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. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    @blü 2

    I only remarked on the timing. The doctrine of the Trinity was being explicitly used by 185, which is ~150 years after Jesus, not 300.

    It wasn't about conferring, but understanding. The Gospel of John, if there were no other sources for the claim, boldly declares that the Word is God. And yes, there were multiple competing understandings, some of which like Arianism were simple polytheism, some were unitary, such as modalism, some didn't include the Holy Spirit.

    The Holy Spirit is included because our sacred Tradition includes elements such as statements made in the Bible that give a precedence to the Spirit, like the only sin that isn't forgiven is blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, and the inclusion of the Spirit in the Trinitarian formula of Baptism.

    Not understood, or even understandable doesn't mean incoherent. The idea is coherent, three hypostases and one ousia. We just don't understand how it works. There are lots of areas of science where we only understand a phenomenon through its observed effects on other systems. 85% of the mass of our universe is undetectable, we say it exists because that's the only way the state of the universe and our knowledge of gravity fits. We only interchange observation and revelation.

    Can you source your definition of mystery that you give, because the one in the Catechism is a little different. "mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God" Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

    No, which is one of the reasons why we reject Modalism in favor of the Trinity.
     
  2. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,458
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    As I read it, the Trinity doesn't become a doctrine of the church till the 4th century. It's true that various groupings of the three were suggested earlier, along with the desire for Jesus to somehow be God, but no version of those became doctrine.
    But the Jesus of John could scarcely be clearer in saying he's NOT God eg ─

    John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

    John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

    John 20:17 [...] “[...] say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

    and many more. The part you refer to reads

    John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God; 3 all things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.[RSV]​

    though of course λόγος and θεὸς are not capitalized. Immediately before "and the Word was God" are the words "the Word was with God" (ie distinctness) and immediately following, "He was in the beginning with God" (ie distinctness) so the central phrase can't be taken literally without resulting in confusion.
    I was quoting the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church under the heading Trinity. The Catholic Encyclopedia on the net says the same thing but with rather more obscure wording and in pieces ─ parts of "Trinity" entry and parts of "Mystery" subsection "Mystery in the Strict Sense" (or "stricto sensu", I forget which).

    And from among the competing versions of divine threeness, as I understand it the Council of Nicea 325 CE gave recognition to a simple outline of the doctrine for the first time, confirmed at Constantinople 381 CE.

    (And yes, emus are extraordinary.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    There's a difference between 'adopted exclusively' and 'invented' which is the word you used. The council of Nicea didn't come up with the idea of the Trinity.

    Exactly. That's why the doctrine of the Trinity was developed, because the words of the Gospels, the teachings of the Apostles, and the Epistles all led to a confusing conclusion. Jesus is distinct from the Father. Both are divine. There is only one God. It didn't come from nowhere, it is the only conclusion that maintained the truth of all the parts.

    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: The Blessed Trinity

    and

    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Mystery

    I don't think, together or separately, that those equal that definition from Oxford. Also, I would argue that the Trinity is the only, that I have seen, understanding that allows for all of the revealed truths to be maintained. Even if we don't understand, even if we can't understand. If you accept the revealed truths of the Christ, it is the reasoned response. Just like how we might not understand or ever understand what Dark Matter is or how it works, but it's the only answer we have to how our Universe behaves.
     
  4. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,302
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    But ecumenical discord is exactly what we see.....Christianity was not divided by location. It was to be one united global brotherhood. (Acts 10:34-35) And all were to speak in agreement. (1 Corinthians 1:10) If they don't speak in agreement in every nation, then they are not true Christians. Identify the things Christ actually taught and then compare what the churches teach.....there is little resemblance.

    Christians are identified as followers of Christ, not followers of a denomination. I believe that you can identify them by their behavior, not their label.
     
    • Useful Useful x 1
  5. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    Exactly. Whether you were in Armenia or India, whether you were a Roman or a Rus, all were one and to remain one. The singular body of Christ, amen.
     
  6. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,458
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    Thanks for the links.

    The Trinity article of the Catholic Encyclopedia says (inter alia)

    " ... a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness"​

    which fits well with the Oxford for "mystery in the strict sense" ─

    "in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation, nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed."​

    The page on your second link, "Mysteries" has clearly been rewritten in the scroll of years since I was there (and I had the same thought with "Trinity") since it no longer distinguishes "mystery" from "mystery in the strict sense". However, it doesn't appear to disagree with the quote from "Trinity" above.

    (I find the whole apologist position confounding, since Paul's Jesus, Mark's Jesus, Matthew's Jesus, Luke's Jesus and John's Jesus each say they're NOT god, and never once say "I am God". There is simply zero evidence that any concept resembling the Trinity doctrine was known to the writers of the books of the NT, and I say that after reading the Trinity article (and, I confess, muttering pshaw! mote than once). They have no basis in the text for the Trinity ─ especially in the face of at 17 or more unambiguous denials attributed in direct speech to Jesus ─ and assume it in order to imply it, which in polite society is taken as cheating. Grrr!)


    Anyway, go well, and please convey my warm regards to the emus.
     
  7. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    Of course.

    This is where we disagree, they don't contradict, but the Catechism definition doesn't imply the Oxford.

    Multiple times in the Gospels, Jesus is charged with blasphemy and sometimes He has to leave or hide because people are trying to kill Him over His claims, because He claimed to be God. You don't even have to believe that it happened, but in the world of the NT everyone understood that He was saying He is God. He did once directly say "I and my Father are one", and when Thomas called Him "my God", Jesus didn't rebuke him, but told him that people who believed [that Jesus is our God] without seeing are blessed.

    You have to ask why the authors would write a Jesus who didn't think He was God when they clearly did.

    I'll agree; I'd wager that none of them thought about a Trinity, it wasn't discussed, or debated.
     
  8. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,458
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I fear then, that we shall remain disagreed. But that can happen, even in the most civil climes.
    Yes, John10:30 ─ but he explains what he means in John 17:

    20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me. [RSV]​

    That's to say, Jesus and the Father are one in the same manner that any believer can be one with the Father.
    But Jesus was already dead when that happened; and the words are not attributed to Jesus.
    If you could show me where they clearly did ─ something the Encyclopedia was exceptionally not-believable about, not even admitting the problems were there ─ then I'd have learnt something.

    But having said on all those occasions that he was NOT God, never having said he WAS God, and at least in the case of Mark and Matthew NOT having said on the cross, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" it would appear that if he was in fact God then his entire mission was based on a very big lie maintained by an obsessive deceit, no? What other conclusion would be possible?

    (Apologies if I sound irritable at times on this topic.)
     
  9. pearl

    pearl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2005
    Messages:
    6,458
    Ratings:
    +3,327
    Religion:
    Catholic
    The purpose for the Vg was to translate the Greek and Hebrew to the common language of the people, which by now was Latin. Vulgar-common.
     
  10. ChristineM

    ChristineM "Be strong" I whispered to my coffee.
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Messages:
    39,098
    Ratings:
    +35,162
    Religion:
    None
    It is the main lCatholic bible, compiled some 80 years after the original, of which where are no copies to confirm or deny the Vulgates accuracy. All other existing bibles were compiled even later, also uncompared to original. Often Using the Vulgate as reference.

    Of course every bible believe wants to think theirs is best at the expense of all the others, an attitude that often makes me grin inside. Is is also the cause of disputes and even wars...
     
  11. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    Indeed. I think we are fast approaching that point in general. Let's see if we can get anywhere.

    With the definition of mystery, how do you make the transition from the Catechism's 'thing we will never understand' to Oxford's 'conclusion we can't come to by reason even once we have revelation'? It seems to me that it is possible to say "I'll never understand this, but it is the answer reason led me to" and be within the Catechism and outside Oxford, do you disagree?

    For the divinity of Jesus in the NT. You still haven't addressed why John would write a Jesus who you read as denying divinity when John starts the Gospel with "Hey, Jesus is God and He created everything." John also includes the story where Jesus says "before Abraham was, I am" and they promptly attempted to stone Him for blasphemy because Jesus was clearly claiming to be God with that statement. In John, Jesus is directly called God, Jesus is cast as the creator of all things that are created AND the burning bush that spoke to Moses, and you don't think John clearly sees Jesus as divine.

    Mark, Luke, and Matthew are less pointed about the divinity of Jesus, but they still instances of Jesus claiming divine power and authority as when proclaiming He can forgive sin.

    He never says "I am not God" just like He never says "I am God" directly. He dances around the subject.

    I haven't found you discourteous. If you're frustrated that's fine. I for one am flummoxed that you can read the Bible and say that the authors didn't view Jesus as divine.
     
  12. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,458
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    I map them together like this;

    CEn: a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation,
    Ox:"in that it can neither be known by unaided human reason apart from revelation,​

    CEn: but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness"
    Ox: nor cogently demonstrated by reason after it has been revealed."​

    and they seem to be in full agreement, though the Ox is more robustly phrased. If you disagree, what would you say was the disagreement?
    Paul and the author of John are gnostic-flavored NT writers, while the synoptics are focused on the endtimes. Thus the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John, unlike the others, pre-existed in heaven with God, having been created by [him]; in gnosticism God is so pure a spirit that [he] would never sully [his] purity by creating anything material; so this task falls to the "demiurge" (craftsman) who first makes the material universe, as do the Jesuses of Paul and of John, and then mediates afterwards between grossly material man and exquisitely spirit God.
    And this, for John's and for Paul's Jesuses, but not the other three, a correct call. These two are each said to have pre-existed in heaven with God, and to have created the universe, and I trust we can agree that Abraham only existed after the universe was formed.
    So is Solomon in Psalm 45:7; but Solomon doesn't say, "Cursed, discovered!" and neither does the risen Jesus.
    As I said, only in Paul and in John. The Jesus of Mark is an ordinary Jew until his baptism, at which point God adopts him on the model of Psalm 2:7; the Jesus of Matthew and the Jesus of Luke are each the product of divine insemination of a virgin; so none of the three is taken to have pre-existed their earthly birth.
    As I said, all five deny they're Jesus; or more correctly, the four gospel Jesus say it themselves, Paul says it for his Jesus.
    I can't think of any occasion where he might be said to dance around the subject. I think I previously quoted you ─

    John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

    Hard to speak plainer than that. Or there's Paul eg

    1 Corinthians 8:5 For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth – as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords” 6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.
    (If you'd like a lot more such quotes, just ask.)
    The authors regarded him in different ways, but all thought he was God's representative, and portrayed him as such. Mark's is an ordinary Jew till God adopts him; and he's not descended from David, making him odd man out, though the 'descended from David' idea is pretty silly in Matthew and Luke unless they mean God is descended from David. Paul's and John's Jesuses are created by God and pre-exist with God in heaven; but they aren't God any more than the others are. (I'm taking 'divine' literally here, 'of a god'; but sometimes the word is used more loosely to indicate a heavenly being of any kind, so in that latter sense, short of indicating God, Jesus might be called 'divine'.)
     
    #92 blü 2, Jun 6, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 6, 2021
  13. Left Coast

    Left Coast Peanut Butter Enthusiast
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2019
    Messages:
    7,275
    Ratings:
    +11,270
    Religion:
    RFism
    It always makes me chuckle when Christians or Jews say things like, "We don't do/believe that, that's pagan!" Folks, all the versions of your religion(s) borrow from paganism.

    Creation myth: pagan
    Global flood myth: pagan
    Blood sacrifice to appease a deity: pagan
    Dying/rising savior deity/son of a deity: pagan

    Any of you wear a ring on your left 3rd finger to signify you're married? Pagan.

    Just own it.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
    • Like Like x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  14. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,302
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    If you are speaking about Catholicism, then please refer to my post (#70) concerning the teachings of the Catholic Church.....if they all teach the same false doctrines, then what is the point of their unity? Aren’t they only united in their lies?.....if you check the Bible, you will see that their doctrines bear no resemblance to Christ’s teachings at all.

    How many Catholic people are even aware of the origins of their beliefs and practices? Their indoctrination is like some contagious virus, forced to spread into all the world, with Protestantism simply spreading ‘variants’ of the original.
    Roman Catholicism is the “mother” church, but she has many daughters, all of their core teachings are found in pagan religions. Is that just a coincidence? The “weeds” of Jesus’ parable have a common origin. The sower was identified as the devil. Lies and deception are his trademarks.

    Did no one take notice of Jesus and his apostles as to what would happen to Christianity after they were gone?
    Did no one learn from the history of the Jews? It was all there in the scriptures, and they were warned not to go beyond them......(1 Corinthians 4:6)
     
  15. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    As I said, and you didn't answer: It seems to me that it is possible to say "I'll never understand this, but it is the answer reason led me to" and be within the Catechism and outside Oxford, do you disagree?

    If you think that statement, "I'll never understand this, but it is the reasoned answer" (my stance) fits the Oxford definition, that's fine. Maybe I'm misunderstanding it.

    I think you're stretching a bit to say gnostic, but they're definitely heavy on the theology.

    How can you possibly say this about John, when John goes out of his way to say that Jesus is not created.

    Your take, with the Gospels portraying "different" Jesuses, has nothing to do with the formation of theology, which if you'll remember is what we're discussing.

    You also just completely ignored that Jesus in John is directly identified with the God of Israel who led the Jews out of Egypt.

    As I said, there is never a denial of Divinity for Jesus anywhere in the Bible. It just doesn't happen, and that you keep quoting statements that must be inferred to a denial proves it.

    Actually pretty easy to speak plainer than that. I'm not God. See how easy and direct that is.

    Do any of them say "I'm not God" or will it be more of you inferring the meaning from an oblique statement?

    I think if you find that the author says "This guy is God" and in the context of the book everyone says "this guy says He is God" to the point the guy is executed for claiming to be God, then perhaps you should understand the book to be a claim that the guy is God.
     
  16. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    I was speaking of that body of Christ.

    How wonderful it was for the Catholic Church to collect, accurately select and preserve the inspired writings that show how wrong they are.
     
  17. blü 2

    blü 2 Well-Known Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2017
    Messages:
    9,458
    Ratings:
    +5,967
    Religion:
    Skeptical
    How can reason lead anyone to a conclusion they don't understand? Why would anyone believe that circles are square or that the elephant is the offspring of a hose and a boulder as the result of reason? Where reason doesn't know, reason says, I don't know.

    Or in this case, why would anyone think that the Father is 100% of God and Jesus is 100% of God and the Ghost is 100% of God and Father, Jesus and Ghost are distinct, without further noting that this adds up to 300% of God = 3 Gods?

    Which means I'd answer your question, no.
    But Mark, and Matthew / Luke, and Paul / John are three entirely distinct Christologies. The first is son of God by adoption, the second is son of God by divine insemination, and the third is son of God having been created by God in heaven and sent in an undescribed manner to the earth which he personally created.
    Where does John say Jesus is not created? How did John's Jesus pre-exist in heaven with God unless God created him there?
    It isn't my take, it's what Paul and the gospels respectively say.

    And the three separate versions have different consequences when we think of Trinunity. For example, Jesus can't have been triune with God from the beginning since he wasn't son of God till his adoption.

    And if Jesus became son of God in a triune sense because of that process, why isn't David the son of God too, equally ─ what? ─ quatrune?

    Note too, as the theology goes, that Mark's version of Jesus being adopted is affirmed in Acts 13:33, and Acts is attributed to the author of Luke, whose Jesus is not adopted but divinely conceived.

    All of which tends to reinforce what to me is the glaringly obvious ─ that though the Father, Jesus and Ghost are mentioned together in a couple of places, that is NOT the Trinity doctrine, and there's no concept of triunity in the NT.
    You also just completely ignore that John's Jesus says ─

    John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”​

    And that is an outright "denial of Divinity for Jesus" in the sense of making Jesus God, though not in the lesser sense I mentioned of Jesus being (in Paul and John) a being whom God created in heaven or (in the synoptics) a being associated with heaven.

    Here's a longer list of Jesus' denials that he's God ─

    Paul: 1 Corinthians 8:6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

    Philippians 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

    Mark 12: 29 Jesus answered, “The first is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one;” ... 32 And the scribe said to him, “You are right, Teacher; you have truly said that he is one, and there is no other but he;

    Matthew 20:23 “to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

    Matthew 24:36 “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.”

    Luke 18:19 “Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone.”

    John 1:18 No one has ever seen God; the only Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.

    John 5:19the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

    John 5:30I can do nothing on my own authority; [...] I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

    John 6:38 “For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me

    John 8:42 “I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.”

    John 10:29My Father [...] is greater than all”.

    John 14:1 Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me.

    John 14:10 “The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.”

    John 14:28 You heard me say to you, ‘I go away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.

    John 16:23 In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask anything of the Father, he will give it to you in my name.

    John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

    John 20:17 “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

    1Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,​

    Where's the list of Jesus' claims to be God?

    Because, as I said, if Jesus was indeed God, and was indeed saying "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" in Mark and Matthew, and was his own father, then his entire mission was based on a very big lie and a continuous deceit.
     
  18. Deeje

    Deeje Avid Bible Student
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2009
    Messages:
    14,650
    Ratings:
    +8,302
    Religion:
    Christian JW
    If you think that Catholicism is the "body of Christ", then I have to tell you that God would not tolerate that level of corruption'. He punished Israel for that very thing. (adopting the worship of false gods and performing pagan acts as if the God they worshipped would not be incensed!) After much research, I do not know of a more corrupt body misrepresenting Christ on earth than the Catholic church, except maybe the prosperity gospel advocates. o_O

    Is the Pope taking care of all the Catholics in the world (especially the ones in poor and disadvantaged countries) as Jesus would? Does he have the resources to provide help for them? He is sitting on a fortune in his gold inlaid palace where there is supposed to be a vow of poverty. I can't see it. Just the Vatican art collection alone is enough to at least provide medical aid to those who can't afford it. Isn't that what Christ taught....? That if you see your brother in need, you should sell what you don't need and provide for them? Instead they suck money off the poor to provide for themselves. When was the last time any of the Vatican occupants ever went hungry because of giving their food to those who were more needy? (2 Corinthians 8:9)

    2 Corinthians 8:13-15...
    "I do not mean that there should be relief for others and pressure on you, but it is a question of a fair balance between 14 your present abundance and their need, so that their abundance may be for your need, in order that there may be a fair balance. 15 As it is written,

    The one who had much did not have too much,
    and the one who had little did not have too little.” (NRSV Catholic Edition)


    Where is the fair balance?
    You can't call yourself a Christian unless you behave like one. How was the Inquisition "Christ-like" in its administration? Please tell me where Christ ever advocated torture to effect a confession?....and then to use that confession as a basis to murder someone?

    You are standing on very shaky ground I believe....

    You honestly think that the Bible is a product of the Catholic church? It is God's word, not men's.....therefore God can use whomever he wishes to carry out his will.....even his enemies, as he has done in the past.

    The Reformation was the time to put the Bible back into the hands of the people....those who complied the books of the Bible canon are of no consequence, because none of them contributed a single word to it themselves. Besides which fact, the church kept the Bible from reaching the hands of the people and punished with death those who dared to try to read it. They thereby prevented them from checking the scriptures to see if what they were being taught was even true. (Acts 17:11).....and they included apocryphal books that have no place at all in God's word at all, so please don't go there....unless you want to explore these things.....

    I'm afraid that Catholic indoctrination is showing if any claim is made as to who produced the Bible....if you do some research you will see where your beliefs originated.....none of them are from the Bible. If they are, please share them and we can compare.....
     
  19. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    Why would you have to understand a conclusion to reach it? I referenced dark matter earlier, can we not come to the conclusion that dark matter exists in some unknown form because we don't understand it?

    Because, we take it as axiomatic that [5]there is only one God. So we have to come to an understanding where all five axioms(marked) are maintained.

    Did you quote the wrong section of my post there? I don't see how this responds to me saying John and Paul are heavier on the theology.

    "He made all things, and without Him was made nothing that was made." Did Jesus create Himself?

    Because, He is God. :)

    Modern textual criticism didn't inform the ancient process of theological development.

    Agreed. The NT doesn't cohesively wrap the pieces up into a single concept. The pieces when taken in totality without thinking you should suborn some passages to others leaves only a Triune diety. However it is that it comes about.

    No, I don't. Th Trinitarian view is that the Father is indeed the one and only true God. Amen.

    No it is not, certainly not anymore that saying "before Abraham was, I am" is a strict claim of divinity.

    So, that's a no. Nowhere is there a strict denial of divinity just like there is no strict claim. Because Jesus only addresses whether He is God obliquely in the Gospels.

    You seem to be under the misapprehension that there is a contest, a conflict between the verses and we're looking for the preponderance of the text to decide which one is right. I don't subscribe to that notion. Jesus is axiomatically the uncreated Creator God, the God of Israel who led the Jews out of Egypt, and the Father is axiomatically the one and only true God. Along with a few other statements, the Trinity is the answer to question of how to bring those undeniable facts into harmony.

    You're not just rejecting the Trinity, you refusing to even understand it on its own terms. Jesus is indeed God, the only God and He is not calling upon Himself.
     
  20. Mister Emu

    Mister Emu Emu Extraordinaire
    Staff Member Premium Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2004
    Messages:
    11,809
    Ratings:
    +2,115
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, I think the body of Christ is the body of Christ. It is only Catholicism in the strictest theological/metaphysical sense that all participation in the body is through the one single Church Christ.

    Again, in the strictest sense that all Christians are members of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church played its part in recognizing the inspired writings, collecting them, accurately choosing them from among many false claimants, and preserving them. Of course, I believe they did so under a divine protection, the sort you would deny existed for the Church. If I didn't, I'd certainly be amazed to find I agreed they happened to be perfectly successful in only this one instance.

    None?
     
Loading...