Summations Only

The sun analogy doesn't seem to fit modalism as I've understood it, which represents God as "manifesting" in the three persons, and not any of them at the same time as another or all at once -- though this isn't all that clear to me -- as the sun analogy has it. It would have to sometimes be nothing but light or nothing but heat or nothing but orb, or orb and heat without light, etc., to represent modalism.Nevertheless I can see that it doesn't work for the Trinity all that well either.

The context is what they add up to all together. Obviously.

Your bad logic was that the existence of many theologies doesn't mean there isn't a right and true theology.The unstable ones I had in mind, single individuals who invent cults and gather a following, include such as Joseph Smith, Mohammed, Charles Taze Russell, Ellen G. White, could add David Koresh and other contemporaries I suppose. This I contrasted with the judgment of doctrine by the leaders of hundreds of churches in the early centuries of the church as the Councils met to hear arguments based on the Bible.Who determines which interpretation is correct? All those people who were involved in working it out. And in most cases the Biblical basis is not that ambiguous, though it takes careful thought, that's just something heretics like to claim. It seems to be more an article faith than evidenced fact that there is such ambiguity in the scriptures.The Protestant Reformation had many leaders too. As the Book of Proverbs says, there is safety in many counselors.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Hardly.Did forget to mention Jim Jones though.

I've given enough reason to regard the mainstream doctrine as the truth over any of the sects and cults and heresies it seems to me, but you like your version I've already answered, so there's nothing more to say is there?

Gosh, you sure don't bother to read a thread, do you?

Try reading the thread or at least some of my posts back a page or two.

Just for the record I'll do the subject again about why Romanism isn't even a Christian Church, which I touched on in Message 173 and Message 257.Early on the Bishop of Rome started liking the idea of power over the other churches and in 606 the Emperor Phocas conferred on Rome the status of spiritual primacy over all the churches, so that all spiritual matters were to be referred to him, although before that there had been five major bishops in major cosmopolitan centers. Do I have to point out how far the very idea of power and dominance is from the spirit of Christ? Jesus chided his disciples for wanting to have priority over each other.That was the first installment of the office of the papacy, which in itself is far from the spirit of Christ, being called "Father" along with the priests which Jesus expressly forbade us to do with our spiritual leaders, and at some point he took the title "Holy Father" which is a usurpation of the Name given only to God. There are other ways the Pope acquired the imputation of divinity over the years, making himself God in the spirit of Caesar, certainly not Christ, and it is this presumption of divinity that makes him Antichrist, along with all the false doctrine promoted by the RCC.The Pope and the whole Roman hierarchy also took on all the trappings of the pagan Roman religions, including the title Pontiff for the Pope, nothing Christian in that for sure, but all that weird expensive garb you'd think would alert anyone who knows anything about the gospels of Christ that it has nothing whatever to do with humble fishermen and shepherds and the Christ who had nowhere to lay His head. And the incredible wealth, the palaces etc.Later, forget the date, he had temporal primacy conferred on him as well, and that's when he acquired the three-tiered crown or tiara, as he put himself above all the kings of Christendom. Now he's a spiritual king and a worldly king, quite a combo, taking to himself the right to rule the world. And supporting that "right" with forged documents too, the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Isidore, which are still foundational to RCC doctrine although known to be fakes.And of course the religion itself is nothing but superstitious paganism, powers ascribed to relics and saints, prayers to saints instead of to God, worship of Mary and the granting of powers to her that only belong to Christ, the decree of the Pope's infallibility on particular matters, and indulgences are still for sale by Rome, getcha out of all kinds of mischief, and masses for the dead, a little more money for that please. Prayers for the dead are of course contrary to scripture. And the rosary comes from pagan religions too, did you know that? I was flabbergasted to see my Zen Buddhist priestess friend with a rosary wrapped around her wrist. And repetitive prayers also have a pagan origin, all those prayers the priests assign as penance for sin.And we could mention the Inquisition which murders people who don't do things their way, tens of millions of Bible believers down the centuries plus some Jews, Muslims, witches etc., and that is still going on hidden away in third world countries. Evidence of it was found in the 19th Century in Rome yet. Rome periodically stirs up its faithful to persecute Protestants, as it has done in Ireland, and now does in South America. If the RCC ever reestablishes the worldly power it had before the Reformation you can be sure we'll have another Inquisition out in the open for real. And this is all of a piece with their attempts on the lives of kings and even Popes by the Jesuits in the service of the papacy. They poisoned one Pope who had the effrontery to ban them from something or other.And that's just some of it.Of course the world accepts this outrageous imposter "Church" as if it were the leader of Christendom as it so loves to be considered, and you even speak of it as if it had a right to consider itself a legitimate church. Their deception is very very successful despite all the glaring roaring signs that there isn't one Christian thing about any of it.Poor poor Catholics, who are the most deceived of all: get out of that monster!Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I consider the mainstream to be the true doctrines that have come down from the early church, that clearly reflect the scriptural record, from the early church Councils to the Reformation. The RCC accepts it too because the Bishop of Rome was in the Councils, before it had become the RCC it is today as I outlined its history, also some other doctrines Protestants also accept. The mistake is to think the RCC as it grew to be in the Middle Ages and still is, has anything to do with Christianity. They have preserved some truth after all or none of their priests could ever have had a standard for objecting to their false doctrines, and that's how faithful Catholics get confused too.

I honestly JUDGE Catholicism to be objectively evidentially false, based on much reading which shows its falseness from the scriptures, this has nothing to do with likes or dislikes as you all love to smear people with you disagree with. I almost became a Catholic myself when I was first discovering God, I was attracted to the writings of some of the Cathoilc mystics. For a long time I thought they WERE the link between the early church and the Reformation, just one of the churches on the line to the present, not appreciating how totally they had deviated from the truth by then. It is only in recent years I've come to see how they had gone completely off the path by the Middle Ages.And with your absolutely stupid idiotic way of assessing these things there is no hope whatever of saying anything that would show you the inerrancy of scripture. It's all been said here before so what's the point? Its marvelous consistency is denied, its cohesiveness over centuries is denied, abe: its perfect record of fulfilled prophecy is denied, its intricately interwoven themes from author to author is denied /abe. You are the ones who believe what you believe on the basis of what you like or dislike, or for other trivial reasons, not I.The Trinity proofs I gave add up to the official Trinity concept but jar makes the idiotic complaint that they are "taken out of context" although within all their separate contexts they still say what they say about the nature of God that adds up to the Trinity. You all treat me like an idiot when you are the ones who are so irrational I don't know how you navigate your way through a day.ABE: You don't love facts and evidence at all, you are deluding yourself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

What's wrong with tracing the mainstream through the doctrinal history?

It's amazing that I can show by comparison with scripture that the Roman Church isn't Christian and that doesn't mean anything to anybody.But the vast majority of those "sects" differ only in very small points that don't put them outside the Christian camp.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unbelievable that you think jar said anything that needs to be answered.And of course to call the Bible fiction puts you so far out of reality there's no point in talking to you at all, I don't know why I try. Even most atheists don't deny that there is some historical truth in the Bible. But you go to a "Christian" church and you deny the only foundation there is for Christianity? Mindboggling stuff here.

Mainstream SHOULD mean most orthodox or most true to the teachings of the Bible, even if that stream dies down to a trickle. But prophetically we're expecting "Christianity" to get very huge and popular with nothing but lies and false doctrines, so I guess that's what this is.

Even though the majority of its doctrines and practices are clearly anything but Christian and I showed that, you are still going to insist that it's "the largest Christian church." This is really amazing. Oddly this is a popular view, which makes absolutely no sense at all. You cannot have genuine faith in anything you don't believe to be true, which means you have to have some evidence to believe it. That is human nature. Well, it's spiritually discerned, which I guess is the only explanation for your inability to recognize it in the end. One would think that a little respect for the history of Christianity might still be felt even by unbelievers in the western world, but perhaps you are ignorant of the history as you obviously are of the Bible itself. The greatest minds of the west made up the early church and have drawn inspiration from the Bible down the centuries. Believing it as God's word. Millions died for the truth of the Bible, for its being the word of God, under the Inquisition. It's obviously possible to believe a total lie, though, and give your life to it, as Muslims do. I think the only way to know the difference would be to know a lot of history. (Muslims die for their "faith" by committing violence and murder, though. I wonder how they'd do faith-wise being slaughtered as Christians always have been. My guess would be their "faith" would evaporate in a flash. As a matter of fact it is a tenet of Islam that it's good to lie to your enemies, so you could take back your "faith" and save your life and then resume your "faith." A Christian must die for his faith, not save his life but give it for Christ. Big difference there.)Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.