The Church of Rome denies Jesus came in the flesh

[Arial]

The trinity doctrine never defined Christianity. Most sensible and logical people know that a man that lived on this planet cannot be God. There are trillions upon trillions of planets that have likely fallen over billions of years that needed a savior. We are just one small example of bigger things. There are likely many planets in our galaxy with earths and humans on them.

Like I said. The problem with Trinity is that over the course of over 1,000 years thousands of books and sermons on Trinity were published and my goodness we can't say they were all wrong. People who are willing to change their mind see it - Jesus was a man otherwise if he were God, he would not be able to be tempted blowing a hole in the atonement.

He was a man. The doctrine of the Trinity does not deny that.

Don't play with words and think it will go unnoticed. The doctrine of the Trinity is a doctrine IN Christianity. Here is what God has to say about "sensible and logical" people. 1 Cor 2:14 The natural man does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God. For they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.

John 10:25-26 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father's name bear witness about me, but you do not believe because you are not among my sheep."

John 3:3 Jesus replied. "Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again." Later he says, 5. Truly, truly, I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit."

So these sensible and logical people cannot believe in the full deity and full humanity of Christ, or the deity and person of the Holy Spirit; they cannot believe the Trinity, because it is spiritually discerned. It is revealed (by God) knowledge, not natural knowledge. Being wise, they became fools.

As for the nonsense of trillions and trillions of fallen planets and billions of years---well that is the strangest supportive argument against the deity of Christ I have ever heard bar none.

 

[Rella]

The trinity doctrine never defined Christianity. Most sensible and logical people know that a man that lived on this planet cannot be God. There are trillions upon trillions of planets that have likely fallen over billions of years that needed a savior. We are just one small example of bigger things. There are likely many planets in our galaxy with earths and humans on them.

Like I said. The problem with Trinity is that over the course of over 1,000 years thousands of books and sermons on Trinity were published and my goodness we can't say they were all wrong. People who are willing to change their mind see it - Jesus was a man otherwise if he were God, he would not be able to be tempted blowing a hole in the atonement.

How is it that you cannot understand that if God was able to be the creationist that He was that certainly a walk on His creation would be very minor.

But I am not one to try and sway anyone else.

I would suggest that when you get all hung up on "if he were God, he would not be able to be tempted" you first need to study what that most likely was mislabeled .... likely from the standpoint that the translators , all of them,,, came to concensus that based on what they were reading/translating this was a proper one.

I am talking about being tempted because I believe that the men who wrote that said wrong. I believe they should have said tested.

Interestingly the Greek word for tempt (peirazó) is the same as test. The difference lies in the context and the motivation. That which Satan employs as temptation meant for evil destruction, God may permit as a test for our good to purify and strengthen us (Gen. 50:20). Why the difference? God’s purpose is not to harm, but to prove. God already knows our weaknesses, but testing reveals the areas where we need to improve in our reliance upon Him. When we do rely upon God, his power is also revealed to others through us.

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance
tempt, examine, try
From peira; to test (objectively), i.e. Endeavor, scrutinize, entice, discipline -- assay, examine, go about, prove, tempt(-er), try.

Lexicon: peirazó: To test, to tempt, to try, to examine

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one.” James 1:13 ESV

Mēdeis peirazomenos legetō hoti Apo Theou peirazomai ho gar Theos apeirastos

No one being tempted let say - , By God . I am being tempted - For God unable to be tempted

estin kakōn peirazei de autos oudena
is ; by evils tempts now He Himself .No one
So I submit the temptation of Jesus was a mere testing permitted by the Father and Jesus walking away from such was actually designed to be an example for us.

But this takes this thread to a new direction so regard it as an observation and lets get back on topic

 

[Josheb]

We see what the Bible says..

According to Catholic Answers, the RCC does affirm Jesus came in the flesh. See HERE, HERE, and HERE.

 

[Hobie]

According to Catholic Answers, the RCC does affirm Jesus came in the flesh. See HERE, HERE, and HERE.

And they also say they have the power to change Gods Law or even His words, but do they speak the truth. They follow one who is the chief of liars, and knows his craft well..

 

[Josheb]

And they also say they have the power to change Gods Law or even His words, but do they speak the truth. They follow one who is the chief of liars, and knows his craft well..

Please don't change the subject. I know that Dispies are taught to do that as a routine practice but it's bad practice. If you wish to point out some other matter then first acknowledge the facts in evidence. The RCC acknowledges Jesus came in the flesh. This op is specifically about whether or not Jesus came in the flesh. This op is NOT about the RCC's misguided, egregiously incorrect claim to have the power to change God's Law and His words. The title of this thread states, "The Church of Rome denies Jesus came in the flesh."

Post #63 provides three examples proving that statement incorrect.

Do not change the subject.

It's probably best if you start over. Start another new thread that more accurately addresses the point you sought to make with this thread. Before you do, however. let me ask you a question: What, specifically, what, exactly, would be your purpose in ragging on the Roman Catholic Church? Maybe the answer to that question will help in articulating the point of the next RCC-ragging op.

And please do not misunderstand me. I am not defending the RCC. They've got numerous and enormous problems when it comes to thought, doctrine, and practice when measured by scripture and the institution has caused some very real dysfunction in the Church (even today we hand out wafers and thimbles in what amounts to a mockery of the original event and early Church practice). However, RCC-ragging merely for the sake of RCC-ragging is just as unscriptural as many of the RCC doctrines and practices. Whatever the complaint may be, make sure it is correct and just because the claim the RCC denies Jesus came in the flesh is neither. Besides, a modern futurist it all looks very much like the pot calling the kettle black. You come from a theology that hasn't gotten a single prediction correct in 200 years. If you're going to criticize the RCC then do it right and do it with integrity. Be better than those you scorn.

Just saying