Official stance on who are sinners?

A place to discuss Catholic topics and issues

Moderator: Moderators

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Official stance on who are sinners?

Post #1

Post by Composer »

Am I correct that the catholic members of the catholic church have priests to intercede / other role regarding the sins admitted at Confession by members of the catholic congregation?

Is confession considered compulsory?

Are the priests themselves also considered sinners and if so, to whom do they go for confession and I suppose have their personal sins ' forgiven / other? '.

1. Are there any exceptions where certain/any members or clergy are considered to be totally without sin and 2. therefore never need to confess or take part in confession and 3. IF that is the case upon what basis?

Thank you
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #11

Post by jedicri »

Composer wrote:
jedicri wrote: For someone who does not believe, you take the time to attack and ridicule the Catholic faith for what? Why should you care if you don't believe?
Because my standards are far superior and I don't want others falling in to the catholic trap of believing their illegitimate Cult minded religion!
jedicri wrote: Why bother to bring up a topic when you consider the Bible, Jesus to be false?
Because I am an Unselfish, benevolent and humble humanitarian,
Your words and sentiment betray what you claim which is why you are under probation.
Unlike the greedy and selfish Story book jesus and its wanna-be followers whose fundamental motivation is the lust for the fictional Story book biblical promises of divine rewards!
I'd like to see you argue this at the other Catholic forum and see how far you get.
jedicri wrote: You won't get much of a response; your very words and posts lack charity and humility...
That's what my now ' de-converted catholic Students ' used to spout until they finally paid attention to me sufficiently long enough to realise how they had been misled, lied to and deceived by Religion and by the catholic Cult religion especially, that some if not all their parents used to beat them to believe in!
That's only because their faith was weak to start with and they do not know their faith well enough unfortunately --- otherwise, they would not have been dissuaded.
e.g. From real cases: " Daddy, Mummy, at Maths school we learn 3 can not possibly be equal to 1? "
This proves nothing.
That catholic parents typical response: " The trinitarian catholic priests disagree and you will be beaten repeatedly until you accept what they and their trinitarian ' god of love ' says you must accept! ".
Never heard of this; sounds more like propaganda... evidence for this "typical response"....?
jedicri wrote: BTW, those guys there at Catholic Answers know their stuff. The rejections you brought up above are answerable and can be refuted.
That isn't the case I have experienced personally over my personal 50 years of successfully saving several catholics and others from their Cult and history also records that unless others have accepted what these ' trinitarian catholic experts ' have to offer regarding their ' trinitarian god of love ', they tortured you, imprisoned you and committed atrocities against you until you capitulated OR else be tortured to death, burned alive, boiled in oil etc. if you continue to refuse their (ahem) trinitarian god of love! '. (LOL!)
Very confident then are you. Then go and put this argument forward and the evidence for it at http://forums.catholic.com/index.php and I look forward to doing this as well: Image
Last edited by jedicri on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #12

Post by jedicri »

Composer wrote:Thanks for that!

catholics appear to be in disagreement with their own bible?

It reads: Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966.

There will be healing if you confess your sins to one another and pray for each other. (James 5:16) Digital catholic bible

NB: confess your sins to one another?

It doesn't say go and confess to a priest!
"Confess, therefore, your sins one to another" , ie. to the priests of the Church. To confess to persons who had no power to forgive sins, would be useless. Hence the precept here means that we must confess to men whom God has appointed, and who, by their ordination and jurisdiction, have received the power of remitting sins in his name (Jn 20: 22-23).
Likewise it states the priests and pope should be confessing to those like you also instead of selectively amongst themselves!
No. Read above as it pertains to Jn 20: 22-23.

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #13

Post by Composer »

Wootah wrote:
Composer wrote:Thanks for that!

catholics appear to be in disagreement with their own bible?

It reads: Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966.

There will be healing if you confess your sins to one another and pray for each other. (James 5:16) Digital catholic bible

NB: confess your sins to one another?

It doesn't say go and confess to a priest!

Likewise it states the priests and pope should be confessing to those like you also instead of selectively amongst themselves!

Thanks again!
There is no logical disagreement there. Priests are part of the 'one another'.
Hence by that philosophy so are ALL so called believers. Thus the pope doesn't require a personal confessor, any catholic believer will do. Nor do the people need to confess to a priest, as you said " ALL are part of the ' one another ' " and in fact therefore the priests should / could be ' confessing ' to regular catholic believers instead of arrogating another false and redundant role for themselves.

Thank you for confirming the illegitimate role of the pope's confessor, the pope's lack of knowledge of scripture that he doesn't need a specific one and the fraudulent claims of the catholic priests that ordinary believers need them specifically for e.g. confession!

QED

BTW: Why do you catholics, popes, priests and so called believers in general keep sinning?

Obviously your individual and group prayers be they from self acclaimed individual believers or priests or popes asking that your god(s) makes you stop sinning, is about as much use as ALL so called jesus' believers combined prayers throughout history outside of bible fairy land = total of zero / no use at all! (LOL!)

Image
Last edited by Composer on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:20 am, edited 1 time in total.
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #14

Post by Wootah »

Composer wrote:
Wootah wrote:
Composer wrote:Thanks for that!

catholics appear to be in disagreement with their own bible?

It reads: Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966.

There will be healing if you confess your sins to one another and pray for each other. (James 5:16) Digital catholic bible

NB: confess your sins to one another?

It doesn't say go and confess to a priest!

Likewise it states the priests and pope should be confessing to those like you also instead of selectively amongst themselves!

Thanks again!
There is no logical disagreement there. Priests are part of the 'one another'.
Hence by that philosophy so are ALL so called believers thus the pope doesn't require a personal confessor, any catholic believer will do. Nor do the people need to confess to a priest, as you said ALL are part of the ' one another ' and in fact therefore the priests should be ' confessing ' to regular catholic believers instead of arrogating another false and redundant role for themselves.

Thank you for confirming the illegitimate role of the pope's confessor, the pope's lack of knowledge that he doesn't need a specific one and the fraudulent claims of the catholic priests that ordinary believers need them specifically for confession!

QED
None of your conclusions can be logically drawn from that. Why do you assume other priest's are not 'regular catholic believers'?

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #15

Post by Composer »

Wootah wrote:
Composer wrote:
Wootah wrote:
Composer wrote:Thanks for that!

catholics appear to be in disagreement with their own bible?

It reads: Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966.

There will be healing if you confess your sins to one another and pray for each other. (James 5:16) Digital catholic bible

NB: confess your sins to one another?

It doesn't say go and confess to a priest!

Likewise it states the priests and pope should be confessing to those like you also instead of selectively amongst themselves!

Thanks again!
There is no logical disagreement there. Priests are part of the 'one another'.
Hence by that philosophy so are ALL so called believers thus the pope doesn't require a personal confessor, any catholic believer will do. Nor do the people need to confess to a priest, as you said ALL are part of the ' one another ' and in fact therefore the priests should be ' confessing ' to regular catholic believers instead of arrogating another false and redundant role for themselves.

Thank you for confirming the illegitimate role of the pope's confessor, the pope's lack of knowledge that he doesn't need a specific one and the fraudulent claims of the catholic priests that ordinary believers need them specifically for confession!

QED
[quote="Wootah
None of your conclusions can be logically drawn from that.
I proved already they are and legitimately so, despite your illegitimate denial.
Wootah wrote: Why do you assume other priest's are not 'regular catholic believers'?
So you therefore equate ordained priests co-equal to ordinary Un-ordained rank and file believers? Interesting slip up on your part, but I don't believe you and you don't even believe that yourself!

Image
Last edited by Composer on Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:33 am, edited 2 times in total.
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #16

Post by jedicri »

1. Can't see where it says " Confess to Priests? ".
Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized? You seem to forget that the Bible was not even written when the Apostles started to preach the Gospel orally. Unless you can show this, your point is moot.
2. I remind catholics of what it does clearly state (James 5:16) which is dumped and overridden by catholics in preference for other quotes? - Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966

Unambiguously clear that confession is to be ' towards one another ' and NOT exclusively to priests!
Already dealt with this in my prior post.
Well Luther's opinion is Luther's opinion and the Council of Trent a corrupt and biased farce that imposed beliefs absolutely foreign and rejected by the Original (Anti/Non trinitarian) believers.
I consider that your opinion and not factual.
1. The catholic view is a view expressed by frauds that preach a gospel foreign and rejected by the Original (NON trinitarian) believers.
"Original"? I'd like to see you account for the writings of the early fathers of the Church, particularly, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp, both students of St. John the Apostle.
2. As I already proved the notion and claim of original sin, even according to the bible text itself is proved to be another chrsitian ideological lie! (I can provide again such proofs any time.)
I'd be more impressed if you could refute St. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on Original Sin.

Further, Original Sin is mentioned in Scripture where St. Paul writes "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5: 12). St Chrysostom teaches that that all by Adam's sin were made guilty of death and punishments. But how could they deserve these, had they not sinned in Adam? The fact of the matter is, all have sinned in Adam.
3. Story book christ is a Story book mythical character and hence itself incapable of doing anything itself including establishing ANY literal church and even IF one were hypothetically initiated, it was NOT trinitarian in thought, word or ideological nature; but quite the opposite.
Your claims go against the writings of the early Fathers of the Church, who taught and witnessed to the Faith and to the early goings on of the Church.
Story book Jesus is a mythical character and could not have founded anything, including a church. He died in Story book bible land and the Original believers that followed did not found a church either, because they thought that he was coming back soon as the Story book jesus had promised! (Another jesus' lie)
History shows otherwise.
They just kept going to the Temple and Synagogues and did not found a church either because they were waiting and anticipating the promise of its early return to occur, which didn't and couldn't because it is a Story book mythical character these duped believers convinced themselves it literally had existed!
Again, your claims go against the witnessing and writings of the early Fathers of the Church.

Consider also IF they were allegedly ' given the power to forgive sins or retain them ' the teaching that this Story book jesus had ' taken away all our sins or atoned for them ' is yet another falsehood and misnomer, else no power would be required ' after the alleged fact ' to keep on ' forgiving or retaining ' any residual sins?.
You do not understand Christ's sacrificial atonement for our sins (the Original Sin being the first which opened the way for other sins to be committed. Reparation therefore had to be made to God and Christ did that on dying on the cross). Because of our fallen nature (Original Sin), man has the propensity to sin many times over --- hence the need to confess our personal sins.
Many thanks, I'll have to check to see if I have already been there and what excuses they have come up with if I already have!
Yes please, check it out.

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #17

Post by Composer »

jedicri wrote:
1. Can't see where it says " Confess to Priests? ".
jedicri wrote:
Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized?
1. The bible is a man made Story book and the literal existence of the biblical jesus outside of Story book fairy land = zero!

2. I see the bible Story book has failed you catholics again and as usual so you duck off elsewhere looking for a scrap of legitimacy that you can never legitimately find regardless! LOL!
jedicri wrote:
You seem to forget that the Bible was not even written when the Apostles started to preach the Gospel orally. Unless you can show this, your point is moot.
Oh I was told by other trinitarians that they were preaching what was later written down?

Bottom-line is you are ALL jesus' rejects and remain malignant sinners!
2. I remind catholics of what it does clearly state (James 5:16) which is dumped and overridden by catholics in preference for other quotes? - Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, . . . . (James 5:16) catholic edition RSV 1966

Unambiguously clear that confession is to be ' towards one another ' and NOT exclusively to priests!
jedicri wrote:
Already dealt with this in my prior post.
Dealt with perhaps in your catholic imagination, but illegitimately so!
Well Luther's opinion is Luther's opinion and the Council of Trent a corrupt and biased farce that imposed beliefs absolutely foreign and rejected by the Original (Anti/Non trinitarian) believers.
jedicri wrote:
I consider that your opinion and not factual.
Many scholars agree the trinitarian ideology was NOT what the Original believers believed. e.g. -

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

"The New Testament gives no inkling of the teaching of Chalcedon. That council not only reformulated in other language the New Testament data about Jesus’ constitution, but also reconceptualized it in the light of the current Greek philosophical thinking. And that reconceptualization and reformulation go well beyond the New Testament data" (A Christological Catechism, Paulist Press, p. 102).

" At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 1922, Vol. 12, p. 461).

"As far as the New Testament is concerned one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity" (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 38).

"No Apostle would have dreamed of thinking that there are three divine Persons" (Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p. 226).
jedicri wrote: "Original"? I'd like to see you account for the writings of the early fathers of the Church, particularly, St. Ignatius of Antioch and St. Polycarp, both students of St. John the Apostle.
The sample of notable scholars I just gave totally disagree with you and your catholic cult!

2. As I already proved the notion and claim of original sin, even according to the bible text itself is proved to be another chrsitian ideological lie! (I can provide again such proofs any time.)
jedicri wrote:
I'd be more impressed if you could refute St. Thomas Aquinas' treatise on Original Sin.
Easy -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)

cf.

Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET (See also: post2966264 (Post#1586, story book contradictions Deut. 24:16 Oops! Ex. 20: 5. LOL!))

This was later confirmed by -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)
More so -

Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)
jedicri wrote:
Further, Original Sin is mentioned in Scripture where St. Paul writes "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5: 12).
Thus as Story book jesus was a 100% man (Acts 2:22) catholic edition RSV hence these alleged sins also passed on to it!

Great! Your catholic jesus is the Story book sinner we all know but not you catholics here until now I showed you!
jedicri wrote:
St Chrysostom teaches that that all by Adam's sin were made guilty of death and punishments. But how could they deserve these, had they not sinned in Adam? The fact of the matter is, all have sinned in Adam.
1. According to the bible your alleged St, Chyrsostum was a scriptural idiot and intelectual midget!

3. Story book christ is a Story book mythical character and hence itself incapable of doing anything itself including establishing ANY literal church and even IF one were hypothetically initiated, it was NOT trinitarian in thought, word or ideological nature; but quite the opposite.
jedicri wrote:
Your claims go against the writings of the early Fathers of the Church, who taught and witnessed to the Faith and to the early goings on of the Church.
More of your brainwashed rubbish -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

Much much much better luck on another Topic!

Image
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

jedicri
Scholar
Posts: 350
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 8:40 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #18

Post by jedicri »

1. The bible is a man made Story book and the literal existence of the biblical jesus outside of Story book fairy land = zero!
Mere opinion.
2. I see the bible Story book has failed you catholics again and as usual so you duck off elsewhere looking for a scrap of legitimacy that you can never legitimately find regardless! LOL!
Nice evasion. You did not answer the question: Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized?


Oh I was told by other trinitarians that they were preaching what was later written down?
Bottom-line is you are ALL jesus' rejects and remain malignant sinners!
Your point is still moot. You have not shown or proved anything save being rude and disrespectful.
Dealt with perhaps in your catholic imagination, but illegitimately so!
Again, you have not refuted anything but simply denied what you have read.
Many scholars agree the trinitarian ideology was NOT what the Original believers believed. e.g. -

"Fourth-century Trinitarianism did not reflect accurately early Christian teaching regarding the nature of God; it was, on the contrary a deviation from this teaching" (The Encyclopedia Americana, p. 1956, p. 2941).

"The New Testament gives no inkling of the teaching of Chalcedon. That council not only reformulated in other language the New Testament data about Jesus’ constitution, but also reconceptualized it in the light of the current Greek philosophical thinking. And that reconceptualization and reformulation go well beyond the New Testament data" (A Christological Catechism, Paulist Press, p. 102).

" At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 1922, Vol. 12, p. 461).

"As far as the New Testament is concerned one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity" (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, p. 38).

"No Apostle would have dreamed of thinking that there are three divine Persons" (Emil Brunner, Christian Doctrine of God, Dogmatics, Vol. 1, p. 226).
Wrong. Contrast the above with the following:

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove." Justin Martyr, First Apology, 13 (A.D. 155).

"[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen." Martyrdom of Polycarp 14 (A.D. 157).

"For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 4,20:1 (A.D. 180).

"We do indeed believe that there is only one God, but we believe that under this dispensation, or, as we say, oikonomia, there is also a Son of this one only God, his Word, who proceeded from him and through whom all things were made and without whom nothing was made. . . . We believe he was sent down by the Father, in accord with his own promise, the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son, and in the Holy Spirit. . . . This rule of faith has been present since the beginning of the gospel, before even the earlier heretics" (Against Praxeas 2 [A.D. 216]).

"And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (ibid.).

"Keep always in mind the rule of faith which I profess and by which I bear witness that the Father and the Son and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and then you will understand what is meant by it. Observe now that I say the Father is other [distinct], the Son is other, and the Spirit is other. This statement is wrongly understood by every uneducated or perversely disposed individual, as if it meant diversity and implied by that diversity a separation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" (ibid., 9).

"Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number" (ibid., 25).

The sample of notable scholars I just gave totally disagree with you and your catholic cult!
You'd take these "notable" scholars over the eyewitnesses of those who actually taught and lived the Faith.... more errors will abound on you therefore...

2Easy -

In Deuteronomy 24:16 (KJV) it specifically says this:

The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the father. Every man shall be put to death for his own sin. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 1.)

cf.

Fathers must not be put to death for what their children24 do, nor children for what their fathers do; each must be put to death for his own sin. (Deut. 24:16) NET (See also: post2966264 (Post#1586, story book contradictions Deut. 24:16 Oops! Ex. 20: 5. LOL!))

This was later confirmed by -

Ezekiel 18:20 RSV

"THE SON SHALL NOT SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE FATHER. NOR THE FATHER SUFFER FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE SON; the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself."

Ezekiel 18:20 also "pulls the rug out from under" Christianity's main premise, that all generations of mankind are burdened with sin and death stemming from Adam's act of disobedience. Only Christ's redeeming shed blood can end this never-ending cycle of sin and death. Quite clearly Ezekiel refutes this notion. "The son shall not suffer for the iniquity of the father." (Online Source: http://www.bibleorigins.net/MoabiteBloodMessiah.html)
More so -

Jews correctly also, do not believe in original sin.

IN SHORT... Jews do not believe in the existence of Original Sin. The concept of Original Sin simply states that because Adam and Eve sinned in the Garden of Eden, they brought Death into the world. Every human being dies because Adam and Eve committed a sin, and for their sin, all humans are punished with death. However, the Bible describes something entirely different. Adam and Eve were kicked out of the Garden of Eden because if they remained, they could eat the fruit of the Tree of Life, which would make them IMmortal. If Adam and Eve had to eat the fruit of the Tree of Life to become IMmortal, then they were created mortal to begin with. They did not bring Death into the world, and we don't die because they sinned. As a matter of Biblical fact, the answer to Question One shows that one person cannot die as the punishment for the sins committed by another. We die because Death is a natural part of existence, and has been since from the moment the first human beings were created. That is why God told the animals, before Adam and Eve ate the fruit from The Tree Of The Knowledge Of Good And Evil, to be fruitful and to multiply, since they needed to replace themselves. God also told the same thing to Adam and Eve before they ate that fruit as well. (Online Source: http://whatjewsbelieve.org/) - What Jews believe Point 5.)
Your claims is refuted by Romans 5: 12.
Thus as Story book jesus was a 100% man (Acts 2:22) catholic edition RSV hence these alleged sins also passed on to it!
Emmanuel = God is with us

I AM

The Word was God

1. According to the bible your alleged St, Chyrsostum was a scriptural idiot and intelectual midget!
Strawman. Indirect ad hominem. Again, no rebuttal.
3. Story book christ is a Story book mythical character and hence itself incapable of doing anything itself including establishing ANY literal church and even IF one were hypothetically initiated, it was NOT trinitarian in thought, word or ideological nature; but quite the opposite.
jedicri wrote:
Your claims go against the writings of the early Fathers of the Church, who taught and witnessed to the Faith and to the early goings on of the Church.
More of your brainwashed rubbish -

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

Much much much better luck on another Topic!
Yeah, right. Read the excerpts I provided above on these writings of these early Fathers of the Church on their belief and teaching of the Holy Trinity.

User avatar
Wootah
Savant
Posts: 9161
Joined: Wed Nov 24, 2010 1:16 am
Has thanked: 186 times
Been thanked: 105 times

Post #19

Post by Wootah »

Composer wrote:
Wootah wrote:None of your conclusions can be logically drawn from that.
I proved already they are and legitimately so, despite your illegitimate denial.
Wootah wrote: Why do you assume other priest's are not 'regular catholic believers'?
So you therefore equate ordained priests co-equal to ordinary Un-ordained rank and file believers? Interesting slip up on your part, but I don't believe you and you don't even believe that yourself!

Image
Why is there a slip up on my part?

Composer
Banned
Banned
Posts: 163
Joined: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:17 am
Location: Western Australia

Post #20

Post by Composer »

1. The bible is a man made Story book and the literal existence of the biblical jesus outside of Story book fairy land = zero!
jedicri wrote: Mere opinion.
So your alleged evidence apart from a Story book bible is what?

So your alleged evidence ANY acclaimed ' holy-text ' is the words of ANY literal god(s) is?

2. I see the bible Story book has failed you catholics again and as usual so you duck off elsewhere looking for a scrap of legitimacy that you can never legitimately find regardless! LOL!
jedicri wrote: Nice evasion. You did not answer the question: Where does it say in the Bible that everything pertaining to the teachings of Christ must be found there in order for it to be recognized or legitimized?
I evaded absolutely nothing, it is those like you that don't believe the bible as it stands and instead go running elsewhere because the bible fails your ideology.

Here's - But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. (Gal. 1:8) KJV Story book

The Original believers even according to catholics DID NOT preach trinitarianism nor did they believe it NOR did the early church fathers -

" At first the Christian faith was not Trinitarian…" (Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, ed. James Hastings, 1922, Vol. 12, p. 461).

"The formulation ‘One God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century.... Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective" (New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, Vol. 14, p. 299). (My Bolds)

&

In the New Testament, jesus is described as an agent of god and he is described as sent by god, and god described it as doing things in, by, or through christ, i.e. using the ' language of agency '.

The apostles taught explicitly that christ is the agent by which his god saves and judges (in, by, through):

* Acts 10:42, 'he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead'

* Acts 17:32, 'he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated'

* Romans 6:23 'the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus'

* Titus 3:5-6 'renewing of the Holy Spirit, whom He [God] poured out on us in full measure in Jesus Christ our Savior'

* Galatians 3:15 'in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham would come to the Gentiles'

* Hebrews 13:20-21 'God... working in us what is pleasing before him through Jesus Christ')

* Hebrews 10:10 ‘we have been made holy [‘sanctified’] through the offering of the body of Jesus'

An agent is subordinate to the one for whom he acts, and by whom he is sent. We find this subordination described clearly by Scripture:


* John 14:28 'My Father is greater than I'

* Acts 3:13, ‘his [God's] servant Jesus’

* Acts 3:26, ‘God raised up his servant’

* Acts 4:27, 30 ‘your [God's] holy servant Jesus’

* Acts 4:30 'your [God's] holy servant Jesus'

An agent receives power and authority from one who is greater than he:

* Matthew 9:6, 'When the crowd saw this, [Jesus healing] they were afraid and honored God who had given such authority to men'

* Matthew 28:18, 'Jesus came up and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me"'

* John 5:19, ‘the Son can do nothing from himself’

* John 5:22, '[God] has assigned all judgment to the Son'

* John 5:26, 'For just as the Father has life in himself, thus he has granted the Son to have life in himself'

* John 5:27, 'he [God] has granted the Son authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man'

* John 5:30, ‘I can do nothing of myself’

* John 17:2, 'you [God] have given him authority over all humanity'

* Acts 10:42, 'he is the one appointed by God as judge of the living and the dead'

* Acts 17:32, 'he [God] has set a day on which he is going to judge the world in righteousness, by a man whom he designated'


What is your alleged other catholic evidence, oh, that's right, man made traditions & at very best, hearsay! LOL!

Oh I was told by other trinitarians that they were preaching what was later written down?
I see you dodged this one also!

Bottom-line is you are ALL jesus' rejects and remain malignant sinners!
jedicri wrote: Your point is still moot. You have not shown or proved anything save being rude and disrespectful.
You failed to confirm to me that you are and remain a sinner, besides claiming to believe in the Story book biblical jesus?

We ALL know you are a repeated sinner, because the catholic church tells you and me that you are and you are commanded by your cult leaders (all repeated sinners themselves) to also attend regular confession for those sins.

The bible you ' claim to believe in ' therefore tells you and us, that according to your cult ideology, you simply can NOT therefore be a genuine jesus' believer, but are instead a jesus' reject -

Whoever remains in him has no sin, whoever sins has not seen or known him. (1 John 3:6) Digital catholic bible

ALL you catholics and so called ' bible believers ' that still sin, are thus proven jesus' rejects by your very own bibles!

No one who abides in him sins; no one who sins has either seen him or known him. (1 John 3:6) catholic edition RSV

ALL you catholics and so called ' bible believers ' that still sin, are thus proven jesus' rejects by your very own bibles!

This being the irrefutable case (by the facts you told us you catholics require regular confession for your sins), your other comments denying biblical text with the writings of others; only demonstrates your contempt and denial of what you catholics claim is your god(s) biblical and sacred words!

Thus, it is those like you that have been proved by your rebuttal of biblical text demonstrating your contempt for it and contempt against your own bible text, yet you hypocrytically try to deceive others that it is only non-believers that have a contempt for it, when in fact by your comments, admissions and need for regular confession, it is both of us that do!

Obviously also, the entire prayers of all catholics of all ranks has abismally failed to prevent you and themselves from remaining repeated sinners!

More proof that should this catholic god(s) exist? they have rejected ALL catholic prayers to stop sinning!

OR as I and others believe by historical and personal beliefs and experience, the literal existence of your trinitarian god(s) is a pure figment of your (how does your catholic bible put it?) -

The catholic bible believers heart(mind) is ' deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt; . . . . ' (Jer. 17:9) catholic edition RSV Story book

The human mind is more deceitful than anything else. It is incurably bad. . . . . (Jer. 17:9) NET Story book

Hence for ALL alleged ' bible believers ' of ALL denominations, their mind is deceitful & desperately corrupt!

Image
Last edited by Composer on Mon Nov 28, 2011 4:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
Your alleged gods are very bad god persons, I am offering them the chance to become good god persons for the very first time, but only after they admit they are bad god persons and want to try again.

Post Reply