Why Catholic isn't Christian.

[AnnaG]

Actually, arguing that there is no proof of Jesus' existence is completely false. There are Roman court records of Jesus' existence. There are Roman accounts of all of the Christian martyrs deaths. There is 2000 years of proof of Christs existence....you just don't want to look for it. It's a historical fact that Jesus existed. The new testament and parts of the old testament that go through the twelve tribes, and jewish descendents are some of the most historically accurate books on the planet.....not to mention that there aren't welll kept documents of anyone from that time period.....but hey, I can't get someone who doesn't want to believe, to believe. I'm sorry you can't look under a microscope and see Jesus. You can see laminin though.....mrs. biology.

Ahhh. Someone else assuming things.
We have looked. The closest thing we've come to seeing ANY evidence has been a few words by Flavius Josephus (37 or 38 CE till around 100 CE).

Jesus of Nazareth is possibly mentioned in two passages of the work The Antiquities of the Jews by the Jewish historian Josephus, written in the late first century CE. One passage, known as the Testimonium Flavianum, discusses the career of Jesus. The authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum has been disputed since the 17th century, and by the mid 18th century the consensus view was that it had at a minimum been altered by Christian scribes, and possibly was outright forgery. The other passage simply mentions a Jesus as the brother of a James, possibly James the Just, but later in the same passage refers to a Jesus, son of Damneus. Most scholars consider this passage genuine,[1] but its authenticity has been disputed by Emil Schürer as well by several recent popular writers.

- Wikipedia

Besides that there are mentions of some 20 or so people named "Jesus" around that period of time and in that general area.

http://www.michaelsheiser.com/M Heiser Ossuary.pdf

http://www.andrews.edu/archaeology/museum/lectures/younkerray07.pdf

2000 years of proof? For instance .....? Can you provide evidence? Quotes from the Bible don't qualify as evidence either. As I said, it'd be the same thing as PolPot claiming to be an humanitarian and that his word was the proof.

Laminin? Is there some laminin from this Jesus lying about somewhere?

 

[MHz]

"An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign;
and there shall no sign be given to it," Sounds like another dodge to avoid more scrutiny.

Really, the Jews certainly wouldn't be praising Him, they were in the process of persecuting and killing His followers. Even that is just a sign and not proof that He existed.

??

The sign given to the Temple leaders (adulterous generation) was the time He went to the grave, 3 1/2 days, the same length of time that an OT Prophet was sent to hell for.

Surely there were more people about that had been cricufied. For instance the two that were purportedly crucified and hung next to this Jesus. Do bones have the names of their owners inscribed on them? That's just funny as all get out.

I'm not sure what that has to do with an old man having a 'withered hand' restored to 'like-new' condition? Find that same hand and would it should show signs of that transformation.

So your Jesus was an ugly plant with no form? And you forget that people like me think it's foolish to believe something that is its own authority anyway. It'd be like PolPot commenting about himself being a humanitarian.

During the time before the cross, His appearance changed after coming back from the grave.
That was the way God described the human form of His Son, who is eternal.
Even being eternal does that mean Christ has always had the same appearance. In Re:1 He is describes as looking a certain way, as close to the way His father is said to look like as any description given. He had that same appearance in the vision on the mountain that included Moses, which is understandable as that vision is even later than the time referenced by Re:1.

I would think a person is incapable of independent thought if that vision of the 'elderly gentleman' is seen as the way Christ describes His earliest days with God.

Proverb:8:22:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
Proverb:8:23:
I was set up from everlasting,
from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
Proverb:8:24:
When there were no depths,
I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Proverb:8:25:
Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
Proverb:8:26:
While as yet he had not made the earth,
nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Proverb:8:27:
When he prepared the heavens,
I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Proverb:8:28:
When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Proverb:8:29:
When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Proverb:8:30:
Then I was by him,
as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
Proverb:8:31:
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.

God doesn't expect words to convince anybody that what is written is true. If that was the case the Bible would be a bigger book. As it is most readers think He included way too much 'trivial' (seemingly unimportant things) detail.
You would not be anymore convinced of His existence if this verse had been written out in full.

Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Amen.

 

[Jae]

Even if the Catholic church does not truly follow Christ, let's remember that there may well be individual followers of Jesus within the institution. It is not going to one church or another that makes someone right with God. What matters is faith. If someone is in the Catholic church and does believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone, that person is an authentic brother or sister in the faith. Peace to you.

 

[coldstream]

Even if the Catholic church does not truly follow Christ, let's remember that there may well be individual followers of Jesus within the institution. It is not going to one church or another that makes someone right with God. What matters is faith. If someone is in the Catholic church and does believe in salvation by faith in Christ alone, that person is an authentic brother or sister in the faith. Peace to you.

Christ founded only one Church, his Church — on Peter, with the guarantee of indefectibility in the face of the persecutions, divisions and obstacles of every kind which she would encounter in the course of history. Therefore, only one Church exists, which we confess, in the Creed as "one, holy, Catholic and apostolic".

The full revelation of Christ is manifest in, and ONLY in, the Catholic Church. That Church is indivisible and universal and it is founded on the Rock of Peter,and his apostolic succession, the Holy See, by Christ.

Luther produced a corrupted and impoverished interpretation of Christianity, of which his entire Protestant progeny are the legatees. No faithful Catholic can dismiss the role of Good Works in salvation, which illuminate and fortify the true faith in Christ.

Sorry to burst your bubble. :smile:

 

[AnnaG]

Really, the Jews certainly wouldn't be praising Him, they were in the process of persecuting and killing His followers. Even that is just a sign and not proof that He existed.

Yes. As I said another dodge to avoid answering the question.

The sign given to the Temple leaders (adulterous generation) was the time He went to the grave, 3 1/2 days, the same length of time that an OT Prophet was sent to hell for.

Oh, thank you.

I'm not sure what that has to do with an old man having a 'withered hand' restored to 'like-new' condition? Find that same hand and would it should show signs of that transformation.

If people cannot find any bones, haircombs, or anything about the guy, they sure won't find his hand, withered or not.

During the time before the cross, His appearance changed after coming back from the grave.
That was the way God described the human form of His Son, who is eternal.
Even being eternal does that mean Christ has always had the same appearance. In Re:1 He is describes as looking a certain way, as close to the way His father is said to look like as any description given. He had that same appearance in the vision on the mountain that included Moses, which is understandable as that vision is even later than the time referenced by Re:1.

Yeah, we change a little as we get older. How about that.

I would think a person is incapable of independent thought if that vision of the 'elderly gentleman' is seen as the way Christ describes His earliest days with God.

Proverb:8:22:
The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way,
before his works of old.
Proverb:8:23:
I was set up from everlasting,
from the beginning,
or ever the earth was.
Proverb:8:24:
When there were no depths,
I was brought forth;
when there were no fountains abounding with water.
Proverb:8:25:
Before the mountains were settled,
before the hills was I brought forth:
Proverb:8:26:
While as yet he had not made the earth,
nor the fields,
nor the highest part of the dust of the world.
Proverb:8:27:
When he prepared the heavens,
I was there:
when he set a compass upon the face of the depth:
Proverb:8:28:
When he established the clouds above:
when he strengthened the fountains of the deep:
Proverb:8:29:
When he gave to the sea his decree,
that the waters should not pass his commandment:
when he appointed the foundations of the earth:
Proverb:8:30:
Then I was by him,
as one brought up with him:
and I was daily his delight,
rejoicing always before him;
Proverb:8:31:
Rejoicing in the habitable part of his earth;
and my delights were with the sons of men.

God doesn't expect words to convince anybody that what is written is true. If that was the case the Bible would be a bigger book. As it is most readers think He included way too much 'trivial' (seemingly unimportant things) detail.
You would not be anymore convinced of His existence if this verse had been written out in full.

Joh:21:24:
This is the disciple which testifieth of these things,
and wrote these things:
and we know that his testimony is true.
Joh:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did,
the which,
if they should be written every one,
I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written.
Amen.

Another dodge to "explain" why the question can't be answered. The only evedeince for the existences of either this god or its purported son is the "word of this god".

God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of god and it says it exists.
I have a green thumb. It's green because I said it is green, therefore it is green.

 

[Cliffy]

Jesus appointed his lover head of his church, Mary Magdalene, according to the other eight apostles. Constantine left out the Gnostic Gospels because they are in conflict with the formation of a politically motivated patriarchal church which he, being a male chauvinist like Paul, would not accept a female Popette. The catholic church is as much an abomination as is protestantism. God is female. Look it up in Genesis.

 

[coldstream]

:roll: Where do i begin. I know you dropped some blotter acid before you logged on, so you're not responsible for pronouncements, but these things that you think, cliffy.. have absolutely no substance or truth. They are chemical ghosts.

There were 12 apostle's not 8, one traitorous, who was subequently replaced with Matthias. Mary Magdalene was a disciple, not a wife, out of whom Christ cast 7 demons.

The Gnostic Gospels were discredited as frauds over several Church Councils. The contents of the Bible, subject to some revisions through the Council of Trent, were finalized by the Council of Nicea of 325.. which was organized and administered by the Magisterium of the Church, under the protection of Constantine, who did not dictate its terms, and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Many of those 'gospels' were simply continuations of codices of Roman paganism, with its orgiastic carnivals, disguised as Apostolic texts.

God is a guy, his name is Jesus.

Keep trying, cliffy, you'll get there. :smile:

 

[MHz]

Jesus appointed his lover head of his church, Mary Magdalene, according to the other eight apostles. Constantine left out the Gnostic Gospels because they are in conflict with the formation of a politically motivated patriarchal church which he, being a male chauvinist like Paul, would not accept a female Popette. The catholic church is as much an abomination as is protestantism. God is female. Look it up in Genesis.

8O, get real Cliffy, the Mary Jesus loved was Mary, sister of Lazarus. It even says He loved her. Dig a little deeper and you will find she was a disciple of John the Baptist. She was baptised before Jesus ever met her. Your Mary had 7 devils cast out of her, that made her a follower. Same with Susanna and Joanna, one was the adulterous that was saved bu Jesus from being stoned to death. The other was the woman who dries Jesus's feet wit her hair. All 3 of them were sinners before they met Jesus, after that they were part of the women who would be classifgied as followers, some of them literally followed Jesus and the Apostles around. The part that is going to stress you beyond repair is acknoweldging that she was the person of all 5 books attributed to the person called John, 1 Gospel, 3 Epistles, and Revelation. No wonder the RCC does not want her to be identified. How would their flock react if they were told they had been willingly lied to for 2,000 years. lol, since that is most likely not the only known lie it might get severe (stop donating to them).
Women Priests, married Priests, almost an entire redo of the top would be in order.

The right Mary was the only one to make Jesus feel grief. His wrong doing was to delay going to Lazarus before he died. Mary didn't know this was part of the way God strengenthed Jesus (to show Him that coming back from death after the body had started to decay was quite possible). 3 days was how long His body would be without the breath of life.)

Joh:11:32:
Then when Mary was come where Jesus was,
and saw him,
she fell down at his feet,
saying unto him,
Lord,
if thou hadst been here,
my brother had not died.
Joh:11:33:
When Jesus therefore saw her weeping,
and the Jews also weeping which came with her,
he groaned in the spirit,
and was troubled,

This Mary did her anointing and hair drying in the next chapter, the woman who had some sins forgiven was written about in Luke in the house of some Simon. Two very different events. John 12 was just before the last passover.

The Holy Spirit takes the part of the woman in a human relationship. The one who quietly (or not) goes about fulfilling the words of her husband. That may see subservent until you ponder that everything ever created was made 'real' by the power of the Holy Spirit. Even the Throne that God sits on in Heaven is part of the Holy Spirit. The part of God that were have while alive doesn't die, it returns to God.

Ec:12:7:
Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was:
and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.

No human can alter that event.

Paul did come from a strict male orientated, he was part of the Jewish Temple that played a role in the active persecution of Christians. Yet after his conversion he certainly saw women as being at least equal, some have even more authority with God than he (Paul) does.

2Jo:1:1:
The elder unto the elect lady and her children,
whom I love in the truth;
and not I only,
but also all they that have known the truth;

Her children are the ones she brought into the fold during her ministry.

The above are Paul's words to her, in 1Jo: it was Peter's words. They both though quite highly of her.

You read the Bible, twice, how did you miss solving the mystery of who the 'beloved disciple' was? If that wasn't the reason for the 2nd read what was?

God exists because the Bible says so and the Bible is the word of god and it says it exists.
I have a green thumb. It's green because I said it is green, therefore it is green.

If you require proof before you can/will read the Book then the only proof you might find is the bones of the hand that Jesus healed. Reading is not offered as proof, referencing the specific verses and passages is just clarification of just what Scripture actually says. Cliffy and others are either right or wrong about that Mary. None have researched it for themselves, that is painfully clear, go ahead ask how he the concludes those things about Mary M.

In reality your thumb always remained fleshy colored. Now if you could say when I awake tomorrow I will have 7 green thumbs and it happens then you can tell others what to believe. The next time you say something there might not be any scoffers. Suspicion is a healthy trait when dealing with what others are telling you as being the truth. That is somewhat different from being a witness to some event.

In the progression of the Son of God some things God did in the OT were done as a learning event for Christ. Jesus said He can do nothing on His own. He can only do what the Father has shown Him. On the day of the Lord He is going to put all the sinners to death (for a time), He will bind Satan (via the spoken words and the Holy Spirit of God will do the actual work).
If God had not shown Him how to act when it was time to Judge mankind then man could never be retrieved from death. That little confession from Jesus clears up a lot of things about the 'why did God do things in a certain way in the OT. The answer is quite simple, too simple for some so they reject it.


Oh Cliffy, this is Jesus and that same Mary after Judgment Day and they watch this from said location. There are just two standing there. Christians are not the Bride, they are invited guests.

Re:21:10:
And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain,
and shewed me that great city,
the holy Jerusalem,
descending out of heaven from God,

 

[Cliffy]

And you guys think I'm nuts for talking about Mary being Jesus lover. The stuff you are spouting is no less ridiculous. Which is my point. The stuff I have said is a response to the nonsense you have been posting here. The catholic church is a fraud. they gave the world a fraudulent document and called it the word of god. And the protestants reject the organization that gave them the fraudulent document they say is the word of god.

And both catholics and protestants have the audacity to say that the Koran is fabricated nonsense. Well it is all nonsense, just like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Jesus never existed and Christ is a state of consciousness that anybody can achieve. The catholic church doesn't need a re haul, it needs to join the rest of antiquity that has gone the way of the dinosaurs and feudalism.

 

[coldstream]

And both catholics and protestants have the audacity to say that the Koran is fabricated nonsense.

You will know them by their fruits, Christ's admonition as to the attributes of false prophets...

 

[Cliffy]

You will know them by their fruits, Christ's admonition as to the attributes of false prophets...

And the followers of Jesus have slaughtered untold millions in the name of their god. Sorry but the same rules apply to Catholicism and protestantism.

 

[coldstream]

Exactly what denomination do you belong to, MHz, i recognize some of it, but the rest i can't fathom.. it's bizarre. Do you accept the Trinity as the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three persons in one Godhead. That he is the Triune God, existing as three persons but one being?

And the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle.. the author of the Gospel of John and Book of Revelation.. the latter written on the island of Patmos, where he'd been exiled by Domitian in 95 A.D., and as a very old man. He was perhaps the only original Apostle who did not suffer a martyrs death, although he had been condemned to be boiled in oil, but had been miraculously delivered from that, and sentenced to convict mining labour on Patmos.

 

[MHz]

And you guys think I'm nuts for talking about Mary being Jesus lover. The stuff you are spouting is no less ridiculous. Which is my point. The stuff I have said is a response to the nonsense you have been posting here. The catholic church is a fraud. they gave the world a fraudulent document and called it the word of god. And the protestants reject the organization that gave them the fraudulent document they say is the word of god.

And both catholics and protestants have the audacity to say that the Koran is fabricated nonsense. Well it is all nonsense, just like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny. Jesus never existed and Christ is a state of consciousness that anybody can achieve. The catholic church doesn't need a re haul, it needs to join the rest of antiquity that has gone the way of the dinosaurs and feudalism.

My post was about your lack of understanding about what was written down. The issue of whether He existed is a separate issue.

Exactly what denomination do you belong to, MHz, i recognize some of it, but the rest i can't fathom.. it's bizarre. Do you accept the Trinity as the unity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, as three persons in one Godhead. That he is the Triune God, existing as three persons but one being?

They are three that are in total agreement on everything. God is singular, His only begotten Son is singular and the Holy Spirit of God is also separate.
Christ is on a 'mission' as given by God.

And the Beloved Disciple is John the Apostle.. the author of the Gospel of John and Book of Revelation.. the latter written on the island of Patmos, where he'd been exiled by Domitian in 95 A.D., and as a very old man. He was perhaps the only original Apostle who did not suffer a martyrs death, although he had been condemned to be boiled in oil, but had been miraculously delivered from that, and sentenced to convict mining labour on Patmos.

Then why does the Gospel of John not cover some events that John the Apostle saw?

M't:17:1:
And after six days Jesus taketh Peter,
James,
and John his brother,
and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
M't:17:2:
And was transfigured before them:
and his face did shine as the sun,
and his raiment was white as the light.

M'r:5:37:
And he suffered no man to follow him,
save Peter,
and James,
and John the brother of James.
M'r:5:38:
And he cometh to the house of the ruler of the synagogue,
and seeth the tumult,
and them that wept and wailed greatly.
M'r:5:39:
And when he was come in,
he saith unto them,
Why make ye this ado,
and weep?
the damsel is not dead, but sleepeth.

The Gospel of John does not cover these events. As a witness, if John the Apostle was the writer of the Gospel of John.

Of the ones mentioned in Matthew and Mark which of the ones listed wrote what was written in those two events? Peter didn't write either so it must be the other two, James and John.

The beloved disciple was one of the two that John the Baptist sent to follow Jesus. One was said to become an Apostle, it does not say that about the other one.

Lu:10:39:
And she had a sister called Mary,
which also sat at Jesus' feet,
and heard his word.
Lu:10:40:
But Martha was cumbered about much serving,
and came to him,
and said,
Lord,
dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone?
bid her therefore that she help me.
Lu:10:41:
And Jesus answered and said unto her,
Martha,
Martha,
thou art careful and troubled about many things:
Lu:10:42:
But one thing is needful:
and Mary hath chosen that good part,
which shall not be taken away from her.

The above shows that Mary did sit in on what was mostly meant for the Apostles. Having happened once it cannot be ruled that this was the only time she sat and listened.

One more short question, who is the woman mentioned in the epistles of John?

 

[coldstream]

Suitably obscure on both points MHz.

As to the first, the doesn't sound like the Modalism of United Pentacostals, in which God revealed Himself in three consecutive modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. This denies orthodox teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jehova's Witness. i'm speculating, follows your definition but there might be others. Certainly the mystery of the Trinity and the nature of Christ was a matter of intense conflict in the early Church and only settled by the Chalcedon Council in 451, with the resolution of the Nestorian Heresy with this confession.

Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin." He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division, or separation. The distinction between natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.

You could argue that this is very defintion and core of Christianity, implicit in the Creed, therefor neither Catholic or Protestant deny it.

As to the second, there is no reason not to accept John as the Beloved Disciple. Christian tradition, which has value and authenticity in itself has always deemed him such. Are you saying Martha is the Beloved Disciple?

 

[Cliffy]

I have mentioned before that Mhz has a unique interpretation of the bible so I think he/she is non denominational, although Mhz does have JW leanings which tell me that he/she is a renegade. We have one such renegade in out town.

 

[MHz]

Suitably obscure on both points MHz.

Thank you. It is actually a question I don't have a solid answer for unless Scripture is consulted. It would be my hope that Christ would decide which of the 7 Churches covered in Revelation that I belong to, based on my 'mental' relationship to God. Each of those 7 have a pro and con, so that ups the possibility to 14 choices. I can't claim to be Anglican in that the last time I was in one of their Churches was when I was 10.
Taking the last 10 years my Church has been with the online community. Certainly far more hours were spend in earnest discussion than in a 'proper' Church. Unfortunately that was a different division, that came down to which camp you were in. Trib, pre-trib, pan-trib and then all the different offshoots of those sects. Then there is the who-is -saved factor, include too many you beome a 'frowned upon minority sect'. This is because the verson that has everybody taking a slightly different paths but ending up in the same place (with some variations in that the last person allowed is not a position that should be intentionally chased. Kingdom of God is just that, you are either in or you are not. Belief and non-Belief is as different as one act as 'hosts' to the 'others' when they come to visit the most Holy City. New Jerusalem is huge by our standards, it is well over 200 times the size as in the OT. To make things 'stay the same' New Earth should also be increased in size a similar proportion.

The babies that are born into that world belong to those who liove outside that City. The ones that are inside the City consider everybody outside the City as their children, they do not increase in population no matter how many time the population in the new world doubles. Neither part loses anything, some are shepherds, some are flock, both are on the same play-ground that belongs to the land-owner, God as described in the Holy Bible, both testaments,as vivid as you can fathom.
The final destination is as important as the beginning. The preface of the KJV1666 freeware edition warns that reading for yourself (as would a translator) will lead to independent thought. They also went on to say that is why they would offer not one 'insight/short-cut' to the gentle reader. There should be one single book that covers Christianity. .......... The subject of the trinity has sold 100.000's of copies of all sorts of canflicting testimony on the 'truth of the matter'.
The beginning of the Gospel of John is the whole foundation of the word trinity. The beginning is not singular, man is not singular. Dust (Ge:1) + Breath of Life (Ge:2). Those two have seperate timelines, one covers the time of the building of all the Heavens and ending at the time end of the 6th day.
Ge:2 covers the time that Adam was given to know God (pretty much from the time of the first 'living thing' (water causes life it is not alive by itself).

Aspect two that needs to be considered. A new subject or passage usually come with 3 things in no particular order other than the most important one is mentioned foirst. The NT is fulll og 'greetings' from/to. The Bible is rift with that same format.

Jo:1:1 Which beginning? Ch 1 or 2? 1 is the Holy Spirit, 2 is how far Christ's relationship with Adam goes.

Justify this theory with the words in the Bible. that is the test you must pass not mine. Who was the writer?? John the Baptist was called into service by the same one who had all the OT Prophets called. God, that is who would be mentioned first. That is who the word is, that very same God who spoke back then (and things were made so) is the one referenced. Christ is who acts on God's behalf as far as sin is concerned. Some can be forgiven (those innocent of seeing God's actual face). Never forgiven is lieing after seeing God's actual face.

As to the first, the doesn't sound like the Modalism of United Pentacostals, in which God revealed Himself in three consecutive modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. This denies orthodox teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Jesus often prayed to God, trinity should be over right there and then. How about 100 verses??? Would that suffice or would it take 110? I will take His God as my God, I also appreciate that I might have a 1,000 yeras to prepare for that moment. If you prefer to 'pop right up out of nowhere'... go for it.

Jehova's Witness. i'm speculating, follows your definition but there might be others. Certainly the mystery of the Trinity and the nature of Christ was a matter of intense conflict in the early Church and only settled by the Chalcedon Council in 451, with the resolution of the Nestorian Heresy with this confession.

Sure I invited them in, over the years we covered a lot of subjects. I even read their version until the words 'tell the IAM sent me' was changed. They were cool with me submitting the KJV verses. In a one-on-one it was even said that he didn't totally agree with 'corporate teachings, ie NYNY). They don't knock simply because I won't become a 'member'. They still respect me as being Christian.
One long term gave me a 75% rating in actual understanding. I gave him a 95% rating as being a sheeple (saved because God would have approved of the way he conducted himself.
I just love games, is this one pin-the-denomiation-on-MHz?? lol

You could argue that this is very defintion and core of Christianity, implicit in the Creed, therefor neither Catholic or Protestant deny it.

The core of Christianity is 'can the dead rise from the grave and go on to etenal life while remembrering every single ms?

As to the second, there is no reason not to accept John as the Beloved Disciple. Christian tradition, which has value and authenticity in itself has always deemed him such. Are you saying Martha is the Beloved Disciple?

No, her sister Mary. Most likely actually Miriam as she would have been most likely a daughter of Aaron, same as Mary (MOJ) and Elizebeth (another daughter of Aaron)
Read about Moses, Aaron and Miriam in the OT to verify that God does include women as having important roles in His book.

 

[MHz]

I have mentioned before that Mhz has a unique interpretation of the bible so I think he/she is non denominational, although Mhz does have JW leanings which tell me that he/she is a renegade. We have one such renegade in out town.

LOL Isn't that the one you ran out of town? "JW leanings", I would not go that far and I do know more about that relationship than you do. I'm probably a bit more detailed than they would like in some areas like how can a day/year be considered as having meaning in some prophecy if that 'concept' was not introduced ubtiil a few chapters later. They may have evn balked at my suggestion of the prophecy given in Matthew was dropped and the Revelation picked the same prophecy up at a certain verse in a certain chapter.

So what??, what should concern you is our conversations, you hate God, I don't. We expand from that point. It isn't unique, everything I have ever stated has been mentioned before by somebody, my investigations could not find a flaw in their 'understanding'. They were a variety of teachers, some said things that I didn't originally see as being possible, yet, years later some of thos 'suggestion' were found to be supported by certain verses even if the RCC or whoever denied any such connection.

 

[coldstream]

The beginning of the Gospel of John is the whole foundation of the word trinity.

Well we can agree on something, MHz. Somewhat abbreviated "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And Word became Flesh and dwelt amongst us filled with grace and truth".

I can see you are completely unaffiliated with established churches, which i suppose might have some advantages, but precludes your taking of advantage of the Canon of integrated theology, vetted over millennia, and the product of divine revelation through prayer of the successors of the Apostles, as a starting point.

In your chosen situation you have to start from ground zero, Scripture without the illumination of learned theological exposition, and of course your life span precludes your going to levels anywhere approaching that Canon. It also precludes the succor of liturgy of whatever denomination, and the companionship of community.

In a real sense, speaking as a Catholic, it excommunicates you from the Church established by Christ, and sharing the fruit of vine and bread of life (His Blood and His Body) in the Eucharist Christ bequeathed to us.

I hope you reach that point of understanding you are seeking, and the God leads you in a good direction. Simply accepting Him as Truth, opens you to His guidance.

No, her sister Mary. Most likely actually Miriam as she would have been most likely a daughter of Aaron, same as Mary (MOJ) and Elizebeth (another daughter of Aaron)

Mary, the Mother of God, was the daughter of St. Joachim and St. Anne.

 

[MHz]

Well we can agree on something, MHz. Somewhat abbreviated "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. And Word became Flesh and dwelt amongst us filled with grace and truth".

The KJV1611 version has it slightly different.
Joh:1:1:
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.
Joh:1:2:
The same was in the beginning with God.

The below would seem to put an end to the trinity and put it as one God, one Son and one Spirit.
Joh:20:17:
Jesus saith unto her,
Touch me not;
for I am not yet ascended to my Father:
but go to my brethren,
and say unto them,
I ascend unto my Father,
and your Father;
and to my God,
and your God.

I can see you are completely unaffiliated with established churches, which i suppose might have some advantages, but precludes your taking of advantage of the Canon of integrated theology, vetted over millennia, and the product of divine revelation through prayer of the successors of the Apostles, as a starting point.

It doesn't stop me from researching what any Church promotes. Even the RCC has published documents (quite recently) that backs away from the hard-core trinity theory. They have even said it is a subject that is 'quite difficult' to explain. I'll try to find a link

In your chosen situation you have to start from ground zero, Scripture without the illumination of learned theological exposition, and of course your life span precludes your going to levels anywhere approaching that Canon. It also precludes the succor of liturgy of whatever denomination, and the companionship of community.

Everybody has to start at ground-zero. What the RCC teaches you has to be verified by you going over the same Scripture that they claim means something specific. Without doing that you are cutting yourself off from God's words and blindly accepting man's words. There is nothing to promote the understanding that was there in the 4th century is the correct one.

What does the official RCC stance on who Susanna and Joanna were and how they fit in with Mary M. ?

In a real sense, speaking as a Catholic, it excommunicates you from the Church established by Christ, and sharing the fruit of vine and bread of life (His Blood and His Body) in the Eucharist Christ bequeathed to us.

If my path leads me to read the Bible more then I am not excommunicated by God from His words. Being shunned by men who are in error about what the Bible says is not a loss to be mourned, it is being released from shackles.

I hope you reach that point of understanding you are seeking, and the God leads you in a good direction. Simply accepting Him as Truth, opens you to His guidance.

Thank you, so far He has not lead me astray even thought it has put many current doctrines into question.

Mary, the Mother of God, was the daughter of St. Joachim and St. Anne.

Jesus's family tree through Mary is given in Luke, her father would have been in that list.

 

[coldstream]

Even the RCC has published documents (quite recently) that backs away from the hard-core trinity theory. They have even said it is a subject that is 'quite difficult' to explain. I'll try to find a link

uhh.. impossible.. never. It would deny the Nicene Creed, and the Chalcedon Confession.. the constitutional bedrock of Christian belief.

What does the official RCC stance on who Susanna and Joanna were and how they fit in with Mary M.

All three supported Christ's ministry. Mary Magdalene and Joanna were amongst the women who ventured out to Christ's tomb on Easter morning, to care for the body. They were women of courage, as the Apostles were in hiding in fear of arrest and execution. I'm unaware of any familial relationship between the three, i'm not sure how relevant it would be.

Jesus's family tree through Mary is given in Luke, her father would have been in that list.

That is Joseph's genealogy. Mary's parentage is not mentioned in the Bible, it comes to us through an oral tradition and legend, from the earliest and and nearly contemporaneous illuminations of Christ's life. Another resource of the Church.