Queen of heaven

[Matthias]

The Catholic Catechism ( item 846) states:
they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

Now, what does this "knowing" really mean?

I grasp beyond a shadow of a doubt what “knowing” means. I’ve done my homework. I’ve spoken with Roman Catholic priests, nuns and deacons (several in my wife’s family holding or having held those positions in the Roman Catholic Church) and I’ve rejected the Roman Catholic Church.

I find the logic of the Catechism easy to understand.

Some may think that by "preaching" or giving out a pamphlet or posting something on the web, the other person became "aware", and has no excuse now, because he/she knows.
This problem is typical of all religions who think that this life is the only opportunity to accept a given set of beliefs in order to avoid eternal hell. Who is really in the know?

To me, knowing means understanding and experiencing... and this is a matter which belongs to God and the individual soul.
Fortunately enough, we will not be saved by providing the right answers in a quiz on Theology and, according Matthew 25, we will not be judged by the church or religious group we were affiliated to.

Idolatry is a real thing and the Bible isn’t silent on the destination of idolaters. I’m bound as a disciple of the Messiah by that teaching.

We will all be judged by the man whom God has appointed to the task.

I think I recall asking you - but maybe I only intended to ask but haven’t gotten around to it - if you interpret the writings of all faiths through the lens of the Baha’i faith and consider them to be of equal value and fully compatible. Is that the case?

 

[Behold]

The only Pope I have is the head men’s basketball coach at the University of Kentucky.

If you are not of that denomination, why would you try to defend their "Mary" situation?

Didnt you post a recent Thread, that is discussing other recent Catholic Teaching?

Do you just want to keep a Protestant Forum, updated on the newest Catholic Info?

 

[Matthias]

If you are not of that denomination….,

You know that I’m not. I’m a Jewish monotheist, and you’ve known that for a couple of years through discussion on several online discussion forums we’ve been on together.

... why would you try to defend their "Mary" situation?

I defended it using their testimony against your false testimony against them. That doesn’t mean that my belief and practice is theirs.

Didnt you post a recent Thread, that is discussing other recent Catholic Teaching?

I post on Roman Catholic doctrine / teaching from time to time. I do the same with Protestant doctrine / teaching.

Do you just want to keep a Protestant Forum, updated on the newest Catholic Info?

No. This isn’t a Protestant Forum and I’m neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant.

 

[Behold]

You know that I’m not. I’m a Jewish monotheist, and you’ve known that for a couple of years through discussion on several online discussion forums we’ve been on together.

My home is in Israel.

So, why am i not defending The "Cult of the Virgin"?, whereas you are?

The NT says that we'll know each other by "fruit".

"what you do".. and what you say...< (Post).

You defend "the cult of the Virgin", and not just once.
And you post Threads that are "here is an update on what they are doing... "

I defended it using their testimony against your false testimony against them.

The "cult of the virgin" created the Dark ages,... This cult burned Joan of Arc, then later remodeled her as "our Saint".

This cult will not allow Priests to have a normal sex life. And Paul teaches that "forbidding to marry" is a ""Doctrine of Devils..""

So, you might consider placing your DEFENSE, into a denomination that does not reject the Cross of Christ by teaching that people are "Born again BY WATER".

I post on Roman Catholic doctrine / teaching from time to time.

Why?

That was my question.

No. This isn’t a Protestant Forum

Its not a Catholic forum...

In fact, the ONE Topic that can't be discussed on THIS "Christian" forum is "The Trinity".

And that is about as CATHOLIC a Topic, as Mary...

So, there it is.

 

[Matthias]

My home is in Israel.

So, why am i not defending The "Cult of the Virgin"?, whereas you are?

The NT says that we'll know each other by "fruit".

"what you do".. and what you say...< (Post).

You defend "the cult of the Virgin", and not just once.
And you post Threads that are "here is an update on what they are doing... "





The "cult of the virgin" created the Dark ages,... This cult burned Joan of Arc, then later remodeled her as "our Saint".

This cult will not allow Priests to have a normal sex life. And Paul teaches that "forbidding to marry" is a ""Doctrine of Devils..""

So, you might consider placing your DEFENSE, into a denomination that does not reject the Cross of Christ by teaching that people are "Born again BY WATER".



Why?

That was my question.



Its not a Catholic forum...

In fact, the ONE Topic that can't be discussed on THIS "Christian" forum is "The Trinity".

And that is about as CATHOLIC a Topic, as Mary...

So, there it is.

You aren’t a trinitarian. If someone insisted that you were I would defend you against their false testimony.

Why do you think I would do that for you?

 

[Behold]

You aren’t a trinitarian

Actually, i teach that God is, = Jesus in the Flesh = who is the Holy Spirit.

John 1.

1 Timothy 3:16

. If someone insisted that you were I would defend you against their false testimony.

Catholics do a lot more than venerate the "" perpetual virgin""" who ascended to heaven" and is "co-author of Salvation" with Jesus..

So, please do not try to "kid" real Christians..

 

[Matthias]

Actually, i teach that God is, Jesus in the Flesh who is the Holy Spirit.

Do you now claim that you are a trinitarian? You didn’t on any of the other discussion forums that we’ve been on together.

John 1.

See John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible. That’s what I teach.

Catholics do a lot more than venerate the "" perpetual virgin""" who ascended to heaven" and is "co-author of Salvation" with Jesus..

So, please do not try to "kid" real Christians., as its only going to get worse for you, if you play that game with me.

I’m not playing a game, and I’m not concerned in the least about what you will do to me.

 

[Behold]

Do you now claim that hou are a trinitarian? You didn’t on any of the other discussion forums that we’ve been on together.

You have mistaken me with someone else.

Maybe its this word...>"Trinitarian".... , as that is to also state that you have to believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, to be a Christian, and go to Heaven.
And that is nonsense.....so, in that regard, im not one of those....

However,...I have Threads on every Christian forum, including this one, that teach

John 1:10..

Read it carefully.

Ive had THREADS deleted from this very Forum, because i was using NT verses to teach "3 in ONE".

See John’s prologue in the Geneva Bible. That’s what I teach.

John was not a Catholic.

God is not a Catholic., in the sense of 'catholic doctrine", where it relates to the Cross, to Faith, to Mary, or to denouncing "protestant churchs", as you posted in a Post today.
Do you recall that one?

I’m not playing a game, nor am I concerned in the least about what you will do to me.

I'll simply highlight you., using your own posts..

 

[Matthias]

You have mistaken me with someone else.

I have Threads on every Christian forum, including this one, that teach

John 1:10..

Read it carefully.

Ive had THREADS deleted from this very Forum, because i was using NT verses to teach "3 in ONE".

I haven’t mistaken you for someone else. We’ve had many discussions on your thoughts concerning the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

John was not a Catholic.

John, like Jesus, was a Jewish monotheist.

God is not a Catholic., in the sense of 'catholic doctrine", where it relates to the Cross, to Faith, to Mary, or to denouncing "protestant churchs", as you posted in a Post today.
Do you recall that one?

Do I recall what I posted today? How low will you go?

I'll simply highlight you., using your own posts..

That’s not necessary but it’s fine with me if you choose to.

 

[Behold]

I haven’t mistaken you for someone else.

If you accuse me, the you need to quote me.

So, here is the thing..

If by "Trinitarian", you mean........."you have to believe in the TRINITY to be saved, and to go to heaven".

So, regardibg that EXTREME point of view..., i am not one of those.. as i dont teach that nonsense.

However, where the NT and OT, teach that "I AM" is "The Word became flesh",.... is the "Let US... make man in OUR Image"...... then that is what i believe and teach.

 

[Matthias]

If you accuse me, the you need to quote me.

So, here is the thing..

If by "Trinitarian", you mean........."you have to believe in the TRINITY to be saved, and to go to heaven".

So, in that EXTREME, i am not one of those.. as i dont teach that nonsense.

However, where the NT and OT, teach that "I AM" is "The Word became flesh", then that is what i believe and teach.

Do you now accept and hold as your own personal belief the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[Behold]

Do you now accept the historical orthodox doctrine if the Trinity?

If by "Trinitarian", you mean........."you have to believe in the TRINITY to be saved, and to go to heaven".

So, regardibg that EXTREME point of view..., i am not one of those.. as i dont teach that nonsense.

However, where the NT and OT, teach that "I AM" is "The Word became flesh",.... is the "Let US... make man in OUR Image"...... then that is what i believe and teach.

So, i do teach that "Jesus is God" "manifested in the Flesh"....= 1 Timothy 3:16

 

[Matthias]

If by "Trinitarian", you mean........."you have to believe in the TRINITY to be saved, and to go to heaven".

So, regardibg that EXTREME point of view..., i am not one of those.. as i dont teach that nonsense.

However, where the NT and OT, teach that "I AM" is "The Word became flesh",.... is the "Let US... make man in OUR Image"...... then that is what i believe and teach.

So, i do teach that "Jesus is God" "manifested in the Flesh"....= 1 Timothy 3:16

I was looking for a simple yes or no response. I don’t want to misrepresent you. Can you do that?

Do you now accept and hold as your own personal belief the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

 

[Behold]

Do you now accept and hold as your own personal belief the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?

I teach that God is "Tri-Part"

3 <>ONE

Read John 1:10

Read Colossians 1:16

Read 1 Timothy 3:16

And even tho i teach all that, ... this does not explain why you feel the need to defend a "cult of the virgin", heresy.
-

 

[Matthias]

I teach that God is "Tri-Part"

3 <>ONE

Read John 1:10

Read Colossians 1:16

Read 1 Timothy 3:16

And even tho i teach all that, ... this does not explain why you feel the need to defend a "cult of the virgin", heresy.
-
View attachment 45746

So the answer is that you either can’t or won’t answer the question with a simple yes or no.

In previous conversations you did not hold the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as your own personal belief. Without any additional information provided by you, after repeated requests, there’s no reason to believe that isn’t still the case.

Council of Nicaea (AD 325), Council of Constantinople (AD 381), Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) -> rejected.

 

[Behold]

In previous conversations you did not hold the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity as your own personal belief. Without any additional information provided by you, after repeated requests, there’s no reason to believe that isn’t still the case.

Ive explained it..a few times for you.

I told you that where this doctrine would teach that you MUST believe in the Trinity, as a requirement for Salvation....then i am "excused".

But where this doctrine teaches that 3<>ONE...then i am in agreement.

 

[Matthias]

Ive explained it..a few times for you.

I told you that where this doctrine would teach that you MUST believe in the Trinity, as a requirement for Salvation....then i am "excused".

But where this doctrine teaches that 3<>ONE...then i am in agreement.

HOT you aren’t. Neither am I.

 

[Behold]

HOT you aren’t. Neither am I.

Where the "Trinitarians" agree with Paul, or the NT, then i am in agreement.

So, if a person agrees with their Position on the TRINITY, then we are one of them...

But, if we dont agree with a part of their Doctrine, that isn't related to the TRINITY, but is related to an idea of their doctrine as required for Salvation, then .. at that point, we have to EJECT.

ODDLY enough, .. most Cults that are considered "christian" have some aspect of Christianity, correct.

And in THAT, is how they corrupt you and deceive you.....Its by having some aspect of TRUTH, mixed in with all the "doctrines of Devils".

You can look at the "cult of the Virgin"., or Mormons,...
In both cases, they have some correct theology.......but then they attach to it, something that is anti-Cross, and that is why the entire thing is a CULT, regarding NT Doctrine.

 

[Matthias]

Where the "Trinitarians" agree with Paul, or the NT, then i am in agreement.

So am I. That doesn’t change the fact that we don’t accept and hold as our own personal belief the historical doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing has changed since we last spoke about it.

So, if a person agrees with their Position on the TRINITY, then we are one of them...

One thing I have learned over the years through speaking with people is that there are many who assert they are trinitarian when in fact they are not.

But, if we dont agree with a part of their Doctrine, that isn't related to the TRINITY, but is related to an idea of their doctrine as required for Salvation, then .. at that point, we have to EJECT.

ODDLY enough, .. most Cults that are considered "christian" have some aspect of Christianity, correct.

And in THAT, is how they corrupt you and deceive you.....Its by having some aspect of TRUTH, mixed in with all the "doctrines of Devils".

You can look at the "cult of the Virgin"., or Mormons,...
In both cases, they have some correct theology.......but then they attach to it, something that is anti-Cross, and that is why the entire thing is a CULT, regarding NT Doctrine.

 

[Behold]

So am I. That doesn’t change the fact that we don’t accept and hold as our own personal belief the historical doctrine of the Trinity. Nothing has changed since we last spoke about it.

I hold to the "historical doctrine of the Trinity".

However, once another doctrine, comes along, that says...>"and you must believe in that, to go to heaven"...then i leave it behind.