Mary

[Sassy]

I see you avoid the FACT and the TRUTH from God to follow your own wrong path of false beliefs.
As God says that YOU SHALL NOT ADD TO HIS WORDS....


2 Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

God never gave you those teachings and nowhere in the OT are they supported.
You have had the matter made plain to you and no longer have any excuse for your ignoring Gods word in favour of your own and mans.
Take heed for when the master returns to give rewards you will reap what you sowed.

On the contrary, that you do not believe in the Incarnation or the New Testament scriptures shows that you are without foundation, that you have built your house on sand and you will be ignorant of the truth as long as you continue to do so because you do not know Christ.

Utter rubbish... this is not about the NT, which I believe to be the writing of the disciples.
What I do know is God, The Prophets, Jesus Christ and the disciples never had the NT and they were never referred to as  scripture and NEVER foretold to be scripture in the OT.
Since they were not the writing of the Prophets and were NOT part of the New Covenant then you my friend and those of the Roman Catholic Church disobeyed God by adding to his scriptures. I Incarnation of what?

Christ was incarnate of the virgin Mary... God was not made flesh it was Jesus Christ and he was made flesh by the power of God and Gods word.

34 Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35 And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Christ was made flesh by the power of God and the Holy Spirit. It was an immaculate conception. But NOWHERE in the OT does it say the New Covenant will be based on belief
in the immaculate conception or that there will be an incarnate scripture or belief that God would be made flesh....

Christ said: " I am the WAY, the TRUTH and the Life, no one comes to the Father but by me,"
"Eternal life is knowing you the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you sent"

You see nothing to do with incarnate... I believe Jesus Christ came in the flesh and God was with him. He is to be called the SON of God  not God. But God spoke through Christ. He did his own works in Christ.



Peter says:
Acts 10:38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

Peter says the same thing as I do. That God anointed Jesus Christ with the Holy Ghost and with Power; who went about doing good, healing all that were oppressed by the devil; FOR GOD WAS WITH HIM.

You try to change the argument every time because you cannot answer when your beliefs are questioned with scripture. You see the disciples tell you clearly that Jesus was anointed with Gods Holy Spirit. Had God been made flesh then God would not require anyone to annoint him with the Holy Spirit or power.
In the NT the disciples clearly tell you that Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
King James Bible
Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:

Jesus Christ came in the flesh...

False doctrines and beliefs crept in during the early church. Jesus Christ was Jesus Christ he was NOT God and he told everyone he came to do God will and the Father did his own work through him. He also clearly told you that his words were Spirit and they were life.

The main reason he could and would NOT claim to be God is because that is the very thing the Antichrist will do.
]

King James Bible
Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Man is Gods temple for by his Spirit he dwells in us in the new covenant.
So the true God is one and shares his glory as God with no one.

King James Bible
I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvellous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that that is determined shall be done.


Where capital letters appear then the original name was Yahweh the name of God which Jehovah is also used for.  It was used by the scholars because they did not want to write the name of God.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh and he was the Son of God.
He hath declared God unto us. We know God because of Christ and we know God loves us because of Christ. What you are doing is holding on to dogmas which have no purpose or part in the covenant of Christ unto eternal life.

My salvation depends only on the body and blood of Jesus Christ through sacrifice and resurrection by the power and truth of God. Your beliefs in dogmas have no affect or power on the truth of Jesus Christ to save men. The true worshippers worship God in Spirit and Truth. That truth being Jesus Christ and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Put your dogmas away and embrace the truth of Jesus Christ and the fact God the FATHER sent him.

[ad_orientem]

All heresy begins with misunderstanding the person of Christ. It's no wonder you're full of heresy and blasphemy, add to that outright idiocy.

[Alien]

...

A couple of things, Sassy. AO is not a Roman Catholic so there is no point complaining about what the RCs have or have not done. Secondly, please would you post in English rather than Jacobean English if you want people to read what you write.

[floo]

...

A couple of things, Sassy. AO is not a Roman Catholic so there is no point complaining about what the RCs have or have not done. Secondly, please would you post in English rather than Jacobean English if you want people to read what you write.

I thought AO was a Catholic!

As for Sass, I think she has created her own religion, the only worshipper being herself. I don't think any of the Christians on this forum see it her way!

[ad_orientem]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

[Alien]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.

[floo]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Can you explain the difference please, thanks.

[jakswan]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Can you explain the difference please, thanks.

Something about the Pope, a bear and the woods or is that something else?

[ad_orientem]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Can you explain the difference please, thanks.

One could write pages and pages but to keep it short the East (Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism) separated formerly in 1054, though a gradual drifting apart began before that. The East would say that the West went into schism and are thus no longer part of the Church. The reasons for this are many but to name a couple of the main ones would be the addition of the Filioque into the Creed by the West and the claims of the Roman bishop to have jurisdiction over the whole Church.

[Dicky Underpants]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.

Indeed. And when pointed out, Sassy just continued ranting as before as if AO was a Catholic.
I went to an Orthodox wedding last year. Nice ikons - incredibly boring service.
Filioque - so little and so much

[floo]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Can you explain the difference please, thanks.

One could write pages and pages but to keep it short the East (Orthodoxy) and the West (Roman Catholicism) separated formerly in 1054, though a gradual drifting apart began before that. The East would say that the West went into schism and are thus no longer part of the Church. The reasons for this are many but to name a couple of the main ones would be the addition of the Filioque into the Creed by the West and the claims of the Roman bishop to have jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Thanks.

[ad_orientem]

I thought AO was a Catholic!

I used to be. I've been an Orthodox Christian for a number of years now.

Yes and told us many times on this board. I've also pointed it out to Sassy in the past.

Indeed. And when pointed out, Sassy just continued ranting as before as if AO was a Catholic.
I went to an Orthodox wedding last year. Nice ikons - incredibly boring service.
Filioque - so little and so much

I suppose it seems like that but we would say that its addition has serious theological consequences concerning the Godhead, consequences which equals heresy, as well as being disobedient to the councils which state there is to be no other Creed.

[DaveM]

Utter rubbish... this is not about the NT, which I believe to be the writing of the disciples.
What I do know is God, The Prophets, Jesus Christ and the disciples never had the NT and they were never referred to as  scripture and NEVER foretold to be scripture in the OT.

I would question the validity of this claim.  There are in fact two passages in the NT which specifically recognise other NT writings as having the authority of Scripture.

2 Peter 3:15-16 reads, ‘Our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, as he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures’. A clear indication that Paul’s writings (or at least those available at the time of the writing of 2 Peter), were accorded the same authority as the other (OT?) Scriptures.

Then in 1 Timothy 5:17-18 we read the following. ‘Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who labour in preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.’ 

The command not to muzzle an ox is an OT quotation from Deut. 25:4.  However, the labourer deserves his wages is a direct NT quotation from Luke 10:7 (also Matt. 10:10). Thus, it seems that the written records of the statements of Jesus (the synoptic Gospels) were already recognised as having the authority of Scripture at the time of writing of 1 Timothy.