Today’s Christians Are All Idolaters

[reyb]

To all,

I am not a member of this group (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah's_Witnesses) since they too believe in historical existence of Jesus Christ.

Why I said ‘Today’s Christians are all idolaters’? My reason is because you put your faith in ‘whatever you believe about God and his Christ’ rather than to God who is beyond your faith and talent.

Apostle Paul conveyed this same message when he stood up in a meeting in Areopagus (see Acts 17:21ff) and proclaimed to people in Athens to whom they should put their faith since he saw them doing their religious rituals.

I know your appreciation to the word ‘Idolatry’ is the same as that of your church fathers and scholars. According to Agustin and Tertullian, ‘Idolatry etymologically denotes Divine worship given to an image, but its signification has been extended to all Divine worship given to anyone or anything but the true God. (Please see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07636a.htm and http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0302.htm). But they failed to see that putting their faith to God whom they called ‘Holy Trinity’ is also a form of idolatry because ‘Holy Trinity’ is just a belief that God is a triune God and therefore, it is a kind of ‘creating’ an image of God.

I know you do not agree with me. So, I dare you to tell me what or who is that God proclaim by Apostle Paul in that meeting?

He said in Acts 17:23-31 ‘ For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you…..’

(Tell me) Who is that God he proclaims?

Edited March 7, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

I believe that reyb is a follower of the non-historical Jesus . . . whatever that means.

 

I prefer to hear that ‘reyb is not a follower of historical Jesus’ because not all non-historical Jesus is analogous to the Jesus I am talking. Nevertheless, thank you for giving me a chance to bring to you my message.

[Papist]

Reyb, why you always talking about the historical Jesus. Can't you once talk about the other Jesus?

[Apotheoun]

Reyb, why you always talking about the historical Jesus. Can't you once talk about the other Jesus?

It would be nice if he actually defined precisely what he means by the "historical Jesus" for once.

 

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ really took flesh from the Virgin Theotokos and became man, which by definition means that Christ entered into human history. If you deny that Christ entered into human history at the incarnation it follows that you deny the reality of Christ's becoming man and that means that you fall under the condemnation of the teaching of scripture in 1 John 4:1-3.

[Papist]

It would be nice if he actually defined precisely what he means by the "historical Jesus" for once.

 

The Catholic Church teaches that Christ really took flesh from the Virgin Theotokos and became man, which by definition means that Christ entered into human history. If you deny that Christ entered into human history at the incarnation it follows that you deny the reality of Christ's becoming man and that means that you fall under the condemnation of the teaching of scripture in 1 John 4:1-3.

 

I tried that. The answer confused me even more.

 

 

 

 

 

[Apotheoun]

I prefer to hear that ‘reyb is not a follower of historical Jesus’ because not all non-historical Jesus is analogous to the Jesus I am talking. Nevertheless, thank you for giving me a chance to bring to you my message.

The problem is that you have created your own false Jesus, which is why no one can understand what you are saying.

[reyb]

I tried that. The answer confused me even more.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The problem is that you have created your own false Jesus, which is why no one can understand what you are saying.

 

You believe the ‘word became flesh’. I believe it too. You believe ‘Jesus died for the sins of the all’. I believe it too. Actually we are saying the same statement but we give different meaning to these statements since we are looking at different Jesus Christ.

 

For example, I know you believe in Catholic’s virgin birth of Jesus and that is how you read  â€˜word became flesh’ in 1 John 4:1. On the other hand, the word of God truly manifested in flesh – in a witness flesh. (although it turns out to a different kind of body). Meaning, if you are a witness of God, you must have seen God in your flesh. Thus, Job is speaking something like this. (Please see Job 19:26-27).

 

And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;

 I myself will see him with my own eyes — I, and not another.

 

This is also what they call ‘I in Him’ and ‘He in me’ in John 6:56ff.

 

Now, I know you have not yet seen God this way because the ‘word of God is not yet manifested in you’. Thus you can see verses following to that statement. (Please see 1 John 4:4-6 4)

 

You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world. They are from the world and therefore speak from the viewpoint of the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God, and whoever knows God listens to us; but whoever is not from God does not listen to us. This is how we recognize the Spirit of truth and the spirit of falsehood.

 

Who is that one in you? What is that ‘viewpoint of the world’? Can you tell me?

Edited March 7, 2013 by reyb

[reyb]

I am not lying to you or taking you for a ride my dear brothers and sisters. All God’s witnesses and all holy man of God like Abraham, Job, Moses, Apostle Paul and Luke are not referring to your historical Jesus. Again, they are not referring to your Jesus because they are not referring to Ignatius own version of Jesus which is based only on his ‘opinion’ when he read the written testimony of witnesses.

Ignatius said in his letters (Please see Chapter 4, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans in http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)

‘I give you these instructions, beloved, assured that you also hold the same opinions [as I do]. But I guard you beforehand from those beasts in the shape of men, whom you must not only not receive, but, if it be possible, not even meet with; only you must pray to God for them, if by any means they may be brought to repentance, which, however, will be very difficult.’

 

The ‘opinion’ Ignatius is saying is whatever he stated from Chapter 1 to Chapter 3 and this Jesus he is talking is practically a ‘product’ of his talent when he reads and try to understand the written testimony of witnesses like Luke and Apostle Paul. There are two things which are very clear in his letter. First, there are people who do not accept his ‘opinion’ or belief and second, that he is not a witness in this ‘fulfilment of prophecy’ mentioned by Luke in his letter.

 

Luke said in the beginning of his letter ‘Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word’.

 

As you can see in above testimony of Luke something is ‘fulfilled’ in them and that is the ‘prophesied coming of Christ’ or ‘word become flesh’. Thus, all God’s witnesses like Abraham, Moses, Jonah, Job, Luke, and many others became ‘servants of the word’ because they are all ‘eyewitnesses’ of this fulfilment and now they are giving testimony about this.

 

Again, this fulfilment of prophesy is not the ‘historical realization of the coming of Christ’ as ‘opinioned’ by Ignatius but rather the fulfilment of the ‘word became flesh’ just like what Job testified (see my previous post) and all of God’s witnesses saw this ‘word became flesh’.

 

I want to make it clear to you. I am not saying Jesus Christ comes many times in our world. He comes just once and for all and this coming was seen by many witnesses at different times in our world of reality but they saw him at that one time which they called ‘Today’.

 

He (Ignatius) is practically saying ‘believe what I believe and do not listen to others who do not believe in me’. This method is very different from Apostle Paul's instructions in his letter to the Corinthians. No witness of God will say 'believe what I believe' because God and Christ is beyond our faith and talent. God alone can reveal his Christ and therefore, you must seek the truth from God himself. Thus, they are always saying 'seek him' rather than 'believe what I believe'.

Edited March 8, 2013 by reyb

[Apotheoun]

It's really not wise for you to quote St. Ignatios of Antioch, because he was an actual disciple of the Apostles, and he taught quite firmly - unlike you - that Christ was actually incarnate, that is, that He actually became man, and lived on this very earth, and that he taught people the Gospel, and that He suffered, died, and was buried, and that He rose again from the dead. I believe the sacred scriptures, and I believe what St. Ignatios said, but I do not have any reason to believe your rantings. Reyb, no offense, but not only are your posts confusing, but you come of as really confused yourself. There is no coherence to your theological opinions. I hate to say it, but you fall into the category of an anti-Christ as defined by St. John in his first letter.

[Apotheoun]

You believe the ‘word became flesh’. I believe it too. You believe ‘Jesus died for the sins of the all’. I believe it too. Actually we are saying the same statement but we give different meaning to these statements since we are looking at different Jesus Christ.

Reyb, we really do understand the revelation of God differently, and quite frankly you come off as utterly confused. Do you really think that Catholics reject the idea that the Holy Spirit - especially through the sacraments - indwells man? Of course Catholics believe that the we have received the Holy Spirit, which is why we also believe - with St. Paul - that, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me," but what we refuse to say is the type of heresy that you are spouting, i.e., that Christ really did not become incarnate from the Theotokos and enter into human history. Christ is true God and true man in one divine person. He is the sole savior of humanity and He really did become man in order to save us from death and sin by His cross and resurrection. 

 

Why should a Catholic believe anything that you say? What proof do you have?

 

After all, there is no reason at all for me to give any credence to your "private" religious experiences, especially since they contradict both sacred scripture and dominical tradition.

[Apotheoun]

. . .

 

For example, I know you believe in Catholic’s virgin birth of Jesus and that is how you read  â€˜word became flesh’ in 1 John 4:1. On the other hand, the word of God truly manifested in flesh – in a witness flesh. (although it turns out to a different kind of body). Meaning, if you are a witness of God, you must have seen God in your flesh. Thus, Job is speaking something like this. (Please see Job 19:26-27).

 

And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God;

 I myself will see him with my own eyes — I, and not another.

 

This is also what they call ‘I in Him’ and ‘He in me’ in John 6:56ff.

I believe in the virgin birth because the infancy narratives in the Gospel teach us that Mary - a virgin - conceived and bore a Son, and that Son was not a mere man, but was the eternal Son of God made man. You may reject the virgin birth, but your rejection of that scriptural doctrine reveals to me that you do not possess the Holy Spirit, because no one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh is of God.

 

And by the way, the text from Job concerns the resurrection from the dead, and I have never in all my life seen it used in the way that you are using it to deny the truth of the incarnation of the Son of God.

 

Being "in Christ" does not require buying into your faulty reasoning. All Catholics are in Christ, and Christ dwells within them through His holy mysteries. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you have created a false Christ of your own imaginings. I see no reason to accept your views, which you seem to have great difficulty even relating in a coherent fashion.

[reyb]

The problem is that you have created your own false Jesus, which is why no one can understand what you are saying.

 

Up to this day, you are just accusing me. Your accusation now is that I am creating a false Jesus Christ. Do you really know who is my Lord Jesus Christ? So, how can you fairly judge me if what I am confessing is still unknown to you? You must realize your Jesus is not foreign to me because I was once a Catholic like you. So, If you want to judge me then be a good one by asking and collecting all evidences necessary for the case. Otherwise, you are not an honorable judge if your verdict is something like ‘You are guilty because I believe you are guilty’ or ‘you are wrong because based on my belief you are wrong’. Please put in your heart 1 Cor 6:3 and remember Luke 6:37, why it is very important for you to become a fair judge.

 

You said I am an antiChrist using 1 John 4:1. Why only now? Have you not heard and read all my threads and post since the beginning I joined in this forum? Since the very beginning, I am against your historical Jesus. It is the same thing as an anti-historical-Christ. Now, do you believe that ‘the word of God manifest in a witness flesh although it turns into a glorified body’?

 

So, let us collect all evidences together and be a good judge to all God’s creation. Otherwise prepare youself for a bad ‘Master of  Court’ since it is already written (see Luke 6:37-38).

 

"Do not judge , and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." 

Edited March 9, 2013 by reyb

[Evangetholic]

You are mad Reyb. Unhistorical Jesus has sent me an email:

 

I am an idol and thusly wholly insufficient for saving a human soul. Tell Reyb that I resent his invention of me.

[reyb]

I believe in the virgin birth because the infancy narratives in the Gospel teach us that Mary - a virgin - conceived and bore a Son, and that Son was not a mere man, but was the eternal Son of God made man. You may reject the virgin birth, but your rejection of that scriptural doctrine reveals to me that you do not possess the Holy Spirit, because no one who denies that Christ has come in the flesh is of God.

 

And by the way, the text from Job concerns the resurrection from the dead, and I have never in all my life seen it used in the way that you are using it to deny the truth of the incarnation of the Son of God.

 

Being "in Christ" does not require buying into your faulty reasoning. All Catholics are in Christ, and Christ dwells within them through His holy mysteries. But you wouldn't know anything about that because you have created a false Christ of your own imaginings. I see no reason to accept your views, which you seem to have great difficulty even relating in a coherent fashion.

 

 

I know that you believe in Gospel narratives as historical reality while I said, it is just a ‘story’ made by Luke for you to meditate on it in seeking the truth from God himself . I know that you accepted with all your heart this Catholic’s virgin birth (or Ignatius opinion) as historical reality although it is just a ‘sign’ for anyone who will see the coming of Christ as stated in Isa 7:14.

 

Okay. Let me put it this way. Suppose the letter of Isaah is truly a prophesy referring to the coming of your Christ thru this virgin-birth. Now, It is written in Isa 7:13-25

 

13 Then Isaiah said, "Hear now, you house of David! Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? 14 Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.   15 He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. 16 But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. 17 The LORD will bring on you and on your people and on the house of your father a time unlike any since Ephraim broke away from Judah — he will bring the king of Assyria."

 

Who is that boy, two kings and the king of Assyria in relation to your Gospel narratives? Can you please explain to me why Luke did not elaborate this suppose to be historical fullfilment of prophesy made by Isaah regarding this ‘virgin-birth’ and everything it follows? 

[reyb]

You are mad Reyb. Unhistorical Jesus has sent me an email:

 

I am an idol and thusly wholly insufficient for saving a human soul. Tell Reyb that I resent his invention of me.

 

Festus, are you there? Festus, I thought idol has eyes that cannot see, feet that cannot walk, arms that cannot move, lips that cannot speak, nose that cannot smell,useless tongue and body without life and spirit. But now Festus, is it really true that he (or it) emailed you? I never realized idols are now high-tech and computer litterate.

 

Anyway, please tell him (or it), to email me directly and not thru you.  :hehe2: