Isaiah's Wake Up Call To Christians Today

[Steveg]

John 14:6

Is not an answer to my point.

[Steveg]

I am referring to the eventual blind acceptance of the Nicene Creed later on by the Protestant, but to return the question back to you: How can there be an ecumeinical drive? Quoted below the last paragraph from this link:

An acceptance of what a gathering of the whole of Christ's Church decided after much careful discussion and guidance by the Holy Spirit. That sounds very reasonable to me.

Calling it blind acceptance is a very opinionated comment, especially considering you provide no evidence for such a claim.

[canny]

How indepth was your study? Did it cover what God was referring to in those passages when they were not calling on His name? Was it in relation to Ba'al?

Mayhap any light you may shed on this deviant religious practises at that time may expose the same rudiment producing those results then as they are being produced now.

Course, I am fully aware that only God can cause the increase in peradventure giving them knowledge unto repentance so that they may recover themselves from the snare of the devil, but as I see this plainly, others continues to think that God would mimick things in the world where if He called those out of the occults to His Son, no one would be able to tell the difference in their lives as being seperate from the world when they continue the practise of the same rudiment found in the world.

Makes me wonder if those same waywarde believers would so readily to accept this when a medium decides to "christianize" their practises by calling on the Holy Spirit? Would believers be so gullible to heed the advertisements to contact the Holy Spirit by way of the medium? They just might if they could not contact "the Holy Spirit" the way others have in the church. What would be the difference? What would be the reproff that it would not be seen as hypocritical?

"Yeah but we believe in Jesus Christ so you should not go to a medium."

But if they call on the name of the Holy Spirit as they do.....

"Yeah but we do so by way of Jesus Christ".

Then go to Jesus Christ and not by way of the Holy Spirit.

Pariah,, bear with me a bit,, but I do not understand why its different,,, you say go to Jesus, but not by way of the Holy Spirit,,, so why not go straight to the top,, leave em out and go to God...

They are One and Three,, to go to one is to go to all .... I thought

[Pariah]

Pariah,, bear with me a bit,, but I do not understand why its different,,, you say go to Jesus, but not by way of the Holy Spirit,,, so why not go straight to the top,, leave em out and go to God...

They are One and Three,, to go to one is to go to all .... I thought

John 14:6 has often been seen as just referring to salvation, but Jesus was stating more than that because it is in referring to having that relationship with God the Father and the only way to have that is through the Son.

Jesus said that to go around Him is a work of iniquity. John 10:1 Matthew 7:13-14 and why believers are called to narrow the way back to Him: Luke 13:26-30 or run the risk of being left behind for not abiding in Him.

If the Holy Spirit is in you as promised, then there is no more asking for nor looking to receive another spirit unless we start adapting the rudiment already found in the world and yet God would have us stand apart from the world if we are to be witnesses of Jesus Christ as His name is above every other name.

As much as equality is given among the Persons of the Trinity, scriptures declare the will of the Father. John 5:22-23 No one can honour God the Father by honouring the Holy Spirit. They can only honour God the father by honouring the Son. If the Holy Spirit will not speak of himself but to testify of the Son so as to glorify Jesus Christ and His name only, then by what spirit are wayward believers are honouring and glorifying the Spirit? They certainly are not being led by the Spirit of Truth to do that: scriptures says so.

Sinners in the occults... even those involved in this spirit religion such as one called "santos" that invoke the spirit testified by a christian believer whose family is involved in that at this link:

None believing family members and what it does to me...help me!! - The Christian Chat Network

God would call them out to stand apart from those practises that are within so that means God would not mimick anything that was already in the world before Christ had come.

That is why Jesus' name is being singled out as the one to call on.. to be saved... to pray to... to use His name against the forces of darkness.

And the indwelling Holy Spirit is pointing believers to go to Jesus still as scriptures are still pointing people that are already believers to keep going to Jesus to rest in Him for He is our resting place to avoid false prophets as well as false spirits that would masquerade as the Holy Spirit by its coming and goings in the worship place or on believers that are not on guard wherever they are. Jesus did call believers to watch.. to be on guard.. and not suffer a thief to break through.

If Jesus is the Bridegroom, does the Bride seek relations with the Bridegroom by going around Him? No. We go directly to the Son. That is the only way we cease to be workers of iniquity and the only way to avoid Him saying " I know ye not.." because they climbed up another way.

Leaving a former member nameless, this wayward believer was "seduced" by another spirit when his church honoured the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. He had not believed before about these extras of the "Holy Spirit" but testifying of his experience: like liquid nitrogen seeping through his skull and he began confessing against his will and apologizing to this "spirit" for not believing that the "Holy Spirit" operated in this manner.

It flies in the face of Matthew 11:28-30 in making the Holy Spirit out to be some kind of usurping bully. Does not God prefer a willing confession? Are not the spirits of the prophets subject to the prophets and that is why we are told not to quench the Spirit, but yet as the fruit of the Spirit called temperance is self control, suddenly it is absent here.

Isaiah testifies to the effects that scorcery and those with familiar spirits can have on the unsuspecting others.

Even this wayward believer testified of calling for such an encounter to occur on his Baptist friend whom was not seeking the gift of tongues.

The Christian Chat Network - View Single Post - Have you received the Holy Spirit since you believed?

In another forum, a link to a Youtube was shown in as the forum was able to somehow display that visual in its thread at that site:

Holy Laughter

That scene reminds me of the verses in Isaiah 51:20-23

All I can do, canny, is ask you to take this matter to Jesus in prayer, unless I pray, the Lord has shown you already as to why it is so important to go straight to the Son so to be witnesses of Him and not serve nor glorify anything else in His name.

[Pariah]

Okay folks.

I'm going to admit that I was trying to save face in regards to this statement:

Originally Posted by Pariah
But thanks to that ecumenical drive of the Nicene Council, the RCC managed to hood winked Protestants in regards to broadening the way given to approach God the Father in worship through the Son by including the Holy Spirit to be worshipped and honoured singularly as well.

I stand corrected by Steveg for the wording of it, but not to the spirit of it.

Although my earlier deferment is sound, ( since Steveg did not know why those councils at the beginning were called ecumenical, but he does acknowledge and declare them as so now) still my initial quoted statement is false. Technically, the RCC has been hoodwinking their members that are catholics long before those catholics that became Protestant carried over those deviant creeds along with other terms and practises whose origins are founded only in the RCC.

I was wrong to state it in that way in my quote, but the Lord shall help me to be clearer in my postings in serving Him.

[Lily]

How indepth was your study? Did it cover what God was referring to in those passages when they were not calling on His name? Was it in relation to Ba'al?

As part of my studies were historical, Kings of Judah, Assyrian empire, Jerusalem falling to Babylon, Babylon falling to Persia, exiles beginning to return, ect ect, a big part of that study was to examine Isaiah's confrontation with King Ahaz ( 7: 3 ), King Herezkiah sending for him in times of great trouble, being commissioned as a Prophet ( it's hazy now in whose reign that was ).

My Tutor named him the " Royal Prophet " a Prophet who obviously had the ear of kings but a Prophet who exposes evil and emptiness.

Have to be honest and admit that when I started my studies in my early 40's, I was green. I knew barely nothing about the Old Testament at all and a shameful admission I know, but I saw then, no relevance at all to being a Christian today.

Always remember my tutor saying, " The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed and the New Testament is the Old Testament revealed " and I thought,,,, " yeah, right, just give me the history Lady " ( I adore history )
She started at basics with Genesis and oh boy did she proove a point about mans greed and how it's so relevant today and how it links in with Isaiah's efforts to expose emptiness.
Isaiah was used as a comparrison to show there is hope and comfort ( the example of the flood was used ) as the opening of it is the heart of the Gospel of salvation.

She also called him the " Evangelical Prophet " and to push her point home about the Old Testament being the New Testament concealed she taught that there was more of the Gospel in Isaiah than any other book in the Old Testament and Isaiah was being true to the meaning of his name " The Lord Saves "

But most of all she pushed home how Isaiah was a Prophet who emphasized the Holiness of God, that we don't start with man and his needs, we start with God and his Holiness and his grace.

I got into an indepth study ( outside of college hours ) with a young lad on the course concerning Isaiah 14:3-20 ( not sure of the title of my thread but I started one here on the subject of lucifer ) and I really got my teeth into it.
Maybe you would like to search that one out and understand my confusion ( after this young lad had pointed it out to me ) in saying, after an indepth study,,, " Whoooah, will the real star of the morning stand up please ! "

The Baal worship study revolved around the cycles of nature necessary for survival and prosperity in the ancient world, you know, lack of rain = baal was displeased ect, but also how they almost had a God for crisis and another God for everyday life.
Think it shows the danger of claiming good intentions as an excuse for worship especially if it runs contrary to God's word.

Maybe it shows that cults today are just an old book wrapped up in a nice shiny new cover ?

[Steveg]

Okay folks.

I'm going to admit that I was trying to save face in regards to this statement:



I stand corrected by Steveg for the wording of it, but not to the spirit of it.

Although my earlier deferment is sound,

false

( since Steveg did not know why those councils at the beginning were called ecumenical, but he does acknowledge and declare them as so now)

false, I've always known what an Ecumenical Council was. How can you suggest otherwise?

still my initial quoted statement is false. Technically, the RCC has been hoodwinking their members that are catholics long before those catholics that became Protestant carried over those deviant creeds along with other terms and practises whose origins are founded only in the RCC.

I was wrong to state it in that way in my quote, but the Lord shall help me to be clearer in my postings in serving Him.

more rubbish. You claim these creeds are deviant (and slagging off the Catholic Chucrh with no good reason along the way) but have not provided one shred of explanation or evidence for that opinion. Just claiming something is so doesn't make it so.


Paraih,

Is the Holy Spirit God or not?

Do you deny the Trinity?

[Pariah]

The Baal worship study revolved around the cycles of nature necessary for survival and prosperity in the ancient world, you know, lack of rain = baal was displeased ect, but also how they almost had a God for crisis and another God for everyday life.
Think it shows the danger of claiming good intentions as an excuse for worship especially if it runs contrary to God's word.

Maybe it shows that cults today are just an old book wrapped up in a nice shiny new cover ?

You mean in how Roman Catholicism provides many doors in approaching God in prayer such as to the departed saints by the way each saint is designated for a certain crisis with some kind of assurance for answered prayer if one prays to that particular saint?

As much as Romans Catholicism would like to praise itself for keeping out heresey; it may serve as a deflection and a false sense of security as if they were successful in keeping all hereseys out. Sense hereseys has abounded other than the ones RCC were known to keep out, and yet the RCC hardly mentions anymore throughout history even though history has pointed out cults, one would think a devout catholic would take pause... especially when the RCC turns a blind eye to the evolution theory by stating that they see nothing wrong with it that would challenge the beliefs in the RCC, and yet I knew a fellow classmate whom was catholic that left the catholic religion and believing in God through Jesus Christ and the Bible for Buddhism only to suffer a thief breaking through as he began hearing voices and being tormented mentally by them from practising yoga or meditation. Strangely enough, the buddhist, his mentor, could not help him. The Lord was able to use me to debunk the evolution theory to him, but eventually, his footsteps wandered back to the RCC, even though he admitted that he did not know what he was doing, but at that time, he was still suffering from hearing voices and had not been delivered yet.

Which leads to why some leading catholic theologians are trying to build a rapport of ecumenicalism towards Buddhism as an acceptable practise where there are even a book by a RCC priest in endorsing it. With the RCC having an ecumeincal drive with establishing an accord with all religions of the world, even Islam, how is it that the RCC can be seen as keeping out heresey when they even had Pope John Paul stating that even those that do not believe in Jesus Christ but lead just lives may enter into the Kingdom of Heaven? Of course, many catholics raised alot of inquiries and protests by which the Pope redoubled and reaffirmed the necessity of Roman Catholicism to her followers.

So I do not see RCC as keeping out hereseys as much as devout Catholics would like to believe that by referencing the creeds.

And certainly, your sharing what Baal was about in practise, certainly proves how the world has crept into the RCC with its many doors to God in prayer through the departed saints for a specific answered to prayer as well as embracing other doors to Heaven, ignoring John 14:6 even more in the process by having that one accord with other religions of the world in getting into Heaven and/or in approaching God.

[Pariah]

Originally Posted by Pariah "I stand corrected by Steveg for the wording of it, but not to the spirit of it.

Although my earlier deferment is sound,...."

false

In your opinion only.

Originally Posted by Pariah
"( since Steveg did not know why those councils at the beginning were called ecumenical, but he does acknowledge and declare them as so now)"

false, I've always known what an Ecumenical Council was. How can you suggest otherwise?

From your post in #6 of this thread quoted below;

This is gibberish. There was only one Church at the time of Council of Nicea. How could there be an ecumenical drive?

Guess I am not the only one that had tried to save face.

more rubbish. You claim these creeds are deviant (and slagging off the Catholic Chucrh with no good reason along the way) but have not provided one shred of explanation or evidence for that opinion. Just claiming something is so doesn't make it so.

See my last reply: post # 18 to Lily in this thread:

Is the Holy Spirit God or not?

Do you deny the Trinity?

Yes. The Holy Spirit is God and no, I do not deny the Trinity but..

Do you not acknowledge that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was the One that died on the cross and not the Holy Spirit?

If so, then you are acknowledging that Jesus Christ is the Saviour and not the Holy Spirit, yes or no?

If no, then how can Jesus' name be above every other name by Whom the Father is glorified through as that relationship of God the Father to His Son has been thoroughly explained?

How can the Holy Spirit Whom will not speak of Himself so as to testify of the Son and to glorify the Son be leading any believer to glorify the Holy Spirit or look to the Holy Spirit as if He is the "Go To" Person of the Trinity and not the Son only, thus looking to fail by the scriptures of what He is sent to dwell in us to do? (And we both know that God will not fail so the Holy Spirit being God will do what He is sent to do)

Yes, the Holy Spirit is God, but no: the RCC cannot blur the lines of the offices and the titles specifically given to the Son with the Holy Spirit's role.

No matter what I say, Steveg, only God can give you pause to take this matter straight to Jesus in prayer. If God addresses each of the seven churches in Revelation for self examination, then you should do so also as an individual believer since it is obvious to me that the RCC has ceased from such self examination in keeping the hereseys of the world out in representing God through the Lord Jesus Christ.

[Steveg]

Originally Posted by Pariah
"( since Steveg did not know why those councils at the beginning were called ecumenical, but he does acknowledge and declare them as so now)"

Quote:
false, I've always known what an Ecumenical Council was. How can you suggest otherwise?
From your post in #6 of this thread quoted below;

Quote:
This is gibberish. There was only one Church at the time of Council of Nicea. How could there be an ecumenical drive?
Guess I am not the only one that had tried to save face.

Pariah you are in error.

I said that "there was only one Church at the time of Council of Nicea."
How does that imply that I did not know what an Ecumenical Council was?

I continued "How could there be an ecumenical drive?". It is possible I took the word ecumenism in that sentence in a different way to that which you are using.

From Wikipedia

Ёcumenism or Œcumenism (also Ecumenism, oecumenism or even eucumenism) now mainly refers to initiatives aimed at greater religious unity or cooperation.
In its broadest sense, this unity or cooperation may refer to a worldwide religious unity; by the advocation of a greater sense of shared spirituality across the three Abrahamic faiths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Most commonly, however, ecumenism is used in a more narrow meaning; referring to a greater cooperation among different religious denominations of a single one of these faiths.

I took ecumenism in the narrower sense of "referring to a greater cooperation among different religious denominations", whereas you seem to be taking it in the broader sense of interreligious dialogue.


Either was says nothing about my understanding of what an Ecumenical Council is.