1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Featured Is Catholicism a Christian religion ?

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by Neuropteron, Jun 4, 2021.

  1. Hockeycowboy

    Hockeycowboy Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2015
    Messages:
    7,678
    Ratings:
    +4,639
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, the Catholic Church does.
    But please, show me where these phrases, “true God from true God” and “consubstantial,” are in the Bible.

    (Words like ‘essence’ & ‘substance’ are Greek philosophical terms, not found in Scripture. — Dictionary of the Bible, 1965, by Catholic priest & scholar, S.J., John L. McKenzie)
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  2. Neuropteron

    Neuropteron Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2018
    Messages:
    519
    Ratings:
    +265
    Religion:
    Christian
    Hi Emu,

    My answer to your question is as follow:

    Your ire, at first was engaging, but is starting now to be annoying.

    Contentions are not something I choose to spend time with.

    I gave my opinion, you told me yours using an autocratic and insulting style of communication.
    That was your right, my right is refusing to submit to your demands.

    If you cannot accept or understand this concept, that's too bad.

    Please re-direct your belligerence elsewhere.
     
  3. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Church does not say Jesus is literally the Father, in fact we say the opposite. That they are literally different, but both literally God.

    No one said they were in the Bible.

    Your refusal to engage in good faith is noted. Your request that I cease from pointing out your intellectual dishonesty is rejected.

    Believe me or don't, I think I find far more annoyance in dishonest arguments than you do in having them pointed out.
     
  4. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35,252
    Ratings:
    +16,767
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Which is where "essence" fits in:

    Essence, however, is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is. Existence is that whereby the essence is an actuality in the line of being.

    Essence
    Essence is properly described as that whereby a thing is what it is, an equivalent of the to ti en einai of Aristotle (Metaph., VII, 7). The essence is thus the radical or ground from which the various properties of a thing emanate and to which they are necessarily referred. Thus the notion of the essence is seen to be the abstract counterpart of the concrete entity; the latter signifying that which is or may be (ens actu, ens potentiâ), while the former points to the reason or ground why it is precisely what it is. As furnishing in this manner an answer to the question What? (Quid?) — as, e.g., What is man? — essence is equivalent to quiddity; and thus, as St. Thomas remarks (I, Q. iii, a. 3), the essence of a thing is that which is expressed by its definition. -- CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Essence and Existence
     
  5. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, though I don't think in any manner by which you can say that according to the teachings of the Catholic Church that Jesus is not literally God.

    Exactly, the divine essence or substance is that whereby God is God. Jesus, the divine personage of the Son, is a full participant in the divine essence, that is that whereby Jesus is Jesus is the same that of which it can be said that whereby the Father is the Father. They share the that of the divine essence.

    And as Christians, we fully accede to monotheism. There is only one singular, indivisible divine essence.
     
  6. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35,252
    Ratings:
    +16,767
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    Well, I took Catholic theology classes in my undergrad years and I have been currently teaching it to potential adult converts for 15 years.

    The word we're stumbling over is the word "literally". To me, when you say "literally", what I'm "hearing" is that you are saying that there's no distinction whatsoever between Jesus and God, and if I leave "essence" out of that formula, that's illogical because there are frequent distinctions made throughout the Gospel between Them. The Church fathers would have to be either blind or ignorant not to see that, and I certainly don't think they were. It is the use of "essence" that brings the two together in a logical manner.

    IOW, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God, which certainly is not a trivialized distinction in any way. It's like the "essence" of an automobile is not just a listing of all of its parts-- it's its entire purpose as well that's essential to understand. Thus, the "essence" of Jesus and the Holy Spirit is God using this approach.

    An excellent source that well covers this Greek philosophical influence on Catholic theology is James Hitchcock's "History of the Catholic Church", and his coverage of the 4th century Nicene Council where this debate raged is thorough and excellent, imo.
     
    #186 metis, Jun 17, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2021
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    Ok.

    I think we're stumbling over the word God, which I believe you are using to refer to the Father while I use the word to refer to the divine ousia that all three persons of the Holy Trinity are full and equal participants in.

    The essence whereby the Father is God is the exact same essence whereby Jesus is God. They share the that, the essence, the substance, the being, the ousia.

    Jesus is identifiable with the same God stuff that the Father is identifiable with and the Holy Spirit. That's why it is a trinity and not a polytheistic triad. And, that's why Jesus is literally God.
     
  8. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35,252
    Ratings:
    +16,767
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    And the use of "ousia" is another example of that Greek influence, especially Aristotle and Plato, so we're good. :)
     
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  9. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    Indeed. :)

    Was my last post accurate. Because, I really wouldn't mind talking this further out with you if you disagree with that last post.
     
  10. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Can you tell me why God needed to become a human and die in order to pay the ransom for mankind?
    If you understand the Jewish teaching of redemption, then all that was necessary to redeem mankind was an equivalent life offered for the one that Adam lost for his children. All the redeemer needed to be was "sinless".....a sinless life offered in exchange for a sinless life lost......that does not mean that God himself needed to incarnate. As an immortal, it is impossible for God to die. So if Jesus didn't really die, the redemption price was not paid.

    "The only begotten son of God", is a creation of his Father, otherwise their relationship as stated in the scriptures is misleading. The man who became Jesus Christ was a "son of God" long before he became a human.

    Why was blood sacrifice offered? Can you tell me? What is a "propitiatory" sacrifice?

    It is not the act of baptism that saves a person...it is what baptism symbolizes that counts with God. It is the choice out of a willing heart to serve the interests of the Sovereign of the Universe, through faith in the sacrifice of his son. No amount of sprinkling water on an infant or an adult will replace what full immersion baptism signifies.

    Minor children are counted in with their believing parent(s), according to the Apostle Paul.
    " For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband. Else your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

    "Sanctification" is....the act or process of making something, or someone, holy, or set apart for God's service. “Sanctification” draws attention to the action in how holiness is produced, made manifest, or maintained. It is the actions of the parents therefore that gains sanctification for their unbelieving spouses....and their children. No baptism is required in their case, unless and until they become believers.

    The age of a person who desires to serve God as a disciple of Jesus Christ, is not chronological.....it depends entirely upon the spiritual maturity of the one seeking to become a Christian.

    Unlike Jews, Christians are not born....they have to choose of their own free will to do all that is necessary to qualify as one of Christ's disciples. Its not just like joining a club, there are qualifications and criteria that must be met, otherwise you are simply a label wearer whom God does not recognize.

    No one is denied baptism therefore because those too young to make that decision are covered by their believing parent(s) and those who are of age must make that decision for themselves. Accountability is about knowing and obeying. Ignorance is no excuse.

    The repetition of words (mindless or otherwise) is not required.....and it never was. There were no instructions to repeat the 'Our Father' prayer because Jesus said:
    Matthew 6:7-9.....NASB
    7 “And when you are praying, do not use thoughtless repetition as the Gentiles do, for they think that they will be heard because of their many words. 8 So do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
    9 “Pray, then, in this way:
    ‘Our Father, who is in heaven,
    Hallowed be Your name.
    10 Your kingdom come.
    Your will be done,
    On earth as it is in heaven."


    So its "pray this way" not "pray this prayer".

    For those who do not know what to say to God, he would rather hear a heart felt 'sorry' or 'thank you', or "please help me", rather than a long winded string of repeated words from the mind, not the heart.

    Rosary beads are of false religious origins I believe.....and used by other religions such as Hindus and Buddhists.
    They do not belong in Christianity. I see no repetitious prayers ever recorded for Christians.
     
    #190 Deeje, Jun 18, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2021
  11. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Since it was "the good news of the Kingdom" that had to be preached earth wide right up until the end of the present world system, (Matthew 24:14) all of Christ's disciples had to know what the Kingdom was in order to preach about it. I have not met a single Catholic person yet who can define what God's Kingdom actually is....

    Your definition above falls short, I'm afraid. Would you like to try again? Using scripture if possible?
    You might like to start with Daniel 2:44?

    What "eternal divine substance".....and where will I find mention of that in scripture?

    The Apostle Paul was clear about this.....
    Colossians 1:15-18...
    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together. He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, so that he might come to have first place in everything"

    He is made in God's image just like we were. He was the first and only direct creation of his Father. "Monogenes" is the word used for an only child. As the very beginning of God's creation, his "firstborn", (Revelation 3:14) the pre-human Jesus was "begotten" by his immortal Father.
    One who is "begotten" needs a "begetter" who existed first.

    Do you know? Or do you assume? I believe that history attests to the early church fathers as being the beginning of the great apostasy. It may be an unbroken line, but I assure you that by their conduct, they were not imitators of the originals. They started a new line of apostates, deviating from the originals. The end product does not resemble the original in any way.

    Did you forget that "theos" (god) in Greek is not a word used exclusively for deities....it is also used with regard to those with divine authority. (Mighty Ones)

    Before a hostile Jewish crowd...."The Jews answered, ‘It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.’ 34 Jesus answered, ‘Is it not written in your law, “I said, you are gods”? 35 If those to whom the word of God came were called “gods”—and the scripture cannot be annulled— 36 can you say that the one whom the Father has sanctified and sent into the world is blaspheming because I said, “I am God’s Son”?"

    If Jesus was God, then here was a great opportunity for him to speak up......the Jews were accusing him of blasphemy anyway, but what did Jesus call himself? The ones Jesus referred to as "gods" were his Father's appointed judges in Israel. This demonstrates that Jesus was not a deity, but one appointed with divine authority.

    That is why the Septuagint comes in handy. The Greek speaking Jews in the first century used it....

    Since the priesthood in heaven was only for the elect (chosen ones) why would God take all other humans to heaven when that was not his first purpose? He chose from among mankind, those whom he selected to rule over redeemed mankind here on earth. The "rooms" were reserved for the few, not the rest.

    Revelation 21:2-4 is a beautiful picture of God's accomplished purpose through his kingdom arrangement for mankind on this earth....
    "And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
    ‘See, the home of God is among mortals.[human beings]
    He will dwell with them;
    they will be his peoples,
    and God himself will be with them;
    4 he will wipe every tear from their eyes.
    Death will be no more;
    mourning and crying and pain will be no more,
    for the first things have passed away.’"


    "New Jerusalem" is seen coming down from heaven to bring the rulership of God's Kingdom to redeemed mankind. God will be "with" his people just as he was "with" Israel in the days when he blessed them. He did not need to be physically present to be "with them". Everything that causes pain and suffering will be done away with, and the earth will become the paradise that God intended it to be in the beginning. God always finishes what he starts. (Isaiah 55:11)

    When you consider that the manner of Jesus death is irrelevant, you can understand that it was his death that saved us, no matter what instrument was used. It is a bizarre thing indeed to make a replica of the thing used to put someone you love to death and cherish it....decorate yourself with it, and put it up in your houses of worship. :eek:

    If Christ had been hung would we see a gallows in the churches with a figure of Jesus swinging from the rope? Or if he was run through with a spear....or stoned to death with rocks as the Jews commonly did to law breakers, what would have been the symbols then? Do you see that images are again in the conversation? We are told not to MAKE images of ANYTHING.

    He is a singular entity and I invite you to show me where Jesus ever said anything to the contrary. The Jews had no concept of a triune God as the Shema demonstrated (Deuteronomy 6:4)
    Jesus identified Yahweh as "the only true God" without including himself. (John 17:3)
    The apostles identified the father as their "one God", (1 Corinthians 8:5-6) .....so unless you believe that Jesus and the apostles didn't know who their God was.....scripture disagrees, which is why I believe that the RCC rejected sola scriptura.....the Bible completely disagrees with everything the Catholic church teaches.
     
  12. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    @Deeje Thanks for continuing our discussion

    I can hypothesize, if you'd like.

    One mundane person wouldn't be enough to cover all of humanity; one life might cover one life, but not billions. The same way one spotless lamb wasn't enough and continual offerings were necessary before Christ's sacrifice.

    Alternatively, what mere man's death could break death? Even a perfect man doesn't have power over death, only God does. Only God passing through death could destroy its hold. Why is the resurrection so important? Lazarus had already come back from death and it didn't herald a new way of things, only when Christ passed through death and came back did we have life renewed. If Christ is not risen, we are still in our sins and our faith is in vain. 1 Cor 15:17.

    Can God not do all things? Is death more powerful than God that He should fear it?

    Because God commanded it.

    Sacrifice meant to reconcile two parties or appease one party when offered by the other.

    For what it is worth, I think that the move to aspersion is an abuse of what should be an allowance of necessity for when immersion or infusion are not possible.

    You said that the decision to withhold baptism is based on spiritual maturity, that they aren't capable of giving their soul to God. But, we know that in truth, children are more spiritually apt than adults; it is the children and those like them that the Kingdom is for. It is from the mouth of babes that the perfection of praise comes. And, unless we become like the little children we will never see the Kingdom. Children don't become like adults and enter the Kingdom, it's the obverse. Children are spiritually superior, not inferior.

    Amen.

    Sometimes I pray without words at all, sometimes those are my best prayers.

    I think you mean to say prayer beads, or knotted prayer ropes in general. Unless of course you're referring to the Catholics as the false religion of origin.

    Though we have our own tradition of the development of prayer ropes, from illiterate monks who would use stones in a bowl eventually to Anthony the Great developing the Chotki. I think there is enough history to defend the position that the use of knotted prayer ropes is not a foreign religious intervention instead of a internal development
     
  13. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    That's not true. There has never been a requirement that we know the intricacies of something to know about its arrival. I don't have to know how nuclear fission works or, even deeper, why our physical reality exists in such a way as to produce nuclear physics, to announce that nuclear energy is real.

    That's probably because most Catholics believe the physical descriptors of the Kingdom in scripture are symbolic/metaphorical analogues trying to capture a sliver of a truth beyond human comprehension.

    Would you like to provide what you think the Kingdom of Heaven will be when actualized.

    You'll find it right next to where in scripture it lists the scriptures. No where in the scriptures are we forbidden from thinking about the truths the scriptures give us. God exists. We exist. There is some truth of God's existence wherein He is God and we are not. We, being the Christian world since at least the middle of the second century and probably before, have called that truth the divine ousia, or substance. Is not God eternal? Is there not a truth of existence which differentiates man from God? If you answer yes, then you believe in an eternal divine substance.

    Indeed, all things have been created through Him. Which must needs include Him. Both Paul and John are clear. Jesus was not created, but begotten. Just like a man does not create his child, he begets the child from his own self. The Son of God is not a creation of the Father, He is begotten from the Father's own self. Just as the begotten son of a man can be nothing but a man. The begotten Son of God can be no else than.

    But, " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen. 1:1, "Then God proceeded to make the expanse" Gen 1:7, the great sea monsters and every living soul which moves about 21, man 27, everything 31, and Jehova God formed man from the dust Gen 2:7, and the helper beasts 2:18, Jehova God made woman from the rib of Adam. There is more of course, Psalm 19 'the sky above declares God's handiwork', Isaiah 45 'the Lord, who created the heavens', Nehemiah 9 "You are the Lord, you alone. You have made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them".

    Even if Christ created everything but Himself, He is still the Jehova God of Genesis. Because that is who created the world, the sun and stars, the beasts of the seas and the earth, and man.

    How could I forget, with you to remind me. You will agree that the vast majority of the time it refers to God, yes? Especially in reference to the theos who created all things that have been created.

    Just a few verses earlier, some had begged Him to plainly state whether He was the messiah, and He didn't. He said His works speak for Him. Jesus didn't take "the great opportunities" to speak up and He didn't cast pearls before swine.

    Indeed it does. For instance, in the Septuagint, the word kyrios is used as a translation of the Tetragrammaton, in fact that is Mark's sole use of the word. Yet, Paul especially, uses that term to refer to Jesus. Another example of how the scripture identifies Jesus with the God of Israel.

    Since we are going to talk about translations, let's speak of interesting translations. Like 1 Corinthians 10:9. Where the NWT has Jehova and the greek text is christos. Now, to me that is an acceptable statement, being that Jesus is in fact our Lord Jehova, the God of all. I also get why the NWT identified the Christos with Jehova, because the context of the passage is a reference back to a time when people tested Jehova. Though I don't think that is a linguistically sound translation.

    It isn't just one passage, it isn't just some off hand statements. Jesus is consistently identified with the God of Israel as described in the Old Testament.

    About the practice of laying of hands? Know. It comes from multiple sources all across the ancient Church. That's how authority was passed.

    So yes, when Jesus said He was coming back to get people to be with Him, He did only mean a few.

    I'm not so sure it is entirely irrelevant, I think His manner of death was never going to be peaceful but symbolic of taking all of the suffering and sin of the world unto Himself.

    I would never try, because I believe that God is a singular entity as well.

    Which is your choice. I think it's obvious that the Church of Rome, along with the Churches of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc, were founded before the New Testament scriptures were written and therefore unable to accept the position that their authority and righteousness weren't real until the scriptures came along. Sola Scriptura didn't exist until the reformation, it didn't exist for the first Church. Furthermore, none of the scriptures even call for sola scriptura, so it is a-scriptural. Finally, some of the scriptures explicitly state that we are to hold on to what we were taught whether or not it was written down, so sola scriptura beyond having no scriptural support is actually contra-scriptural.

    It has no history. It has no support. It violates scriptural guidance. It is a completely bankrupt human invention of the reformation.
     
    #193 Mister Emu, Jun 18, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2021
    • Like Like x 2
    • Winner Winner x 1
  14. Watchmen

    Watchmen Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    6,556
    Ratings:
    +909
    Catholics were and are the O.G. christians, brother!
     
  15. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    It’s been a real education for me, as are all of these kinds of discussions......I believe that they are beneficial, as readers can judge for themselves what resonates with them in the exchange.....having said that, I am still astounded about the volume of what is ignored rather than what is excused or justified. When you ignore something, I am left to wonder if it is something you cannot justify and just don’t want to talk about it....?

    As “the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” we cannot help but remember the annual Passover of the Jews whereby the blood of a lamb on the doorposts of obedient Jews, meant that “the angel of death” ‘passed over’ their homes and did not bring death to that household. Strict obedience to God’s instructions saved all members of that household.

    We too have to place ‘the blood of the lamb’ on our doorposts metaphorically speaking, by our household upholding the teachings of the Christ in all things. For Israel, strict obedience to God’s commands was required....they were not permitted to bring in their own ideas and when they did, God withdrew from them.

    Go back to Eden and see where death was mentioned.....it was only as a penalty for disobedience. Mankind were created mortal, but there was no natural cause of death, however, there was a means for them to access (the tree of life) in order for their lives to continue forever in the paradise that God created for them, and which they were commanded to spread earth wide with their children. With their disobedience, mankind lost their only means to continue living and the stated death penalty eventually overtook them.

    God’s law stated that equivalency was required for justice to be served.....”an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life”.
    So, in order to pay ‘a sinless life for the sinless life’ that Adam lost for all his offspring, a sinless human life had to come from outside of the now sinful human race. God sent his son to fulfill that role.
    Jesus did not have to be God in order to supply the ransom price for the human race. All he needed to be was a sinless human.

    Turning Jesus into an equal part of God was a blasphemy. Before the church declared that God was a trinity, no such God existed except in paganism. The Jews never believed in such a God, and as a devout Jew, Jesus never taught about such a blasphemous thing. Out of the Abrahamic faiths, only Christendom believes in a triune god.

    There was a two fold purpose in Lazarus’ resurrection. Reading the account in John 11:11-15 reveals where Lazarus was, and the purpose of his resurrection in connection with his disciples.
    Lazarus was “sleeping” in his tomb (where Jesus called him from) and Jesus was going to raise his dear friend in order to bolster the disciples’ belief and faith in him.

    No one who died before Jesus opened the way to heaven, would be taken into the new covenant, inaugurated on the night before Jesus’ death. So in resurrecting Lazarus, Jesus not only enhanced the faith of all onlookers, but changed his destiny....he and his sisters would join him as co-rulers in his heavenly kingdom.

    Can one part of God send an equal part of himself to earth as a human to die for mankind, then that one part has to use the third part to resurrect him, so that he can go back to heaven to become part of the other two? Seriously? God gave us our sense of logic and the trinity fights with it....it is unscriptural (as the church admits) so what on earth is the basis for it?

    If Jesus went back to heaven to become part of the “godhead” again, then why would Jesus say what he did in Revelation 3:12?
    How can Jesus call his Father “my God” in heaven? Please explain....
     
  16. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Without telling us why? Why was blood required for sacrifice?

    For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you for making atonement for your lives on the altar; for, as life, it is the blood that makes atonement.. . . .For the life of every creature—its blood is its life; therefore I have said to the people of Israel: You shall not eat the blood of any creature, for the life of every creature is its blood; whoever eats it shall be cut off.”
    (Leviticus 17:11,14 - NRSVCE)

    Blood is the very symbol of life itself. It was sacred and therefore forbidden to be used in any way but as an atonement for sins. Hence Jesus’ blood atones for all humanity who accept his sacrifice.

    Much more than that. Appeasing God is only one component, fulfilling and satisfying his perfect justice is also vital.

    In my experience I have never seen anyone who was denied baptism on the grounds of it being too difficult.
    Since infant baptism is not scriptural as Paul confirms, those who wish to commit to Christ can be baptized no matter what their physical disability or condition. I have witnessed many such baptisms. Where there is a will...there is a way.

    Of course it is true that children were used as an example for the disciples, but in what sense? What is there about children that is often missing in adults? How can we become like young children in our approach to Christianity?

    Children are meek and teachable...like sponges absorbing what they are taught. They have little in the way of pre-conceived ideas that can become a barrier to accepting new concepts. They are trusting and often eager to please.....aren’t these the things that make children a great role model for accepting Christ’s teachings?

    Then why the need for the repetitive things that most Catholics know as prayer? The Catholic people that I have had dealings with over many years, didn’t really pray outside of that repetitive ritualistic form. I cannot find a single prayer that Christ’s disciples were told to repeat...can you?

    No....as I said Hindus and Buddhists use them, among other non-Christian faiths. They were never part of original Christianity however because they were not necessary. Jesus taught us how to pray and what to include in our prayers. (Matthew 6:9-10) This prayer was to be used as a model for our own....it was not to be a substitute.

    Again you are not speaking about prayers from the heart....you are speaking about prayers by rote. Is that what Jesus and the apostles said that prayer is?

    “But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.” (Matthew 6:6 -NRSVCE)

    “Do not worry about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.” (Philippians 4:6-7 - NRSVCE)

    A conversation with God is not rehearsed.....or it is talking at God rather than to him. When we want to communicate with each other as intelligent beings, would we just say the same things mindlessly, over and over again? How soon would our correspondent walk away? Why would we treat the most intelligent personage in the Universe as if he wants to hear that kind of repetition? What human being can’t have an intelligent conversation with God? Even a child can do that. Humble prayers from the heart are what God hears. I believe that Jesus and the apostles made that obvious.
     
  17. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    Intricacies? What intricacies?

    We don’t need to have degrees in theology to understand what the Kingdom is. Who told you that?

    If you had read Daniel 2:44 with a knowledge of what Daniel was talking about, the definition of God’s kingdom becomes clear.

    In Daniel Ch 2, God gave the Babylonian king a dream concerning the March of world powers from Babylon, down to the “the time of the end”. He identified those world powers as those who would conquer and succeed the previous one. History identifies them....Babylon was conquered by Medo-Persia, who were defeated by Greece, who were taken over by Rome and then Britain who thereafter allied themselves with the USA. Then the March of world powers ends. This is why Daniel says.....”

    “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever; just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. The great God has informed the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation trustworthy. (Daniel 2:44-45 - NRSVCE)

    In the days of the present world rulership...this is when God’s Kingdom displays its power to remove all failed and corrupt human rulership, crushing them and their supporters out of existence, and replacing them as the earth’s only governance.

    This is “the good news of the Kingdom”....but I never hear Christendom say much about such an awesome event that will change conditions and human life on earth forever.

    Beyond human comprehension? Seriously that is one lousy excuse for lack of knowledge IMO.

    It’s what the Bible says, not what I think....
    Revelation 21:2-5 is the actualisation......

    “And I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “See, the home of God is among mortals. He will dwell with them; they will be his peoples, and God himself will be with them; he will wipe every tear from their eyes. Death will be no more; mourning and crying and pain will be no more, for the first things have passed away.” And the one who was seated on the throne said, “See, I am making all things new.” Also he said, “Write this, for these words are trustworthy and true.” (Revelation 21:2-5 - NRSVCE)

    This is the ‘coming’ of God’s kingdom and the results of its rulership.....the one that humans threw away and which Jesus’ sacrifice makes possible to restore. We have never lived under God’s rulership because when our first parents disobeyed their Creator, they prevented them from experiencing what it could mean for everlasting life on earth. All we have ever known is sin and death.

    So now we are again stepping outside of scripture. This word has its origins in Greek philosophy, not in anything that Christ taught.

    According to Wiki...
    "Ousia (/ˈuːziə, ˈuːsiə, ˈuːʒə, ˈuːʃə/; Greek: οὐσία) is an important philosophical and theological term, originally used in ancient Greek philosophy, then later in Christian theology. It was used by various ancient Greek philosophers, like Plato and Aristotle, as a primary designation for philosophical concepts of essence or substance. In contemporary philosophy, it is analogous to English concepts of being and ontic. In Christian theology, the concept of θεία ουσία (divine essence) is one of the most important doctrinal concepts, central to the development of trinitarian doctrine."

    If that is what you want to accept as "Christian" teaching, that is entirely up to you.....the trinity cannot exist without this concept, but it does not originate with God....more with pagans like Plato and Aristotle. Do they substitute for apostles in the Catholic church?


    Scripture argues with you.
    Paul and John both identified Jesus as a creation of his Father. (Colossians 1:15; Revelation 3:14)
    And since John's Revelation was provided by Jesus from God through an angel, he is himself declaring that he is "the beginning of God's creation". (see footnote on NRSVCE)


    You are splitting hairs here. Jesus can be a "creation" of his Father and still be "begotten". The Father had to have existed before the son because one who is begotten has to have a 'begetter' who existed before he did. A father always exists before his son.....if their relationship was otherwise, then why use that terminology when it can only be understood one way by humans reading the scriptural accounts?

    That is not possible.....because you seem to miss something very significant in the creation account....
    God and his son along with God's powerful spirit, worked together in creating all that exists in both the physical and spiritual realms. This is not some three headed god but the Creator and his help mate using his immense power to bring all things into existence. God did that through the agency of his son. He is the one who authorized and empowered him to carry out that work.....
    As Paul said....
    "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers—all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He himself is before all things, and in him all things hold together." (Colossians 1:15-17 NRSVCE)

    All creation came "through" the son from the Father. No wonder the RCC disagrees with scripture except when it seems to back up what they want to believe.
     
    #197 Deeje, Jun 18, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2021
  18. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,486
    Ratings:
    +8,153
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    There was a difference between "theos" and "ho theos"....this is not just a deity but a "Mighty One" with demonstrated power or divine authority. Jesus had both and so he qualified under the terminology, as did his superior Father.

    Regardless, Jesus identified himself as "the son of God"....he never once said he was "God the Son"...did he?
    He identified those whom his Father called "gods" who were the appointed human judges in Israel.....those with divine authority.....so your assertions hold no water.

    So the title "Lord" whether in Greek (Kyrios), Hebrew (Adonai) or any other tongue (Baal, Allah) only refers to God? Or does it only refer to Jesus? Or can both properly be addressed by that title?

    The Hebrew Scriptures addressed that question by using the divine name some 7,000 times....so what happened to that? The Jews stopped using it in their speech but continued to write it in their texts. This created a vacuum in Greek because they had no word for the 'one God' of Israel who was at the time when the Greek scriptures were penned, 'nameless'. Because the Greek language was inadequate, or should I say that the Jews were disobedient by eliminating God's name from their speech, it never came to be included in the Greek manuscripts even of the Septuagint. So this ambiguous title confused the identity of God in relation to his son Jesus Christ....leading to the RCC running away with the trinity as if it was somehow a central teaching of the Christian faith....it was never there in the first place.

    I am left to wonder if you have ever done any real research of your own....?
    "Neither let us put Jehovah to the test, as some of them put him to the test, only to perish by the serpents." (NWT)
    "We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did, and were destroyed by serpents."
    So how do we know what is the correct translation of this passage?

    Paul was quoting the Hebrew scriptures at Deuteronomy 6:16, where it says...
    "You must not put Jehovah your God to the test the way you put him to the test at Masʹsah."
    If you look it up in the Tanakh you will see the divine name in the Hebrew text. So here is a classic instance where the divine name would have offered the truth without the need for translation of a word that was never there in the first place. Jesus is NOT the LORD here....Jehovah is. Jesus is never called Jehovah in any passage of scripture.

    Jesus was the LOGOS, long before he was born as a human on earth...he has always acted in this capacity as a representative of his Father.

    The Sovereign Ruler of the Universe has no need to interact with sinful humans in person. It is the reason why we have a Mediator appointed, who cannot be God because otherwise we would need a mediator between him and sinful humans as well.

    The laying on of hands was something authorized by God with the original apostles.....it was the means to impart holy spirit to others. I do not accept apostolic succession because it is never spoken about in scripture, and with the end of the apostolic period, the miraculous gifts of the spirit were to end. (1 Corinthians 13:8-13)

    Not all Christians are destined for heaven. Those who do, have a responsible role as "kings and priests" for the thousand year reign of Christ. (Revelation 20:6)

    The devil was never going to let it be peaceful or just.....but the instrument used to cause that death is not something to idolize.

    He just has three heads...or is it three distinct personalities who can talk to one another, and be in three different places at once.....? And where will I find the terms "God the Son" and "God the Holy Spirit" in any verse of the Bible?

    Are you confusing the congregations of the same "church" in the apostolic times? They were all Christ's disciples who all believed what he taught......the divisions came later. The letters of the apostles, which formed much of the NT, were already circulating in the congregations in the first century.

    God's word is God's word.....it is not the work or production of men. He inspired his authors to record what he wanted to become scripture. If you do not wish to accept it as God's word, there is not much anyone can say to you....that is your choice to make.

    If you say so......only God can correct you....and only if you want him to.....all that we know about God and his Christ is from the Bible....anything else is the work and opinions of men, who we know led the church into bloodguilt just as Israel did before it. History repeats because humans never learn from the mistakes of others.
     
  19. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,752
    Ratings:
    +1,801
    Religion:
    Christian
    You could have asked. You are doing so now. Going forward, if you feel I have not addressed some important aspect of one of your posts or arguments, I'll be happy to address them directly.
    I'll also note that you have avoided more than a few of the things I've said, merely quoting something and putting words under it doesn't mean you've responded. I've been happy to let you speak as you will to what you will, without considering that you are purposefully evasive.

    Sometimes we agree, sometimes I think it would not be fruitful to my further understanding of your position and ideology, and most of the time I'm trying to pare down my response to the essential nature of the argument so that we don't get overly unwieldy in our discourse.

    I'm going to address this because of the above. Of course we look to Pesach and the anointing of the doors with the lambs blood. It foreshadows our own anointing of ourselves in Christ's blood so that true death might pass us over. Of course we have to be faithful to God's command.

    I would normally have refrained from responding to this section because we agree, there is nothing to dispute here; it's just a statement of Christian fact. Also, I don't see much of a response to what I said here. So, what do the two statements that we have to follow God's commands and that our own great Pascha is typed by the events of the Exodus have to do with it?

    That's true. And since we have billions of lives at stake, if we were to take a human life for a human life, we would require billions of sinless sacrifices. Why is it that every sinful life doesn't require an equivalent sinless life for justice? I'd say because the sinless life that was taken was much more than a man, infinitely more to cover the unending masses that require salvation. The only being more valuable than a man to begin with, much less infinitely more, is God.

    We don't turn Jesus into a part of God. We recognize the truth that He is fully God, and you just a few responses back acknowledged that no such God existed in paganism, that the Christian theology is unique.

    I wasn't discussing Lazarus' resurrection, its meaning or purpose, but rather the lack of power it had compared to that of Christ. So you've again failed to respond to me.

    As Paul clearly writes, it is not just His death, but resurrection as well. Paul didn't write, "well if Jesus had died and not resurrected, we'd still have our atoning sacrifice", he wrote that if Christ had not resurrected "our faith would be in vain and we would still be dead in our sins". The resurrection did something. What is, according to your view of scripture, it about the resurrection that means without it we wouldn't have salvation?

    Certainly not, because God is not parted.

    You didn't answer either of the questions here(see beginning lines of my post). Can God not do all things? Is death more powerful than God that He should fear it or what it would do to Him? I say no to both. God can do all things and God is more powerful than death.

    You're playing fast and loose with what's been said. The word "Trinity" is not in the scripture, but the scriptures when read without a predetermined result in mind ends only with the divinity of Christ. The analogy of the trinity is based in the teachings of Apostles, both spoken and written, as the scriptures demand. Reminder, if you reject the apostolic teachings that are not in scripture you are not just unscriptural but antiscriptural.

    Logic is extraBiblical human tradition.

    Why did God choose blood as the symbol of life and make it the sacred?

    That was the definition of propitiatory sacrifice. You're getting into why we offer propitiatory sacrifice, which is to satisfy his justice, render something of great value of ours to destruction and show our obedience.

    Show m the scripture where Paul explicitly rejects infant baptism. Show me the quote in any scripture that says "do not baptize children".

    There are places where water is in too short a supply to allow for a full immersion baptism, or even one of infusion. Also, we have the great blessing of advanced modern technology that have made things much easier, but even today there are people that we couldn't move off of their death bed, for instance, to fully immerse them. Such people are allowed to be baptized by aspersion because God isn't limited by the physical world and it's demands.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  20. metis

    metis aged ecumenical anthropologist

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2013
    Messages:
    35,252
    Ratings:
    +16,767
    Religion:
    ecumenical & naturalistic Catholic
    And a Jesuit priest that I took two classes with during my undergrad years said that in an emergency any Catholic can baptize even if spittle is the only thing thats available.
     
    • Like Like x 1
Loading...