Why do the catholics preach a false gospel?

[Composer]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

[ThatGirlAgain]

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

So you speak for all catholics then?

Upon whose authority?

Are there other catholic answers besides yours?

If yes please provide examples and their source?

12 years of Catholic school talking here.

i) So your praying to your catholic holy-spirit and your numerous catholic prayers took 12 years to let you know it was a sham of a religion? LOL!

Why did you believe the catholic holy-spirit for 12 years and then accept it had misguided you all that time OR was it another holy-spirit that convinced you to reject the catholic one you used for 12 years?

ii) As you rejected catholicism your response(s) as to what you claim catholics believe is merely a personal response based upon the catholic teachings you rejected as truth? LOL!

iii) Thank you for giving us your personal interpretation of what a genuine catholic might actually believe?

Also the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia

Any Catholics around have a different take on what I have said?

They appear to be incapable of personally answering for themselves so far!

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this.

.

1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)

Too bad the Bishop of Woolwich is not a Catholic.

So you personally disagree with the Bishop of Woolwich's statement of what church people believe and also maintain catholics do not hold such similar beliefs as he stated?

What do you disagree with?

We will have to also wait for a genuine catholic to emerge to discover what they allegedly disagree with concerning the former Bishop of Woolwich's statement regarding many church goers!

Catholic dotinre, a mandatory article of faith BTW, is that Jesus is True God and True man.

Yes, but typically catholics have a well recorded history of instilling fear, literal torture and various evil forms of coersion, murder and death against those that won't willingly accept their ' trinitarian god of love '. LOL!

2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

More so -

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).

See also:

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

See also:

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).

Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.


3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:

The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.

The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:

Acts 2:38.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16.

For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 10:48.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5.

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 22:16.

And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].



4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".

In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.

"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.

1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.

Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.

"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated? (Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.

For the Catholic sources you cited above. Been there. Done that. Did you miss it?

I didn't miss your failed arguments then but you may repeat them or try again now as you will?

What the earliest Christians were aware of is irrelevant.

Yes I have no doubt Cults like yours you rejected after 12 years of preaching it concoct what they will in blatant disregard for what the Original beliefs were! LOL!

Catholics do not do sola scriptura. Things can be figured out later.

Meanwhile the Original believers didn't preach what catholics do now and you rejected also!

For the non-Catholic sources, who cares? This thread is about why Catholics believe what they believe. As far as Jesus taking part in a charade, that might get you burned at the stake in earlier days.

You rejected what they believe, so you make a pitiful and dishonest defender for them and a fool of yourself at the same time!

If you want to debate Christology in general – as you appear to be doing – move this to a debate forum and let’s get paid in tokens. As well as have a wider range of debate material.

I require NO payments by tokens, for I know my teachings are sound and successful at busting ALL religions and Cults like the catholic one you discarded. You obviously relish payment in tokens for your contributions (as if the bearer of most tokens is the legitimate winner. It only takes more Story book proponents to claim they don't accept my Truths for the tally to appear as if they were correct by weight of numbers?), and your comment sadly portrays a residual selfish attitude for the greedy lusts ALL self acclaimed christians manifest, that they ALL require and expect divine rewards for their selfish efforts!

In any case, I am beginning my weekend chore cycle and will not be back until sometime next week when work and school allow. It is my long standing habit not to post here on weekends.

At your earliest convenience is fine IF you wish to add anything more in support of the religion you rejected after 12 years (apparently?) OR other Topics!

You failed also to present Links to your writings in support of catholicism, trinitarianism, holy-spirit guidance, power of prayer etc. etc that you made during your 12 years with them? Or was that all a sham you are ashamed of now?

If you are looking for a debate about why Catholics should not believe what they do, go start a debate topic. I presened why Catholics believe what they do and that is all that is needed for thid room. Not believing in Catholicism anymore I am under no obligation to justify Catholicism. I need only describe it here. And I definitely do not need to discuss strongly non-Catholic alternatives.

Although it sounds more like you might not want a debate but an outright argument, with personal rancor included. Try the IMDB forums if that is the case.

As for why it took the first 12 years of my life (actually only 11, I skipped 3rd grade) to 'reject' Catholicsm:

I did not 'reject' it. It sort of evaporated.

Did you expect 'rejection' of ones' faith at say the age of 3?

And I do not recall ever praying explicitly to the Holy Spirit. That is more of a Protestant thing.


I am afraid this thread has turned into a waste of time for me. I have much more interesting topics on my mind. B'bye

[Wootah]

Can I add I note very little civility in Composer's posts.

[Confused]

ThatGirlAgain wrote on another Thread: -

Although no longer a Catholic, my religious education is recent and comprehensive and I believe I know the religion very well. The Immaculate Conception, the doctrine that Mary had no original sin, being already redeemed at the moment of conception, is in fact an Article of Faith.

(Source: http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... =30#400029)

So, ThatGirlAgain, as an admitted article of Faith you must have sworn your belief in its accuracy?

However now you say you reject catholicism and now reject all that you stood for as a devout catholic and preached before as a (in fact) pretend devout catholic. LOL!

Can we have examples of your previous Posts and teachings when you were a devout catholic showing your entusiasm for catholicism, but now we see you reject those beliefs and teachings for new ones? LOL!

What prayers & holy-spirit convinced you that catholicism was just right for you?

What prayers & holy-spirit then convinced you that you were wrong and misguided by your earlier prayers to a holy-spirit?

Do you now pray to another holy-spirit i.e. a non-catholic one? LOL!

Moderator Warning

Composer,
We try to encourage civil debate here, not mockery. You have been here long enough to know the rules. Please abide by them.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Confused]

But since this is the Catholic sub-forum, here is a Catholic answer.

So you speak for all catholics then?

Upon whose authority?

Are there other catholic answers besides yours?

If yes please provide examples and their source?

12 years of Catholic school talking here.

i) So your praying to your catholic holy-spirit and your numerous catholic prayers took 12 years to let you know it was a sham of a religion? LOL!

Why did you believe the catholic holy-spirit for 12 years and then accept it had misguided you all that time OR was it another holy-spirit that convinced you to reject the catholic one you used for 12 years?

ii) As you rejected catholicism your response(s) as to what you claim catholics believe is merely a personal response based upon the catholic teachings you rejected as truth? LOL!

iii) Thank you for giving us your personal interpretation of what a genuine catholic might actually believe?

Also the Catholic Catechism and the Catholic Encyclopedia

Any Catholics around have a different take on what I have said?

They appear to be incapable of personally answering for themselves so far!

Philippians 2:5-10

[5] For let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

[6] Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: [7] But emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as a man. [8] He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross. [9] For which cause God also hath exalted him, and hath given him a name which is above all names: [10] That in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those that are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth:
[11] And that every tongue should confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.

Douay-Rheims of course

This is Paul quoting an existing hymn. The implication is that the pre-existing divinity of Jesus (vv 6-7) was an idea already around in the time of Paul. So saith the Catholics. And remember the discussion here is why do Catholics believe this.

.

1. "There is one God, and there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus." (1 Timothy 2:5.)

So Jesus really is a man. This is the undoubted teaching of the New Testament. Now compare that with these words by the former Bishop of Woolwich, Dr. Robinson, in his book, "Honest to God," in a passage where he was explaining how most Christians view Jesus:
"Jesus was not a man born and bred, he was God for a limited period taking part in a charade. He looked like a man, but underneath he was God dressed up - like Father Christmas."

Many church people find the bishop's reference to Father Christmas offensive. Yet apart from that, they agree that this is a fair statement of church teaching. If Jesus was really God, or even a mighty angel who once lived in heaven, then he was never a real man, but a Divine Person dressed up in human flesh. (My emphasis - Source: http://www.god-so-loved-the-world.org/e ... heaven.htm)

Too bad the Bishop of Woolwich is not a Catholic.

So you personally disagree with the Bishop of Woolwich's statement of what church people believe and also maintain catholics do not hold such similar beliefs as he stated?

What do you disagree with?

We will have to also wait for a genuine catholic to emerge to discover what they allegedly disagree with concerning the former Bishop of Woolwich's statement regarding many church goers!

Catholic dotinre, a mandatory article of faith BTW, is that Jesus is True God and True man.

Yes, but typically catholics have a well recorded history of instilling fear, literal torture and various evil forms of coersion, murder and death against those that won't willingly accept their ' trinitarian god of love '. LOL!

2. Interesting how you claim trinitarian catholics refute and deny there own scholars e.g. -

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

More so -

The doctrine of the Trinity is not taught in the Old Testament.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. XIV, p. 306).

See also:

The Old Testament tells us nothing explicitly or by necessary implication of a Triune God who is Father, Son and Holy Spirit.... There is no evidence that any sacred writer even suspected the existence of a [Trinity] within the Godhead.... Even to see in the Old Testament suggestions or foreshadowings or ‘veiled signs’ of the Trinity of persons, is to go beyond the words and intent of the sacred writers.

Fortman, Edmund J. (1972), The Triune God, Baker Book House, pp. xv, 8, 9.

See also:

The Old Testament can scarcely be used as authority for the existence of distinctions within the Godhead. The use of ‘us’ by the divine speaker (Gen. 1:26, 3:32, 11:7) is strange, but it is perhaps due to His consciousness of being surrounded by other beings of a loftier order than men (Isa. 6:8).

Davidson, A.B., Hastings Dictionary of the Bible, Vol. II, p. 205.


3. Some people say that since the disciples baptised in the "name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit", this must mean that all three are God. However:

The name of [Yahshua] is the essential part of it as is shown in Acts. Triune immersion is not taught as the Greek Church holds and practices, baptism in the name of the Father, then of the Son, then of the Holy Spirit. The use of "name" (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.

Robertson, A. T., Word Pictures in the New Testament vol. 1, p.245.

The proof of this is made evident in later passages, where we find the apostles baptising in the name of Jesus alone. There is no example in the Book of Acts of any Trinitarian formula anywhere, nor are we told that the identity of God is expressed in the formula "Father, son, Holy Spirit." Note the following:

Acts 2:38.

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16.

For as yet [the Spirit] was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 10:48.

And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

Acts 19:5.

When they heard [this], they were baptized in the name of Jesus.

Acts 22:16.

And now why tarriest? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on [His name -- all texts].



4. If "in the form of God" means the very nature of God, then Christ could not have been "Very God" while on earth, as trinitarians assert, since this is what he is said to have sacrificed and left behind in coming to the earth.

The Greek word "morphe" (translated "form") does not refer to "essential nature" as the trinitarian cause requires. This is proven by the following:
"Eidos", not "morphe" is the Greek word which conveys the idea of "essential nature". As Liddell and Scott point out in their lexicon, "morphe" means form, shape, fine, beautiful form or shape, figure, fashion, appearance, outward form or semblance. It is opposed to "eidos" which means "true form".

In the context of this passage, it is stated that Christ "took upon him the form of a servant" (vs. 7). But what is the form of a servant (Grk. "doulos", a slave)? The "essential nature" of a slave is the same as that of any other human being. The form, therefore, must refer to the semblance or demeanour of a slave as the distinguishing characteristic.

"Morphe" occurs in only one other place in the N.T. - Mark 16:12, and here it clearly does not mean "essential nature". Jesus appeared "in another form", but this could not refer to a change of his essential nature since the reason why he appeared to be in another form was because the disciples' "eyes were holden". (Luke 24:16 cf. vs. 31). Not even a trinitarian or a J.W. would be prepared to say that Christ's essential nature was changed after his resurrection and glorification.

How was Christ in the form of God? He had the semblance and demeanour of the Father mentally and morally. His character was the express image of his Father's person. (Heb. 1:3).

Sometimes trinitarians stress that Christ was originally in the form of God - i.e., "being" in the form of God is taken to mean that he was in fact "Very God" before his "incarnation". The Greek verb "huparchon" refutes this position since it is in the imperfect tense which expresses action yet, or still in course of performance. Time signified by an imperfect tense is of a continual, habitual, repeated action, so that "being in the form of God" means "being, and continuing to be in the form of God". Christ never ceased to be in the form of God since in semblance and demeanour from his birth he habitually exemplified his Father's character. Note the use of "huparchon" in the following passages:
Acts 2:30 - "Therefore being a prophet does not mean "being originally before birth a prophet", but rather a prophet and continuing to be such.

1 Cor. 11:7 - "Forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God" does not mean "being originally before he was born the image and glory of God", but rather being the image of God and continuing to be.

Gal. 2:14 - "If thou being a Jew" does not mean "being originally before his birth as a Jew", but rather if you from the start and continuing to be a Jew.
"Thought it not robbery to be equal with God" is generally acknowledged to be a poor translation. The R.S.V. reads as follows: "He did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped." Unlike Eve who grasped after the fruit which was to be desired to make one like God (the "elohim") to know good and evil, Jesus refused to take the kingdoms of the world without the crucifixion of the flesh and the declaration of the righteousness of his Father. In the Garden of Gethsemane he subjected his will to his Father's, not arrogating to himself prerogatives that rightly belonged to his Father. (Matt. 26:39).

How did Christ take the form of a servant (slave)? Two passages supply the answer:
"If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet." (John 13:14).
"Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered. And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him." (Hebrews 5:8, 9).
Although Christ was in the form of God in his semblance and demeanour, he took on him the semblance and demeanour of a slave.

"He humbled himself"; "he emptied himself" R.S.V. (vs. 8), refers to Christ's deliberate choice to submit his will to that of his Father. Christ was worshipped (Matt. 8:2; 9:18), performed the works of God (John 10:37-38), and forgave sins (Matthew 9:2), but he never arrogated to himself authority which had not been delegated to him by the Father. In so doing his example was a powerful lesson in humility to the Philippians. But if Christ "being originally, before his birth, while he was in heaven in the form (essential nature) of God thought at his birth, when he descended into the womb, not to be equal with God, but left the form of God",1 where is humility demonstrated? (Source: wrestedcriptures.com - Phil. 2:6,7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Footnotes:

1. This is the way in which Phil. 2:6 is read by trinitarians. See A.B. Bruce, The Humiliation of Christ, (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clarke, 1889), pp. 1-23.

For the Catholic sources you cited above. Been there. Done that. Did you miss it?

I didn't miss your failed arguments then but you may repeat them or try again now as you will?

What the earliest Christians were aware of is irrelevant.

Yes I have no doubt Cults like yours you rejected after 12 years of preaching it concoct what they will in blatant disregard for what the Original beliefs were! LOL!

Catholics do not do sola scriptura. Things can be figured out later.

Meanwhile the Original believers didn't preach what catholics do now and you rejected also!

For the non-Catholic sources, who cares? This thread is about why Catholics believe what they believe. As far as Jesus taking part in a charade, that might get you burned at the stake in earlier days.

You rejected what they believe, so you make a pitiful and dishonest defender for them and a fool of yourself at the same time!

If you want to debate Christology in general – as you appear to be doing – move this to a debate forum and let’s get paid in tokens. As well as have a wider range of debate material.

I require NO payments by tokens, for I know my teachings are sound and successful at busting ALL religions and Cults like the catholic one you discarded. You obviously relish payment in tokens for your contributions (as if the bearer of most tokens is the legitimate winner. It only takes more Story book proponents to claim they don't accept my Truths for the tally to appear as if they were correct by weight of numbers?), and your comment sadly portrays a residual selfish attitude for the greedy lusts ALL self acclaimed christians manifest, that they ALL require and expect divine rewards for their selfish efforts!

In any case, I am beginning my weekend chore cycle and will not be back until sometime next week when work and school allow. It is my long standing habit not to post here on weekends.

At your earliest convenience is fine IF you wish to add anything more in support of the religion you rejected after 12 years (apparently?) OR other Topics!

You failed also to present Links to your writings in support of catholicism, trinitarianism, holy-spirit guidance, power of prayer etc. etc that you made during your 12 years with them? Or was that all a sham you are ashamed of now?

Moderator Final Warning
Consider this your final warning Composer. Next report will be put to a vote for probation. Please maintain civility, respect, and tolerance.
Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Composer]

It is bizarre that it is only myself that is continually warned here when all I did was ask a so called genuine catholic to respond why they believe a false gospel that the Original believers NEVER taught nor believed. But instead I got some one claiming to speak on their behalf concerning the catholic belief system they rejected?

[Goat]

It is bizarre that it is only myself that is continually warned here when all I did was ask a so called genuine catholic to respond why they believe a false gospel that the Original believers NEVER taught nor believed. But instead I got some one claiming to speak on their behalf concerning the catholic belief system they rejected?

It's a matter of being CIVIL. The purpose of this subforum is to discuss issues about Catholicism, and the way your OP is phrased, it is not to discuss it, it is to attack it.

There is a difference between civil discourse and attacking .

[Mikeymike19912010]

It's time to lift the veil of misunderstanding and expose these spurious fraudsters and provide the truth to the people who want to be proper, untainted Christians. Now I don't want to derogate or upset anyone but rather be academically correct in what we know to be impartially true! And everybody deserves the truth! Orthodox Christianity and catholicism is false and are plagiarised counterfeits masquerading as Gods servants,their travesty teaches Jesus died on a cross, this is actually a pagan adaptation mocking Christianity and is totally false. The cross is a pagan astrological symbol and was used by pagans long before Christians and was adopted from  the  pagan star constellation "crux" and also appears in the centre of the zodiac as the solstices and equinoxes affirming this is a pagan derivative as it long predates christ. No where in the Torah, the Writings, or New Covenant is it even suggested that a cross should be observed, let alone worn; it is a form of PAGANISM.  To have or to observe and bear a cross is to elevate paganism above YHVH (יְהֹוָה)  (Jehovah) who commands us not to put any other god before him. Would you hang a replica or an image of an instrument from your neck if your child or loved one was killed by it? I would hope not. What purpose would it serve? This is actually an insidious way to get people inadvertently worshiping Satan .Jesus actually died on a torture steak as the original gospels written in Greek used the word "stauros" to refer to the structure used for his execution. This word means a vertical pole with no crossbar. So Jesus may have been hung on a tree (Acts 5:30) (1 Peter 2:24) And can a religion that participates in pagan festivals like Christmas(originally Saturnalia) halloween(Samhain) and Easter really be Christian ? Jesus birthday is no were to be seen in the bible! And it certainly doesn't mention anything about celebrating his resurrection either, these are all man made celebrations invented for selfish desires and was blended into Christianity by a roman emperor named "Constantine" in around 325AD in an attempt to make Christianity more acceptable to Pagans. Take a look at the pope and all his other pagan occult symbols like horus, the pagan sun god represented on his staff, the satanic hand gesture he uses,(The "El Diablo) where as the middle finger and ring finger are clenched leaving the pinky and index erect resembling devil horns, This gesture is the Satanic salute, a sign of recognition and allegiance between members of Satanism or other unholy groups and is an excerpt from the "Satanic Bible. He also wears the fish hat referring to Dagon the pagan fish God as worn by Nimrod king of Babylon. Moreover the Vatican's believe in the trinity (defined as "consisting of three parts") which again has lucifirian references due to the fact that three is a very significant number in the occult with it being "the Magic Number" and everybody knows that magic associates itself with sorcery and  witchcraft. Furthermore the number three is represented geo metrically in a triangle which resembles a pyramid and any scholar knows that a pyramid is a satanic emblem of the illuminati occult.  The most refined Christians are the Jehovahs Witnesses hence the word Jehovah ,which is Gods name, father of Jesus, their version of events are most accurate and there is no trace of pagan tradition or symbols amongst any of their doctrine or customs as all these things have been filtered out. The pagans, Freemasons ( illuminati), with them being Gods adversary infiltrated the churches and deliberately altered the scriptures removing Gods name in an attempt to deceive and prevent people from forming a close relationship with Jehovah, the true God, they also try to confuse people into thinking Jesus was God but he wasn't he was the son of Jehovah sent as ransom to redeem our sins .Now if we think about it does it make sense for Jesus to pray to himself and remain obedient to himself? Is so then why would he use the pronouns in second person perspective as in "your" instead of "mine"  This suggests he is talking about a separate entity.Jesus never refers to himself as equal to God or describes himself as God and always gives the glory to his father! Would Jehovah really try and confuse his people with such a contradictory concept? 
Also religion that removes and fails to use Gods name and depicts Jesus with long hair cannot be Christian or holy at all as all these things are contrary to the scriptures and everyone knows that the lords prayer said to let his name be sanctified or hallowed be thy name so how can we do this if they keep his name secret by removing it from the scriptures? They have replaced it with Lord which doesn't make sense in many of the contexts as Lord And God are titles not Names , Jehovah gave his name so we could identify him and distinguish him apart from Satan because Satan is also a Lord and a god  and After-all you can't  truly know, or develop an intimate relationship with someone until you exchange names.
Supporting scriptures:
Jeremiah 23:27
They are thinking of making my people forget my name by means of THEIR dreams that they keep relating each one to the other just as their father forgot my name by means of ba'al
Corinthians 11 :14 
Does not nature its self teach you that if a man has long hair , it is a dishonour to him;
John 17:26 
And I have made your name known to them and will make it known,
Psalm 83:18
That people my know that you whose name is Jehovah.
Psalms 105:3
Make your boast in his holy Name
John 6:38 Because I have come down from heaven to do, not my will but the will of him that sent me 
John 7:16
Exodus 6:3
isiah 26:4
Isiah 12:2
Genesis 22:14
Exodus 17:15
Ex. 20:7

[S-word]

Even a trinitarian scholar admits what the trinitarian catholic church now preaches was NOT what the earliest and original believers taught or believed!

The late Dr. W R Matthews, Dean of St Paul's Cathedral, wrote:

"It must be admitted by everyone who has the rudiments of an historical sense that the doctrine of the Trinity, as a doctrine, formed no part of the original message. St Paul knew it not, and would have been unable to understand the meaning of the terms used in the theological formula on which the Church ultimately agreed". (27)

Or more recently:

"In order to understand the doctrine of the Trinity it is necessary to understand that the doctrine is a development, and why it developed. ... It is a waste of time to attempt to read Trinitarian doctrine directly off the pages of the New Testament". (28)

27. "God in Christian Thought and Experience", p.180
28. A & R Hanson: "Reasonable Belief, A survey of the Christian Faith, p.171-173,1980

&

CARDINAL NEWMAN, the most remarkable English ecclesiastic of the 19th century:

"It may startle those who are but acquainted with the popular writing of this day, yet, I believe, the most accurate consideration of the subject will lead us to acquiesce in the statement as a general truth, that the doctrines in question (viz., the Trinity and the Incarnation) have never been learned merely from Scripture. Surely the sacred volume was never intended, and is not adapted to teach us our creed; however certain it is that we can prove our creed from it, when it has once been taught us. . . . From the very first, the rule has been, as a matter of fact, for the Church to teach the truth, and then appeal to Scripture in vindication of its own teaching." -Arians of the Fourth Century, pp. 55-56.

i.e. the trinity formulation is a ' johnny come lately corruption of the original beliefs! '.

There is a difference between Paul etc. not being aware of certain later claims and their outright denial of those claims. The earliest Christians believed in monotheism. So does the Catholic Church today. The Trinity concept is an elaboration intended to resolve various difficulties that would otherwise plague Christian theology. Remember that the Catholic Church does not hold to sola scriptura. Not all religious truths are found in the scriptures. There are also tradition and ongoing theological investigation. Read what Newman said again and you will see this.

If you wish to debate whether the Trinity is a sound concept, there are already several threads on that elsewhere. But it is not the case that the earliest Christians contradicted the idea of the Trinity. In the view of the Catholic Church, they simply did not know about it yet.

.

Not only did the apostles not teach the false doctrine of the trinity, but neither did they teach the so-called unbiblical immaculate conception, of Jesus and his mother Mary.

In the days of the Apostle Paul who in 1st Timothy 1: 1; says: “From Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by order of “GOD OUR SAVIOUR’ and Christ Jesus ‘OUR HOPE.’� The people were already beginning to fall away from the truth, and following another gospel that was not taught by the word of God or the apostles.

In his 2nd letter to the Corinthians 11: 4; Paul says, “You gladly tolerate anyone who comes to you and preaches a different Jesus, not the one we preached; and you accept a spirit (The Lie) and a gospel completely different from the spirit (Of Truth) and the gospel you received from us.�

Then in Galatians 1: 6; Paul says again, “I am surprised at you! In no time at all you are deserting the truth and are accepting another gospel.

So, What was that other gospel that was leading the people away from the truth and away from the Jesus as preached by the Apostles, to another false Jesus?

That gospel was the word of the anti-christ, that refused to acknowledge that Jesus had come as a human being, and instead, they believed that he was a spirit, who, like some Hologram, would appear and disappear at will.

Even in the later days of John, the false teaching that Jesus was not of the seed of Adam from which every human being who has, or ever will walk this earth, has descended, and had not come as a human being, but as a spiritual being, was already beginning to rear its ugly head, and concerning that evolving falsehood, John had this to say.

1st letter of John 4:1-3; “My dear friends, do not believe all who claim to have the spirit, (My words are spirit) but test them to find out if the spirit they have comes from God. For many false prophets have gone out everywhere. This is how you will be able to know if it is Gods spirit/word: anyone who acknowledges that Jesus came as a human being has the spirit who comes from God. But anyone who denies this about Jesus does not have the spirit from God. The spirit that he has is from the enemy of the anointed one, the Anti-christ etc.�

2nd letter of John verses 7-10;.“Many deceivers have gone out all over the world, people who do not acknowledge that Jesus came as a human being. Such a person is a deceiver and an enemy of Christ.�

We all know where to find the teaching of the anti-christ that Jesus was not a true human being, which has been spread ALL OVER THE WORLD.

Over the centuries the false teaching of the anti-christ continued to evolve, as the followers of the anti-christ became more enlightened and harder to deceive. In Alexandria, by the second century, Docetism, the concept that Jesus had existed as a spirit rather than a human being, had all but theoretically been stamped out.

But still, there persisted the belief that Jesus, although seen as a sort of human being, did not have our normal bodily needs, such as eating, drinking and excretion, and Clement the bishop of Alexandria, wrote: “It would be ridiculous to imagine that the redeemer, in order to exist, had the usual needs of man. He only took food and ate it in order that we should not teach about him in a Docetic fashion.� Satan must have had some trouble trying to tempt this false Jesus of theirs into turning stones into bread.

Their Jesus was not the Jesus as taught by the apostles, but that other Jesus, taught by the Anti-Christ, who unlike we mere HUMAN BEINGS, did not need to eat, drink, or go to the toilet, as was taught by one of the great teachers that the members of the universal church, love to use as one of their authorities when trying to defend one of their their false doctrines.

Saint Clement of Alexandria, who was a saint in the Martyrology of the Roman universal church, in support of the great lie, speaks of the time that some imaginary midwife, who was supposed to be at the birth of Jesus, told some woman by the name Salome, that the mother was still a virgin after the birth and that her hymen was still intact, and that this supposed Salome, stuck her finger into the mother’s vagina to check, and her hand immediately withered up, but the baby Jesus reached out and touched her hand and healed it.

Clement was a saint in the universal church, which was established by King Constantine, from a rag-tag group of insult hurling religious bodies, who called themselves christians. Eventually, sick to the stomach with their constant quarreling and abuse toward each other, Constantine summond all the leaders of those groups to the first ever "World Council of churches," where, in 325 AD, some 300 years after the Apostolic Church of Jesus Christ had been firmly established in Jerusalem, the non-christian, and almost certainly theologically illiterate Constantine, established his universal church, which has nothing to do with the Jesus as taught by the apostles.

Down to the 17th century Clement was venerated as a saint. His name was to be found in the Martyrologies, and his feast fell on December 4. But when the Roman Martyrology was revised by Clement VIII (Pope from 1592 to 1605), his name was dropped from the calendar on the advice of his confessor, Cardinal Baronius. Pope Benedict XIV in 1748 maintained his predecessor's decision on the grounds that Clement's life was little-known; that he had never obtained public cultus in the Church; and that some of his doctrines were, if not erroneous, at least highly suspect.

"ERRONEOUS--HIGHLY SUSPECT," matey, you can say that again----and again ------- and again. But by then the falsehood was firmly established and its seeds had taken root in all the nations of the world. The Lord now has need of some good gardeners, to help root out those noxious weeds.

[Composer]

This is actually an insidious way to get people inadvertently worshiping Satan.

Problem is that those claiming to worship their Story book god are in fact actually worshipping a ' Satan '. Story book bible proof: -

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah". (2 Samuel 24: 1) KJV story book

Comparing this parallel account of the same incident we read: -

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in the Story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. {And...: Heb. And it was evil in the eyes of the LORD concerning this thing} 8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (1 Chron. 21: 7 - 8) KJV story book (My emphasis)

So the ADVERSARY = Satan (i.e. Satan is a Hebrew Word - Metaphor) that was against Israel / smote Israel - was definitely not a naughty spirit angel supernatural being (which don't literally exist in or out of the story book pages) but was story book god itself!

The biblical character jesus the son of a god is a fictional character based upon paganism! (cf. . . . . Only the gods of the pagans had “sons� or offspring. . . . . p.161, How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

The legitimate evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY god(s) given to man likewise remains a constant zero!

[S-word]

This is actually an insidious way to get people inadvertently worshiping Satan.

Problem is that those claiming to worship their Story book god are in fact actually worshipping a ' Satan '. Story book bible proof: -

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah". (2 Samuel 24: 1) KJV story book

Comparing this parallel account of the same incident we read: -

And Satan stood up against Israel, , , , (1 Chron. 21: 1) KJV story book

Later in the Story book 1 Chron. 21 we read: -

And God was displeased with this thing; therefore he smote Israel. {And...: Heb. And it was evil in the eyes of the LORD concerning this thing} 8 And David said unto God, I have sinned greatly, because I have done this thing: but now, I beseech thee, do away the iniquity of thy servant; for I have done very foolishly. (1 Chron. 21: 7 - 8) KJV story book (My emphasis)

So the ADVERSARY = Satan (i.e. Satan is a Hebrew Word - Metaphor) that was against Israel / smote Israel - was definitely not a naughty spirit angel supernatural being (which don't literally exist in or out of the story book pages) but was story book god itself!

The biblical character jesus the son of a god is a fictional character based upon paganism! (cf. . . . . Only the gods of the pagans had “sons� or offspring. . . . . p.161, How the Bible became the Bible by Donald L. O'Dell - ISBN 0-7414-2993-4 Published by INFINITY Publishing.com)

The legitimate evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY god(s) given to man likewise remains a constant zero!

As you do not believe anything that is recorded in God's Holy word, and tend to rubbish those who do: They, who do believe God, have no interest whatsoever in what you have to say according to your negative and uninformed view of the greatest book that has ever been writen by the chosen scribes, who were under the controll of their indwelling spirit when they recorded the words of our Lord God and saviour. And I dare say, they hold you in the same regard as you hold them. Not a nice thought to have in your mind is it? To think that others might see you as you see them, or even lower.

Satan is the son of God who is constantly accusing his brothers, although God loved Job, Satan wanted to put him to the test, and God allowed him to do so, but in every instance, the Lord set the limit to which Satan could go, and Satan did not dare to cross that line.

The sin of David was not in the fact that he obeyed the will of the Lord, and took the census, but in the fact that Joab and the superstitious Isaelites, "believed that you never count your money while sitting at the table ," And because of the condemnation by Joab and the unrest among the people that was caused by the census, David said, "I have commited a terrible sin in doing this, I have acted fooishly." He was saying that to fulfill the Lord's will, was to sin.

Although it was God's will that David do that which would be condemned by his own people, God did not give to David the actual command, It was Satan, the same spirit, who fulfilled the will of the Lord and put lying words into the mouth of Ahab's prophets, in order that Ahab would be killed at Ramoth. And the same spirit, who made sure that Judas fulfilled the plan of the Lord, by handing Jesus over to the Jews, who then allowed the Romans to kill him.