Mary’s Intercession Is Necessary For Our Salvation

http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr11/cr11pg29.asp

Donna, thanks for sharing.

No where in the Bible does it state an authoritative body to interpret scriptures, unless you are willing to concede that the Holy Spirit is the authoritative body. The Catholic church did not compile the Bible, they only affirmed the books. It is the word of God not the word of the catholic church, it wasn’t written to us but for us.

Times have changed and the locking up of the scriptures (before Christians were able to have their own Bibles) did nothing to further develop the church. With today’s technology of print and internet we find many valuable resources to aid in hermeneutics. Sola Scriptura does not imply a Bible only mentality and allows for use of commentaries and reading of early church fathers about interpretations (historically).

Thanks for sharing your posts, I have not posted any replies yet to what you recently posted, but I hope to tomorrow. I would ask that you allow me to give a reply to what you have shared before you post any new ones. Though I do not agree with what you guys have shared, I thank you for taking the time to dialogue here. My goal as I would hope yours is to, is to truly believe and follow what the Scriptures teach in truth.

See you soon…

Our confession is simpler. We set our eyes on what the Jews thought. We don’t look to creeds centuries after the cross. We are very extremely back-to-the-Bible adherents. We are simply saying that when we read the Shema (Deut. 6 in particular), we understand it as the Jews did. That YHWH was Israel’s God ALONE. A proper understanding doesn’t tell us that the word echad meaning one is ‘one’ in the sense that Oneness advocates often say ‘one,’ but rather that YHWH is God alone. This doesn’t disprove the trinity, but it certainly cannot be stretched to mean a trinity either.

This same YHWH in all His fullness became a man. We both call this the incarnation and Immanuel. This child that was born the Messiah was not ONLY a child, Isaiah says, He was the Wonderful Counselor, the Mighty God, the Everlasting Father, and the Prince of Peace. He was the same suffering servant in the 52nd and 53rd chapter. John 12:41 alludes to the vision Isaiah saw when Isaiah saw YHWH on the throne with His throne filling the temple and John applied it to Jesus!

But focus in on this that we call Incarnation. John 14:9-10 Phillip told the Lord show us the Father and it will suffice us. And to this Jesus answered “Have I been with you so long and yet you have not know me Phillip? He who has seen Me has seen the Father; so how can you say show us the Father? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on my own authority but the Father who dwells in Me does the works.” Now I do not know how one could make this any clearer except to say “I am the Father.”

But Jesus was not there to boast about His Godliness as Phillipians tells us. in this hymn Paul says “But made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men.” He did not seek Divine perrogatives. He was not even there totting that He was the Messiah though He did tell them He was. I have N. T. Wright to back me up on that one as well (even though I know for sure he is not Oneness). Jesus did not want to give the wrong picture. He could easily have shown Himself to be God and Israel would have quickly followed Him. But He was not there to coerce allegiance, but to allow them to come to Him. He concealed His identity to a large extent but to a few because it would have put the focus in the wrong place. So God was in the man named Jesus. kind of a taste of our belief.

I am not trying to overload you so I will give you time to express your opinion.

I am just as much against Mormonism and the Jehovah’s Witness faiths as you are.

I appreciate you not harshly condemning me personally. My post was not meant to be harsh at all either, just straight to the point on what it means if what I’m saying is correct. I do not want anyone in the lake of fire, and my assessment was not intentionally personal though it ends up being because what I’m against you believe; and vise versa. But I want it to be known to the reader and you too, that what I’m saying is not intended to be a personal attack, and you’ve shown yourself to uphold the same towards me. So thank you.

What I was suggesting about similar beliefs was related only to our views on God. From my exprience 90% of the conversation is in agreement until we get to whether we define Him in three persons or one. When I say person I mean the man Christ whom we say all of God indwells. When I have explained what I believe they were either very much set against it or more often they claimed to believe essentially the same thing. I have more to type. Will be back later as well