus He declared all foods clean).” The problem with this response is that it tends to set scripture against scripture and doesn’t really address the issue of Leviticus 17:14 and the particularly relevant comments by the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15:19-20 also forbidding the eating of blood. Therefore, it seems that Jesus was declaring all animals were clean in the sense that they do not defile a person. Again, in the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, James the apostle gives instructions and said, “Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, 20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood,” (Acts 15:19-20). Some say this refers only to animal blood. But if that is so, then “all foods clean” (ref. Mark 7:19) would have to include animal blood. But, that doesn’t make sense in light of the instruction is still to abstain from drinking blood.

Seventh – it is a violation of the incarnation​

The biblical doctrine of the incarnation states that the Word which was God and was with God (John 1:1), became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This “became flesh” involves what is known as the hypostatic union. This is the teaching that in the one person of Christ are two natures: divine and human. That is, Jesus is both God and man at the same time, and He will forever be God and man.


Furthermore, by definition, for Jesus to be human, He must be located in one place. This is the nature of being human. A human male does not have the ability to be omnipresent. He can only be in one place at one time. To say that Jesus in His physical form is in more than one place at a time is to deny the incarnation. That is, it denies that Jesus is completely and totally a man – since a man can only be it one place at one time. Therefore, to say that the bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ is to violate the doctrine of the incarnation by stating that Christ is physically present all over the planet as the mass is celebrated. This is a serious problem and a serious denial of the true and absolute incarnation of the Word of God as a man.


But, did not Jesus say in Matt. 28:18-20 that He would be with the disciples always–even to the ends of the earth? Is this not a declaration that Jesus will be physically present everywhere? No, this is not what is stated.


The answer is found in the teaching of the communicatio idiomatum. This is the teaching that the attributes of both the divine and human nature are ascribed to the single person of Christ. It does not mean, however, that anything particular to the divine nature was communicated to the human nature. Likewise, it does not mean that anything particular to the human nature was communicated to the divine nature. It means that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, Jesus is omnipresent–not in His human nature but in His divine nature.


To make this more clear, let’s look at some verses that illustrate the communicatio idiomatum:

• “Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was,” (John 17:5)
• “And no one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven, even the Son of Man,” (John 3:13).

Please notice that in these two verses, Jesus lays claim to the glory that He had with the Father before the foundation of the world. He also claims to have descended from heaven, but how could these be true since He is a man? The answer is that the attributes of the divine nature are claimed by the person of Christ. Therefore, the person of Christ could claim to have glory with the Father and could claim to descend from heaven. But we know that the man Jesus, in the flesh, did not exist until His conception. Furthermore, this means that the two natures of Christ are distinct, yet they are in Union in the one person of Christ (the hypostatic union). It further means that the attributes of the divine and the attributes of the human are not transferred to one another–the divine does not become localized and the human does not become infinite. If this were the case, then the nature of the divine and the nature of the human will be violated. Therefore, we can see that for Jesus to be a man, He must retain the attributes of humanity. This means that He must be localized, and it means He cannot be physically omnipresent. If He were, by definition He would not be a man. But the Roman Catholic position is that the bread and wine become the actual body and blood of Christ, and this violates the doctrine of the incarnation. Therefore, transubstantiation cannot be the correct teaching of Scripture.

Eighth – the Lord’s Supper is not a sacrifice of Christ​

The Bible tells us:


“By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time onward until His enemies be made a footstool for His feet. 14 For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified,” (Heb. 10:10-14).


In the Roman Catholic Mass, there is a sacrifice of Christ. In other words, in the ceremonies, is a reenactment and an actual sacrifice of Christ per the Mass. This is an obvious contradiction to the Scriptures which teach us that Christ died once for all, and that by the one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified. It does not state in the Word of God that the sacrifice of Christ must be repeated in order to forgive us of our sins or somehow help us to maintain our salvation by the infusion of grace. The fact that Christ died once and the sacrifice occurred once is proof that it is sufficient to cleanse us of our sins. We connect with the sacrifice of Christ by faith – not by a ceremony.

Conclusion​

It should be obvious to anyone who believes the word of God that the Roman Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation is not biblical. For the reasons listed above, we urge that Roman Catholics recognize that Jesus Christ died once for all and that there is no need to participate in a ritual where His re-sacrifice is practiced.


Finally, because the sacrifice of Christ was once for all, it is sufficient to save us; and we do not need to maintain our salvation by our efforts or by our participation in the Lord’s supper. It is not a means of grace that secures our salvation or infuses into us the grace needed that then enables us to maintain our salvation by our works. Instead, we are made right before God by faith.

• “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” (Rom. 3:24).
• “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law,” (Rom. 3:28).
• “For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,” (Rom. 4:3).
• “For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith,” (Rom. 4:13).
• “Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,” (Rom. 5:1).
• “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved,” (Rom. 10:9).

 

[ninja007]

I do not believe that once I am saved and reborn that I cannot again sin or fall short of God's glory. What I do believe is that the Holy Spirit is within me to convict of sin and empower me to avoid it.

Psalms 103:12 in Other Translations

12 as far as the east is from the west, so far does he remove our transgressions from us. 12 He has removed our sins as far from us as the east is from the west. 12 And as far as sunrise is from sunset, he has separated us from our sins.

 

[ninja007]

sounds kind of weasely

But I didn't know a thing about real love either... until I prayed the rosary and got back into CHRIST's Church..

I wasn't born knowing anything about Jesus.. no one is.

The thing is, SO many people reject whatever they don't naturally like about Jesus...

That will get you into Hell

Is praying the rosary scriptural?​

Answer

Praying the rosary is promoted within the Catholic Church as a means of strengthening one’s faith, resisting evil, growing spiritually, and generally benefiting society. While some of the prayer of the rosary is scriptural, the whole second half of the “Hail Mary” and portions of the “Hail, Holy Queen” are blatantly unbiblical. While the first part of the Hail Mary is almost a direct quotation from Luke 1:28, there is no scriptural basis for (1) praying to Mary, (2) addressing her as “holy,” or (3) calling her “our life” and “our hope.”

Praying the rosary involves giving attributes to Mary that the Bible never gives her. To call Mary “holy”—the Catholic Church teaches that Mary never sinned or had any taint of original sin—is not biblical. The Bible calls all believers “saints,” which can be interpreted as “holy ones,” but Scripture says that the righteousness believers have is the imputed righteousness from Christ (2 Corinthians 5:21). In this life, no one is yet sanctified from sin in practice (1 John 1:9—2:1). Jesus is called our Savior repeatedly in Scripture because He saved us from our sin. In Luke 1:47, Mary calls God her “Savior.” Savior from what? A sinless person does not need a Savior. Sinners need a Savior. Mary acknowledged that God was her Savior. Therefore, Mary acknowledged that she was a sinner.

Jesus came to save us from our sins (Matthew 1:21). The Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary was saved from sin differently from everyone else—that she was saved from sin through the immaculate conception (her being conceived free of sin). But is this teaching scriptural? The Roman Catholic Church openly admits that this doctrine is not found in Scripture. When a young man addressed Jesus as “good Master” (Matthew 19:16–17), Jesus asked why he called Him “good” since there is none good but one, God. Jesus was trying to make the young man aware that he was using the term good too loosely. In praying the rosary, Catholics use the term holy too loosely. No one, including Mary, is holy but God. This ties in with Romans 3:10–23, Romans 5:12, and countless other passages that stress the fact that in God’s eyes no one measures up. Never is Mary excluded from such all-encompassing statements.

But praying the rosary has an even more basic problem, namely, that much of the prayer is directed to Mary, not to God. We are never told in the Bible whether anyone else in heaven can even hear us. God alone is all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-present. When Jesus taught His disciples to pray, He taught them to address their prayers to God the Father. Every example of prayer in the Bible is addressed to God alone. There is never a single example of someone praying to any “saint” or angel or anyone else (besides prayers to false gods). Further, any time that a pious person prostrates himself (in a religious setting) to honor someone else besides God (chiefly to the apostles or angels), he is told to get up, to stop it (Acts 10:25–26; 14:13–16; Matthew 4:10; Revelation 19:10; 22:8–9). The Roman Catholic Church states that it worships God alone but “venerates” Mary and the saints. What is the difference? A person praying the rosary spends more time calling out to Mary than to God. For every one praise of God in the rosary, there are ten praises of Mary!

Praying the rosary also assigns a task to Mary that the Bible never assigns her. Jesus is our Redeemer (Galatians 3:13; 4:4–5; Titus 2:14; 1 Peter 1:18–19; Revelation 5:9), our heavenly Advocate (1 John 2:1), and our one and only Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5). The “Hail, Holy Queen” portion of the rosary prayer calls Mary our “most gracious advocate.” This is a direct contradiction of the clear biblical teaching that only Jesus is our go-between.

Praying the rosary requires Catholics to call upon Mary as the “holy Queen.” The only time in Scripture that the title “Queen of Heaven” is found, the term is used in a negative way (Jeremiah 7:17–19; 44:16–27). The Bible never pictures Mary as a queen; rather, she calls herself “the Lord’s servant” (Luke 1:38). She is never given a crown or authority over heaven and earth. Likewise, is it appropriate, while praying the rosary, to call Mary our “life” and “hope”? Again, these are terms that are used of God alone in Scripture (John 1:1–14; Colossians 3:4; 1 Timothy 1:1; Ephesians 2:12; Titus 2:13).

The practice of saying the rosary runs contrary to Scripture in a number of ways. Only God can hear our prayers. Only God can answer our prayers. We have one intermediary (Jesus), and it is in His name we pray, not Mary’s.

 

[ninja007]

I stopped here, at the first error

I guess you've never read the 2nd chapter of James?

It CLEARLY says (and common sense would confirm) that we are not saved by faith alone. The Catholic Church says we are saved by GRACE, which comes to us through Jesus Christ and His Church... not faith alone.

"Even the demons believe and tremble"--James 2 - something

no.

 

[forkintheroad7]

I have no problem with your faith, your belief until you use it to attack an (I'll say) equally valid belief that righteousness/justification is from Christ, and that God does not see my righteousness/justification as equal to his Son's. He sees all the righteousness/justification I do possess as from his son.

equally valid?

It is not equally valid-- What I'm saying is that heretical beliefs are not equal to TRUE Christianity

Yes, in America, we have to respect all NON-violent forms of Christianity or other non Christian religions. But Jesus taught what He taught.. His Church continues to teach what HE taught-- and THAT alone is what is necessary for salvation.

Extra ecclessia nulla salus

is still true

 

[forkintheroad7]

no.

so you disagree with James chapter 2?

figures... totally figures

Anti-Catholic Protestants only accept the scriptures that don't sound too Catholic.. So much for sola scriptura (but the Catholics never taught that rot )

 

[Meriweather]

equally valid?

It is not equally valid-- What I'm saying is that heretical beliefs are not equal to TRUE Christianity

Yes, in America, we have to respect all NON-violent forms of Christianity or other non Christian religions. But Jesus taught what He taught.. His Church continues to teach what HE taught-- and THAT alone is what is necessary for salvation.

It's fascinating that the etymology of heretic/heresy is to choose. Students were given issues to study and were then encouraged to choose. The usage became more negative when the choice differed from orthodox Christianity.

Look to when changes began occurring in traditional Christianity. For fifteen hundred years it was quite stable. What changed: Language. The established Greek and Latin were joined by English, German, French. Not that Greek and Latin were the original Biblical languages either, and even some of the Greek and Latin were imprecise translations of the original Hebrew.

The Catholic Church still takes flack for "not wanting the common people to have a Bible". Not true. With the printing press, the Bible became a best seller almost overnight. Entrepreneurs were eager to come up with their own Bible translations of local languages and get them on the bookshelves for sales. The Catholic Church urged buyers to buy the Church authorized translations, and to not buy or read the hastily translated editions which had translation errors. For many, one of these more "affordable" Bibles were better than no Bible at all. Also working against the original Bible was the normal evolution of the changes in definition of any word.

Note hadit 's complaint about Catholics "working" for justification/righteousness. That comes from the Protestant lack of understanding of the original Biblical use of 'work' and 'deed'. They are not one and the same. In fact, 'works' was used in two ways. One was the work that had to be done to comply with legalities under the law. One was 'work' pertaining only to the Sabbath, usually by priests. 'Deeds' were the more voluntary acts of commoners to their fellow man.

Think about this. Under the original use/definition of the word 'work' one might accuse Catholics working on their national taxes of working their way into heaven--but they couldn't use that original word for 'work' to accuse a Catholic act of providing a meal to a hungry person. That falls into the category James described when he proclaimed man is justified by his deeds, not faith alone.

 

[hadit]

Dude, I wasn't talking to you in that post unless you're a sock.

Be honest, Meriweather, are you posting under multiple accounts?