Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy and @Dogknox20

Soapy, I have to add more context to my statement regarding data.
Historical Data is GOOD, not bad.
However data can be presented out of context or presented in such a way as to appear to support a principle it does not, actually, represent.

Dogknox20 gives us multiple examples of misuse of data.

For example, the later 3=1 trinity of 4-5th century roman religious movement was not the 3=3 trinity of the earliest Christians and Dogknox20s quotes do NOT support his suggestion that these two trinities are the same.
I would have used quoted the same Individuals Dogknox20 quoted (to support his 3=1 trinity model) to show that the 3=1 model was NOT yet adopted by Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

For example, look at Dogknox20s quotes.

He quotes The Didache, but the quote simply mentions the Catchumen is baptized in the names of the Father, son and Holy spirit. It does NOT tell us these are all the same individual.

Dogknox20s' quote from Ignatius is inaccurate.
Ignatius did not say, “by the will of the Father IN Jesus Christ” but Ignatius' actual statement is “by the will of the Father AND Jesus Christ”. (The actual greek of Ignatius is : εν θεληματι του Πατρος και Ιησου Χριστου)
Dogknox20 simply quoted it inaccurately.

However, Jesus WAS, somehow, divine and, in some way, a God to the earliest Christians and thus, John 1:18 referred to Jesus as “the begotten God” (no man has seen God…“the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him”). (the greek is : "μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο)

The problem for early, Christianity, as Tertullian tells us is that the Jews and others were accusing the Christians of frank Polytheism.
I think this pressure was part of the motivation for the adoption of the 3=1 trinity.

Thus, the second quote of Ignatius of Antioch is correct that Jesus was referred to as a “God” who was born of Mary (thus the worship of Mary…the mother of a God…).
The problem was how to justify belief in one God, (the Father) and another God (the son) without the taint of polytheism.

Dogknox20s' quote from Justin Martyr does not support dogknox20s theology, but instead, Justin simply tells us Jesus is “a son of the God” and that he “holds a second place” and the spirit “a third”. This witnesses to three individuals of unequal status and NOT of three that are equal.
The son is LESSOR than and a servant TO God the Father in this model.

Dogknox20s' quote from Theophilus, similarly, simply recognizes three individuals are in the Trinity, God, his son (the Word) and the spirit (his wisdom). This quote does NOT tell us these three individuals are the single individual that represented the later trinity the roman movement adopted.

Dognox20s' quote from Irenaeus is (purposefully?) incomplete and what dogknox20 left out is important.
The authentic quote speaks of the belief ‘in one God, The Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy spirit….”
The authentic quote speaks of the members of this threesome as individuals and not as the three individuals being the same individual.

Similarly, dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian (who is writing into the third century) is moving toward the later roman style trinity, (or at least trying to move away from the criticism of polytheism) but he is not there yet.

The first quoted phrase, that “there is also a son of this one [and] only God, his Word, who proceeded from him…” is NOT an indication that the word IS God, but merely that he proceeded FROM God.

The second phrase, that Jesus was “sent down by the Father, in accord with his own Promise” implies separateness, not sameness since a subservient servant is SENT by another who sent him.
They are NOT equals nor are they same in these phrases.

Dogknox20 also offers another quote that undermines the full later version of the 3=1 trinity in Tertulian who teaches AGAINST full unity and not for it.

For example, Tertullian explained that the frank 3=1 trinity is NOT what he believes.
He says “MANIFOLD are the ways in which the devil has shown his enmity to the truth. He has at length striven to shatter it by defending it. He claims that there is but one God, the all-powerful Creator of the universe, in order to make a heresy even out of that one. He says that the Father Himself descended into the virgin, that He likewise was born of her, and Himself suffered ; even that He Himself is Jesus Christ.”

Tertullian says it is a doctrine of the devil that the Father himself descended into the virgin and was born of her, etc.

The point is that Tertullian is NOT a 3=1 trinitarian and his comments that are quoted by 3=1 trinitarians are taken out of context.

However, Tertullian seems to be trying to balance (and retain) the Christian claim that Jesus was, somehow, divine and a God while avoiding the claim of the Jews that messianic Jews/Christians were polytheists.

Thus, when one reads Dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian : “Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25). It does NOT support the 3=1 trinitarian model.


Dogknox20s' own quote from Origen, similarly confirms the earlier doctrine and UNDERMINES the 3=1 model of the roman trinity they adopted in later centuries.
Look at his quote :

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son…” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

However, even Origen has to balance this view with the authentic concept that the son existed eternally in some form.
Thus Origen says the Christians of his time do not hold to the heretical doctine that there was a time when the son did not exist. (in some form…)


So, authentic historical data is good.
It can be misquoted and misinterpreted and misused, but it forms a shared basis for discussion that is not present when opposing opinions remain in the realm of dogmatic claims and opinion and subjective interpretation.

The data also confirms the early model (i.e. 3 individuals =3 individuals) of the relationship between God the Father, his Son (the word / Jesus) and the Holy Spirit is not the same model where all three are the same individual (i.e. a 3 individuals =1 individual).



Clear
φιακεισιφυω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Dogknox20

Dogknox20 said : "Hello Clear.... Catholics worship ONLY God.... Catholics worship Jesus because he is God! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as the scriptures prove! Catholic are Christians, all Christians worship Jesus! Catholics do NOT worship Mary "WE HONOR HER" as the scriptures prophesy! Because we HONOR Mary our mother; you wrongly think we worship her!

Jesus honors Mary his mother; because Catholics are the Body of Jesus we also MUST HONOR Mary our Mother.. It is one of the ten commandments "Honor your father and mother"! Mary is the Mother of the; One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; Being my Mother I honor Mary as God commands!" (post #1156)

So, you admit that you honor Mary and you MUST HONOR Mary which is the base characteristic of any definition of worship.

Ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites reveal that you DO believe in honoring Mary to the point of worship as well as honoring idols and dead saints in your demonstration of reverence and adoration for Mary and honoring her with religious rites. (this IS the definition of the verb "to worship")

Do you want me to provide quotes from your church leaders and popes from the ex-catholic and anti-catholic sites to prove that you worship mary, worship idols and worship dead saints?
Your worship of Mary is a real problem since your belief makes you NON Christian since you worship Mary more than God.

REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DATA AND ITS' CREDIBILITY
1) Why would the ex- or anti-catholic sites information on your beliefs not be a good source to describe your beliefs? Many of these Catholics who admit you worship Mary have probably been in your church longer than you and know more about your church than you do.
2) Is it wrong then to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites to obtain information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, your worship of idols and your worship of dead saints?
3) Would you say that it is dishonest to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites for information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, idols and dead saints?


Clear
φιακεινεφυω

 

[Soapy]

soapy #1155:
John 3:17: “[Father, ……] This means eternal life that they should believe in you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom you sent!”
That should be John 17:3.
...............................
@Dogknox20 #1157:
Because of the great paucity of extant manuscripts (sometimes only one) and the relatively recent dates when they were copied, there are many questions concerning the writings of the early Christian writers. For example, all copyists from the 5th century onward were trinitarians who would not dare add anything that was not trinitarian. They did, though, change and add trinitarian material to their copy of the previous copyist.

So when the copy of the copy of the copy of the early writer's manuscript was made in much later centuries, trinitarian "evidence" could be found. What is strange, though, there is non-trinitarian material that is also found. Which do you think would have been added by centuries of recopying by trinitarian copyists?

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.

For much more on this subject see my personal study here:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html

Lovely post, Tigger. Perhaps the ‘researcher’ who demands ‘Historical Data’ (weird wording!) should read what you said.

For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole.

However, when I ask Trinitarians to give me an overview of what they see as the purpose to the Son of God in the scriptures I inevitably get no response that lays out such. This leads me to the conclusion from over the many years I’ve even posting and debating (not only in this forum) with Trinitarians that they do not have and end to end thesis. It seems they just go from one topic to the next with no linking consistency.

For instance, why is Jesus called ‘Son’ if he is the creator?

Even when I point out that ‘Father’ is the word for ‘Creator’ and ‘Bringer into life’, it is still meaningless to them… No… not ‘meaningless’, but ‘disastrously damaging’ to trinitarianism. So they either ignore the question or come back with: ‘Jesus is called “Eternal Father” in Isaiah!’.

But, of course, the ‘Eternal Father’ prophecy is pertaining to after the judgement wherein Jesus GRANTS ETERNAL LIFE to those he judges as worthy for his kingdom. This is a future event and a future title. So it appears that either Trinitarians cannot distinguish future events in scriptures or they are intentionally playing the ignorance card. Either way they, in every post, show just why trinity is a fallacy…. No belief that is credible relies on fallacious interpretations in order to maintain itself.

As you pointed out (interpreting) virtually all the trinity claims are based on poor translation or deliberate mistranslations… it would be shocking to anyone of meaningful Christian faith to see a list of such invalid trinitarian false verses.

But, no matter how much you show them, 99% won’t believe… and I agree with that. Sounds funny to hear me say that… Don't wonder! Each truth speaker called by God should not judge themselves as prolific evangelists. Disappointment and despair awaits those that do… trust only that a 1% will hear them!

Someone once told me: “Jesus Christ came from God almighty… He spoke the truth and revealed the Father… Most didn’t believe him … in fact they killed Jesus for telling the truth… So do you imagine they (the mass majority) are going to believe you!!?”

Jesus suffered greatly in his life. Imagine knowing the absolute truth and hearing people tell you that you ‘Have a demon Spirit’? But he properly persevered knowing that there was a number of them whom were given to believe and follow him… and Jesus said, ‘If they do this to me, you can be sure they will do it to you, too!… but my reward is with you, too!’ (Paraphrased).

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy and @Dogknox20

Soapy, I have to add more context to my statement regarding data.
Historical Data is GOOD, not bad.
However data can be presented out of context or presented in such a way as to appear to support a principle it does not, actually, represent.

Dogknox20 gives us multiple examples of misuse of data.

For example, the later 3=1 trinity of 4-5th century roman religious movement was not the 3=3 trinity of the earliest Christians and Dogknox20s quotes do NOT support his suggestion that these two trinities are the same.
I would have used quoted the same Individuals Dogknox20 quoted (to support his 3=1 trinity model) to show that the 3=1 model was NOT yet adopted by Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

For example, look at Dogknox20s quotes.

He quotes The Didache, but the quote simply mentions the Catchumen is baptized in the names of the Father, son and Holy spirit. It does NOT tell us these are all the same individual.

Dogknox20s' quote from Ignatius is inaccurate.
Ignatius did not say, “by the will of the Father IN Jesus Christ” but Ignatius' actual statement is “by the will of the Father AND Jesus Christ”. (The actual greek of Ignatius is : εν θεληματι του Πατρος και Ιησου Χριστου)
Dogknox20 simply quoted it inaccurately.

However, Jesus WAS, somehow, divine and, in some way, a God to the earliest Christians and thus, John 1:18 referred to Jesus as “the begotten God” (no man has seen God…“the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him”). (the greek is : "μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο)

The problem for early, Christianity, as Tertullian tells us is that the Jews and others were accusing the Christians of frank Polytheism.
I think this pressure was part of the motivation for the adoption of the 3=1 trinity.

Thus, the second quote of Ignatius of Antioch is correct that Jesus was referred to as a “God” who was born of Mary (thus the worship of Mary…the mother of a God…).
The problem was how to justify belief in one God, (the Father) and another God (the son) without the taint of polytheism.

Dogknox20s' quote from Justin Martyr does not support dogknox20s theology, but instead, Justin simply tells us Jesus is “a son of the God” and that he “holds a second place” and the spirit “a third”. This witnesses to three individuals of unequal status and NOT of three that are equal.
The son is LESSOR than and a servant TO God the Father in this model.

Dogknox20s' quote from Theophilus, similarly, simply recognizes three individuals are in the Trinity, God, his son (the Word) and the spirit (his wisdom). This quote does NOT tell us these three individuals are the single individual that represented the later trinity the roman movement adopted.

Dognox20s' quote from Irenaeus is (purposefully?) incomplete and what dogknox20 left out is important.
The authentic quote speaks of the belief ‘in one God, The Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy spirit….”
The authentic quote speaks of the members of this threesome as individuals and not as the three individuals being the same individual.

Similarly, dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian (who is writing into the third century) is moving toward the later roman style trinity, (or at least trying to move away from the criticism of polytheism) but he is not there yet.

The first quoted phrase, that “there is also a son of this one [and] only God, his Word, who proceeded from him…” is NOT an indication that the word IS God, but merely that he proceeded FROM God.

The second phrase, that Jesus was “sent down by the Father, in accord with his own Promise” implies separateness, not sameness since a subservient servant is SENT by another who sent him.
They are NOT equals nor are they same in these phrases.

Dogknox20 also offers another quote that undermines the full later version of the 3=1 trinity in Tertulian who teaches AGAINST full unity and not for it.

For example, Tertullian explained that the frank 3=1 trinity is NOT what he believes.
He says “MANIFOLD are the ways in which the devil has shown his enmity to the truth. He has at length striven to shatter it by defending it. He claims that there is but one God, the all-powerful Creator of the universe, in order to make a heresy even out of that one. He says that the Father Himself descended into the virgin, that He likewise was born of her, and Himself suffered ; even that He Himself is Jesus Christ.”

Tertullian says it is a doctrine of the devil that the Father himself descended into the virgin and was born of her, etc.

The point is that Tertullian is NOT a 3=1 trinitarian and his comments that are quoted by 3=1 trinitarians are taken out of context.

However, Tertullian seems to be trying to balance (and retain) the Christian claim that Jesus was, somehow, divine and a God while avoiding the claim of the Jews that messianic Jews/Christians were polytheists.

Thus, when one reads Dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian : “Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25). It does NOT support the 3=1 trinitarian model.


Dogknox20s' own quote from Origen, similarly confirms the earlier doctrine and UNDERMINES the 3=1 model of the roman trinity they adopted in later centuries.
Look at his quote :

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son…” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

However, even Origen has to balance this view with the authentic concept that the son existed eternally in some form.
Thus Origen says the Christians of his time do not hold to the heretical doctine that there was a time when the son did not exist. (in some form…)


So, authentic historical data is good.
It can be misquoted and misinterpreted and misused, but it forms a shared basis for discussion that is not present when opposing opinions remain in the realm of dogmatic claims and opinion and subjective interpretation.

The data also confirms the early model (i.e. 3 individuals =3 individuals) of the relationship between God the Father, his Son (the word / Jesus) and the Holy Spirit is not the same model where all three are the same individual (i.e. a 3 individuals =1 individual).



Clear
φιακεισιφυω

I asked you to provide somethings that at. Clement is supposed to have said. You have neglected to do so. How do you keep asking me to provide ‘historical data’ but refuse me answers when I ask you questions?

Are you afraid?

Also, I answered you on many occasions on my philosophy: I said the many were ‘Anti-Christian’ because they spoke AGAINST CHRIST… calling Christ, ‘GOD’.

However, I also said that these were TRINITARIAN Christians as opposed to TRUE Christians since whether trinity or otherwise, they preach a ‘CHRIST’ in one way or another.

It appears you don’t accept reasoning in other posters writings as you have an agenda that is actually leading you nowhere.

You praise Dogknox20 because of the ‘Historical Data’ provided BUT you fail to acknowledge that the ‘Historical Data’ is INVALID!!

What kind of ‘researcher’ are you?

Are you going to provide ‘Historical Data’ that came from Clement so I can comment on it seeing you accuse me of opposing him… for certain I did not make a claim against Clement directly nor personally… that was YOUR claim using Clement as your example but as yet YOU FAIL to produce any ‘Historical Data’ on what Clement is supposed to have said. You only post what someone else said about Clement

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy and @Dogknox20

Soapy, I have to add more context to my statement regarding data.
Historical Data is GOOD, not bad.
However data can be presented out of context or presented in such a way as to appear to support a principle it does not, actually, represent.

Dogknox20 gives us multiple examples of misuse of data.

For example, the later 3=1 trinity of 4-5th century roman religious movement was not the 3=3 trinity of the earliest Christians and Dogknox20s quotes do NOT support his suggestion that these two trinities are the same.
I would have used quoted the same Individuals Dogknox20 quoted (to support his 3=1 trinity model) to show that the 3=1 model was NOT yet adopted by Ignatius, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

For example, look at Dogknox20s quotes.

He quotes The Didache, but the quote simply mentions the Catchumen is baptized in the names of the Father, son and Holy spirit. It does NOT tell us these are all the same individual.

Dogknox20s' quote from Ignatius is inaccurate.
Ignatius did not say, “by the will of the Father IN Jesus Christ” but Ignatius' actual statement is “by the will of the Father AND Jesus Christ”. (The actual greek of Ignatius is : εν θεληματι του Πατρος και Ιησου Χριστου)
Dogknox20 simply quoted it inaccurately.

However, Jesus WAS, somehow, divine and, in some way, a God to the earliest Christians and thus, John 1:18 referred to Jesus as “the begotten God” (no man has seen God…“the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him”). (the greek is : "μονογενησ θεοσ ο ων εισ τον κολπον του πατροσ εκεινοσ εξηγησατο)

The problem for early, Christianity, as Tertullian tells us is that the Jews and others were accusing the Christians of frank Polytheism.
I think this pressure was part of the motivation for the adoption of the 3=1 trinity.

Thus, the second quote of Ignatius of Antioch is correct that Jesus was referred to as a “God” who was born of Mary (thus the worship of Mary…the mother of a God…).
The problem was how to justify belief in one God, (the Father) and another God (the son) without the taint of polytheism.

Dogknox20s' quote from Justin Martyr does not support dogknox20s theology, but instead, Justin simply tells us Jesus is “a son of the God” and that he “holds a second place” and the spirit “a third”. This witnesses to three individuals of unequal status and NOT of three that are equal.
The son is LESSOR than and a servant TO God the Father in this model.

Dogknox20s' quote from Theophilus, similarly, simply recognizes three individuals are in the Trinity, God, his son (the Word) and the spirit (his wisdom). This quote does NOT tell us these three individuals are the single individual that represented the later trinity the roman movement adopted.

Dognox20s' quote from Irenaeus is (purposefully?) incomplete and what dogknox20 left out is important.
The authentic quote speaks of the belief ‘in one God, The Father almighty, Creator of heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation, and in the Holy spirit….”
The authentic quote speaks of the members of this threesome as individuals and not as the three individuals being the same individual.

Similarly, dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian (who is writing into the third century) is moving toward the later roman style trinity, (or at least trying to move away from the criticism of polytheism) but he is not there yet.

The first quoted phrase, that “there is also a son of this one [and] only God, his Word, who proceeded from him…” is NOT an indication that the word IS God, but merely that he proceeded FROM God.

The second phrase, that Jesus was “sent down by the Father, in accord with his own Promise” implies separateness, not sameness since a subservient servant is SENT by another who sent him.
They are NOT equals nor are they same in these phrases.

Dogknox20 also offers another quote that undermines the full later version of the 3=1 trinity in Tertulian who teaches AGAINST full unity and not for it.

For example, Tertullian explained that the frank 3=1 trinity is NOT what he believes.
He says “MANIFOLD are the ways in which the devil has shown his enmity to the truth. He has at length striven to shatter it by defending it. He claims that there is but one God, the all-powerful Creator of the universe, in order to make a heresy even out of that one. He says that the Father Himself descended into the virgin, that He likewise was born of her, and Himself suffered ; even that He Himself is Jesus Christ.”

Tertullian says it is a doctrine of the devil that the Father himself descended into the virgin and was born of her, etc.

The point is that Tertullian is NOT a 3=1 trinitarian and his comments that are quoted by 3=1 trinitarians are taken out of context.

However, Tertullian seems to be trying to balance (and retain) the Christian claim that Jesus was, somehow, divine and a God while avoiding the claim of the Jews that messianic Jews/Christians were polytheists.

Thus, when one reads Dogknox20s' quote from Tertullian : “Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25). It does NOT support the 3=1 trinitarian model.


Dogknox20s' own quote from Origen, similarly confirms the earlier doctrine and UNDERMINES the 3=1 model of the roman trinity they adopted in later centuries.
Look at his quote :

“For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the being of God was converted into the Son…” (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225]).

However, even Origen has to balance this view with the authentic concept that the son existed eternally in some form.
Thus Origen says the Christians of his time do not hold to the heretical doctine that there was a time when the son did not exist. (in some form…)


So, authentic historical data is good.
It can be misquoted and misinterpreted and misused, but it forms a shared basis for discussion that is not present when opposing opinions remain in the realm of dogmatic claims and opinion and subjective interpretation.

The data also confirms the early model (i.e. 3 individuals =3 individuals) of the relationship between God the Father, his Son (the word / Jesus) and the Holy Spirit is not the same model where all three are the same individual (i.e. a 3 individuals =1 individual).



Clear
φιακεισιφυω

Clear, I’m not sure what is wrong with your mind and thoughts. You seem like an underprogrammed computer interpreter that continues with invalid data input even after it is recognised that the data is invalid.

But unless you still haven’t realised it, I told you before that this trinity stuff is nonsense … and your research has only just revealed if you you?? Wow, what does it take for you to understand??

I tell you again: No amount of ‘Historical Data’ is going to prove your research of any worth unless you BELIEVE an ideology or better, a credible Theology!

You point out correctly that the mass of what Dogknox20 presents is ‘Historically’ incorrect. But you are still relying on ‘Historical Data’ to make your ‘Claims’ of validity: I tell you that you will never find your valid proof this way!

The Gospel of John is well known for its ‘Pro-Trinity’ stance. You quote John 1:18 where it claims Jesus as ‘a God’. Yet you should know by now that there is no such thing as ‘a God’ in relationship to ‘THE GOD’ of the Jews. Straining at a gnat is not something true Christians do!

Also, the ‘Baptism’ statement wherein Jesus is supposed to have commanded his apostles to baptise in the name of the Father, son and Holy Spirit, does not ring true given that the apostles ONLY baptised in the name of Jesus [Christ]. When questioned on this, Trinitarians come up with some very creative but fallacious answers such as: “Jesus’ name is the same as the other two”, ‘Their names are all one!’, ‘Baptising in one name is the same as all three because all three are one God!’. It shouldn’t take intellect to see that this is pure ‘B.S.’! If the baptism COMMAND were true as claimed then clearly the apostles failed to follow Jesus’ command.

The reality: Jesus did not command baptism in the name of three ‘persons’. This is one of those clear trinity modifications.

And you failed to comment directly on another verse that clearly stated the Father as the creator of all things …!

I don’t know if these things are your first foray into trinity fallacy but I have passed these fallacies many years ago which is why I don’t even bother at times to quote chapter and verse. I maybe wrongly assume anyone debating scriptures should know these things else it’s like having to prove Pythagorean theorem or Prime Numbers every time a complex math equation is presented for proving.

However, I get the feeling that you are beginning to realise, research with ‘Historical Data’ or not, that trinity, in ANY FORM does not stand up to scrutiny.

So you are left with … what?

A Truth better than trinity fallacy.

So then your research will lead you to ‘Historical Data’ on … what?

Nothing!

Why?

Because you aren’t someone who would believe the true belief that should be Christianity WITHOUT PROOF… but there IS NO PROOF because Christianity is a FAITH BASED BELIEF!:

• ‘Thomas, because you have seen me you believe? BLESSED are they that have not seen but yet believe!’ (Paraphrased)

((Trinitarians claim that Thomas was being BLESSED by Jesus … what do you say?))

 

[Dogknox20]

Dogknox20 posted ‘Historical Data’ concerning the Catholic view that Jesus is God.

I’m sure you can see that this ‘historical data’ does not prove anything except that there was false ideology (I can’t even call it ‘Theology’… as it is clearly pagan nonsense!) spoken and written by persons not wholly in accord with the truth.

I’m saying to you that just because there is ‘Historical Data’ ascribed to the ‘early church’ patriarchs, it doesn’t make the ‘historical data’ FACTUAL or TRUE.

Point of fact that documents were produced by Joseph Smith declaring what became the Mormon belief. Does that mean that MORMON Christianity is the true Christianity?

My grouse is against the TRINITARIAN Christianity, and that is whom I debate with. I don’t even really rail against JW’s much - not that I believe their ideology - but mostly because they don’t show up as much in forums … and those that do tend to be so radical as to not bother debating with.

So when you keep asking me for ‘Historical Data’, you need to understand that such ‘H.D.’ is more oftentimes ‘B.S.’ from anyone claiming to belong to the TRINITARIAN (of any kind of 3 persons - one God) fraternity. Heck! Even one ideology of trinity rages against another trinity ideology (Satan fighting Satan…!)

… Just a friendly heads up that ‘Historical Data’ about religious matters is NEVER going to gain you a cohesive thesis. The most you can get is ‘Historical Data’ that supports YOUR IDEOLOGY. So, if you don’t have a real aim on a particular ideology (what you might call a ‘Theology’) then your researching will end up a complete waste of time!

Hey, did you like the Math element of my post? I put it there because Math is ABSOLUTE BINARY. It is either RIGHT or else it is WRONG!

Religious matters are far far far from the binary conclusion you may be searching for.

But yet… there is a true belief…

The Truth - is out there - and in you!

You just have to BELIEVE!

But remember that Jesus said:

• ‘The Jews seek a sign but no sign will be shown to them except the sign of Jonah’

Work out what that means and your research will have a point and a purpose!
Oh, by the way, you didn’t give me any ‘Historical Data’ on what [St.] Clement was supposed to have said that was profound to the early church. I’m interested to hear something about him - thanks.
(By the way, great story about the prisoner! He’s smart - but not that smart!)

Soapy.... All you have is your OPINION!
I post scriptures and the early Church Fathers...All Facts!
Christians have ALWAYS worshiped Jesus!
Jews, Jehovah Witness, Satan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist are NOT Christian to name a few! Christians worship Jesus always have!

Arius WAS a Christian he was "AMONG" Christians until he had False Teaching!
2 Peter 2:1
But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.

Soapy Arius was removed from AMONG the Christians... This is PROPHESY this is found in the scripters! Christians believe the scriptures others MUST reject the scriptures as LIES from God!

Arius taught "Jesus is NOT God" he was removed from among Christians he was NOT a Christian anymore because of his Heresy: his false teaching.

Verse #2 (above) in the scripture Prophesy proves the Holy Catholic Church is "The Way Of Truth"! The prophesy cannot work in the reverse..
Christians were "NOT" among Arius.. NO!
The Prophesy can only work in one direction "Arius WAS AMONG Christians!
PROVING God is telling you.... All who believe as Arius are NOT Christian, not the truth but are the way of a lie! Again I say.. Christians believe the scriptures others MUST reject the scriptures as LIES from God!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy

1) The habit of making irrational claims
Soapy, the reason I brought up prison inmates and their ability to justify unreasonable things is that your way of thinking is similar in how you are able to justify what you want to claim is true and how you justify your claims and, how you justify yourself in your own claims.

You make statements like : “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)


2) One problem with this claim is that your scriptural “quotes” are often, NOT scripture.
This will cause problems for readers that are oriented to authentic scripture.

For example, in post #1114 you quote Luke 4:6 as : “Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)
This quote does not exist in the biblical text.
It took until post #1122 for you to realize this.
It would be much more efficient to discuss your theories if you can try to give authentic quotes with references.


3) Another problem is that your interpretations of scripture are tenuous and illogical and historically incoherent.
For example, you claimed in post #1123 that Luke 4:6 means “…‘Kingdoms of the world’ is not just Jerusalem, Persia, Greece, Rome, India, etc… it is ALL CREATION…. Creation is not just planet EARTH!” (post #1123)
Readers were shown the actual source Greek text read that Jesus was shown “τας βασιλειας της οικουμενης” and Οικουμενης does NOT mean “ALL CREATION”, but refers to “inhabited” kingdoms instead.
It would be better if you could do a bit of homework and research your claims to avoid such simple mistakes that add to the error of your theories.



4) Another problem is that your theories are not really based in scripture.
For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.

Another example is your claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Once again, you could not provide readers with even a single scripture that supports this theory.

Your theories are not based on scripture but rather on irrational and illogical considerations void of supporting data.
If you could try to base your theories on scripture and think more deeply and more logically about them before making theories, your theories could be more correct and more sustainable.


5) Another problem is that your theories are less rational, less logical and less historically coherent than authentic early Christianity with their beliefs.
For example, Early Christians such as John believed that Jesus was, as the Word, in the beginning with God (John 1:1 – and the word was in the beginning with God”).
Christian tradition is that God was talking to Jesus as "the word" who was "with him in the beginning.
This Christian tradition is more logical than your new, modern theory that God was talking to Satan when he said “Let us create man in our own likeness (image)..." (Gen 1:26) .


Another example of another theory of yours that is less rational, less logical and less historically coherent is your theory that “"Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy in post #1114)
Christian belief was that “…God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 NIV - bold is mine)
Your theory that Satan created the body of Adam rather than God having created Adam is neither scriptural, nor is it as logical or rational as Christian tradition and your theory is, historically, incoherent.

If you can try to base your theories on scripture or at least on the most original Christian traditions and think more logically about their coherence before making theories, then your theories might be able to be more rational and less incoherent.

You asked about Clement, the colleague and co-worker of the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul. Clement speaks of the creation of the body of Adam by God and not by Satan, saying : "... the most excellent and by far the greatest work of his intelligence, with his holy and faultless hands he formed man as a representation of his own image” I Clement 33:4;

Why do your personal theories take priority over the religion of Clement, who was taught the Gospel by the apostle Peter and was a co-woker of the apostle Paul?




6) Another problem with your posts is that you are not careful with either attribution or the truth.
This makes your frequent claims quite inaccurate.
For example, you claimed that I said : “…as you said yourself, God is love - and it takes two for live to exist…” (soapy in post #1145)
I never said this to you. You are actually referring to the poster Godknox20 when HE said “…GOD IS LOVE"! God needs someone other then himself to love…” (Godknox20 in post #1136)
If you can try to be more careful with the truth and more careful with your interpretations and claims, then they will be more accurate and your credibility will improve.


It is never good for any of us to be guilty of intellectual laziness but if you can be more careful with data and logic, you will improve the accuracy of your various theories.


Clear
φιακδρτζτωω

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy

1) The habit of making irrational claims
Soapy, the reason I brought up prison inmates and their ability to justify unreasonable things is that your way of thinking is similar in how you are able to justify what you want to claim is true and how you justify your claims and, how you justify yourself in your own claims.

You make statements like : “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)


2) One problem with this claim is that your scriptural “quotes” are often, NOT scripture.
This will cause problems for readers that are oriented to authentic scripture.

For example, in post #1114 you quote Luke 4:6 as : “Now down and worship me and I will give you the kingdom … IT IS MINE TO GIVE TO WHOM I WILL!’" (Post #1114)
This quote does not exist in the biblical text.
It took until post #1122 for you to realize this.
It would be much more efficient to discuss your theories if you can try to give authentic quotes with references.


3) Another problem is that your interpretations of scripture are tenuous and illogical and historically incoherent.
For example, you claimed in post #1123 that Luke 4:6 means “…‘Kingdoms of the world’ is not just Jerusalem, Persia, Greece, Rome, India, etc… it is ALL CREATION…. Creation is not just planet EARTH!” (post #1123)
Readers were shown the actual source Greek text read that Jesus was shown “τας βασιλειας της οικουμενης” and Οικουμενης does NOT mean “ALL CREATION”, but refers to “inhabited” kingdoms instead.
It would be better if you could do a bit of homework and research your claims to avoid such simple mistakes that add to the error of your theories.



4) Another problem is that your theories are not really based in scripture.
For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.

Another example is your claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Once again, you could not provide readers with even a single scripture that supports this theory.

Your theories are not based on scripture but rather on irrational and illogical considerations void of supporting data.
If you could try to base your theories on scripture and think more deeply and more logically about them before making theories, your theories could be more correct and more sustainable.


5) Another problem is that your theories are less rational, less logical and less historically coherent than authentic early Christianity with their beliefs.
For example, Early Christians such as John believed that Jesus was, as the Word, in the beginning with God (John 1:1 – and the word was in the beginning with God”).
Christian tradition is that God was talking to Jesus as "the word" who was "with him in the beginning.
This Christian tradition is more logical than your new, modern theory that God was talking to Satan when he said “Let us create man in our own likeness (image)..." (Gen 1:26) .


Another example of another theory of yours that is less rational, less logical and less historically coherent is your theory that “"Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy in post #1114)
Christian belief was that “…God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27 NIV - bold is mine)
Your theory that Satan created the body of Adam rather than God having created Adam is neither scriptural, nor is it as logical or rational as Christian tradition and your theory is, historically, incoherent.

If you can try to base your theories on scripture or at least on the most original Christian traditions and think more logically about their coherence before making theories, then your theories might be able to be more rational and less incoherent.

You asked about Clement, the colleague and co-worker of the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul. Clement speaks of the creation of the body of Adam by God and not by Satan, saying : "... the most excellent and by far the greatest work of his intelligence, with his holy and faultless hands he formed man as a representation of his own image” I Clement 33:4;

Why do your personal theories take priority over the religion of Clement, who was taught the Gospel by the apostle Peter and was a co-woker of the apostle Paul?




6) Another problem with your posts is that you are not careful with either attribution or the truth.
This makes your frequent claims quite inaccurate.
For example, you claimed that I said : “…as you said yourself, God is love - and it takes two for live to exist…” (soapy in post #1145)
I never said this to you. You are actually referring to the poster Godknox20 when HE said “…GOD IS LOVE"! God needs someone other then himself to love…” (Godknox20 in post #1136)
If you can try to be more careful with the truth and more careful with your interpretations and claims, then they will be more accurate and your credibility will improve.


It is never good for any of us to be guilty of intellectual laziness but if you can be more careful with data and logic, you will improve the accuracy of your various theories.


Clear
φιακδρτζτωω

Oh dear… you are great at finding fault but not goid at providing truth and reality of the scriptures you are researching using ‘Historical Data’.

You say that I said that Satan created Adam but I said only that Satan created the body of Adam. The body is mere ‘dust of the earth’ and by DNA formation is scientifically 99% that of primates.

It is the SPIRIT that makes the difference between plain animal and mankind.

And God is the Father of Spirits.

And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel, especially one who was the highest and most glorious and most intelligent and powerful of all the angels of Heaven.

But the creation by angels is not to be glorified by man. Angels are akin to work tools but Satan sought the glory of his part in the great creation of man… He sought to be worshipped by the creature he helped create contrary to God’s command.

So, it was the Angel (who became known as ‘Satan’ - ‘Adversary’) to whom God spoke saying, “Let us create man in our image!’

And it was this pride that drove the angel to sin and become an adversary of God. And his sin grew to attempt at destroying the man he helped create by turning the head against God. But Adam was strong because it was to him that God commanded to not touch or eat of the fruit of the tree of good and bad. But ‘Satan’ knew this too. So he drew the attention of the woman (Eve) and caused her to sin and thereby drawing the man into sinning also where Adam should have stayed strong against his wife’s error. Sin would still not have entered the world if Adam had kept God’s command.

And Clement. Is the quote the only thing you have to post from what I asked for?

• “Clement speaks of the creation of the body of Adam by God and not by Satan, saying : "... the most excellent and by far the greatest work of his intelligence, with his holy and faultless hands he formed man as a representation of his own image” I Clement 33:4;”

What is ‘the hand’ of God?

You unconditionally accept ‘the word’ of God as being Jesus…

God thinks a thought and that thought is an act. The act is carried out by the angels of God just as Solomon building the temple in Jerusalem commands a host of workers of heirachial order do the actual build. The glory of the build is not given to the builders but to him who commanded the build.

And the ‘Image’ is the SPIRIT within the body, for the image of God is his demeanour:

• Wisdom
• Love
• Intelligence
• Creativity
• Power of Rulership
• Consciousness of the abstract and spiritual
• Vanity (Self-Love)
• Free Will
• Nurturing
• Husbandry
• Holy
• Righteous
• ….

Does the scriptures say that angels have wisdom and free Will and are conscious of good and evil (for how was Satan convicted if he was not aware?)

Was mankind not created in an order ‘Lower than the angels’? That is to say, for a while because ultimately man will rule over creation in place of the angelic order.

Are angels not an order of magnitude greater in power than man - greater in intelligence but angels are not subject to the inheritance of God.

And, isn’t mankind even now creating Robotic and Artificial intelligence ‘Bodies’ and yet we are not as wise as angels?

Are Heavenly angels not righteous and Holy?

Do they not have Love?

Are they not creative and have free Will?

Are they not ‘Sons of God’ but not inheritors?

Do angels not appear to man in human-like bodies even if just in vision?

But if is the Spirit in the body that is the IMAGE of God!

Trinity claims that Jesus is the IMAGE OF GOD… and that Jesus IS GOD!!!

Adam was created in the IMAGE OF GOD…
but trinity does not call him God!!!

Why are BOTH of these two born IMAGE OF GOD?
Because they were both created inert body enlivened by the Holy Spirit of God!

 

[Dogknox20]

soapy #1155:
John 3:17: “[Father, ……] This means eternal life that they should believe in you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD, and in Jesus Christ whom you sent!”
That should be John 17:3.
...............................
@Dogknox20 #1157:
Because of the great paucity of extant manuscripts (sometimes only one) and the relatively recent dates when they were copied, there are many questions concerning the writings of the early Christian writers. For example, all copyists from the 5th century onward were trinitarians who would not dare add anything that was not trinitarian. They did, though, change and add trinitarian material to their copy of the previous copyist.

So when the copy of the copy of the copy of the early writer's manuscript was made in much later centuries, trinitarian "evidence" could be found. What is strange, though, there is non-trinitarian material that is also found. Which do you think would have been added by centuries of recopying by trinitarian copyists?

“Justin and the other Apologists therefore taught that the Son is a creature. He is a high creature, a creature powerful enough to create the world, but nevertheless, a creature. In theology this relationship of the Son to the Father is called Subordinationism. The Son is subordinate, that is, secondary to, dependent upon, and caused by the Father.” - p. 110, A Short History of the Early Church, Eerdmans (trinitarian), 1976.

“The formulation ‘One God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian Dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers [those very first Christians who had known and been taught by the Apostles and their disciples], there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 299, v. 14, 1967.

“The modern popular doctrine of the Trinity ... derives no support from the language of Justin [Martyr]: and this observation may be extended to all the ante-Nicene Fathers; that is, to all Christian writers for three centuries after the birth of Christ. It is true, they speak of the Father, Son, and ... Holy Spirit, but not as co-equal, not as one numerical essence, not as Three in One, in any sense now admitted by Trinitarians. The very reverse is the fact.” - Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries.
For much more on this subject see my personal study here:
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com/2009/09/creeds.html

.
tigger2 All very nice and well but you prove nothing just your personal OPINION!
Fact... Christians have ALWAYS worshiped Jesus!
Jews, Jehovah Witness, Satan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist etc are NOT Christian to name a few! Christians worship Jesus!

God tells you in his word.. They worshiped Jesus; Jesus never stops the worship of him self! Jesus knows beyond all doubt Worship is ONLY for God...!
tigger2 Scriptures tell you "Worship is ONLY for God!" Jesus lets them worship him! WHAT....

tigger2 what you have to do is REJECT the scriptures as a lies from the mouth of God! You have to twist the scriptures to say what you want them to say!
You have to explain away the words of God as if someone in the past bent to the will of Christians to teach; Jesus is God... Somehow forcing them to twist the inspired words of God away from the truth!
Logic alone proves you wrong! The Body of Jesus is his Holy Church to think the Body died was lost by Jesus is to think: Jesus did not rise from the dead!
Fact: Jesus is ALWAYS with his One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church! Jesus established ONLY one Church; his Church is guided into ALL truth by God the Holy Spirit "FOREVER"! The Church Jesus built is built on ROCK not sand it will never fail! To think the Church failed is to think Jesus is a fool!
Matthew 7:26
But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.

Jesus promised to be ALWAYS with his Church to the very end of time!

To reject the teachings of Christians is to reject God!
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

tigger2 whoever rejects you rejects me

Have a good day

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @Dogknox20

Dogknox20 said : "Hello Clear.... Catholics worship ONLY God.... Catholics worship Jesus because he is God! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as the scriptures prove! Catholic are Christians, all Christians worship Jesus! Catholics do NOT worship Mary "WE HONOR HER" as the scriptures prophesy! Because we HONOR Mary our mother; you wrongly think we worship her!

Jesus honors Mary his mother; because Catholics are the Body of Jesus we also MUST HONOR Mary our Mother.. It is one of the ten commandments "Honor your father and mother"! Mary is the Mother of the; One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; Being my Mother I honor Mary as God commands!" (post #1156)

So, you admit that you honor Mary and you MUST HONOR Mary which is the base characteristic of any definition of worship.

Ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites reveal that you DO believe in honoring Mary to the point of worship as well as honoring idols and dead saints in your demonstration of reverence and adoration for Mary and honoring her with religious rites. (this IS the definition of the verb "to worship")

Do you want me to provide quotes from your church leaders and popes from the ex-catholic and anti-catholic sites to prove that you worship mary, worship idols and worship dead saints?
Your worship of Mary is a real problem since your belief makes you NON Christian since you worship Mary more than God.

REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DATA AND ITS' CREDIBILITY
1) Why would the ex- or anti-catholic sites information on your beliefs not be a good source to describe your beliefs? Many of these Catholics who admit you worship Mary have probably been in your church longer than you and know more about your church than you do.
2) Is it wrong then to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites to obtain information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, your worship of idols and your worship of dead saints?
3) Would you say that it is dishonest to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites for information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, idols and dead saints?
Clear
φιακεινεφυω

Hello Clear;
You are mistaken. Honor is NOT worship! Worship is ONLY for God! >>> Christians Worship Jesus and they Honor Mary just as the scriptures tell you!
Scriptures are very clear.. "All of Mary' children will honor her as BLESSED"!
Luke 1:48 From now on all generations will call me blessed,

Clear This prophesy holds true with the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church that Jesus established 2000 years ago! The "From Now On" tells you so! Catholics have ALWAYS honored Mary as Blessed! Catholics honor Mary because Mary is our mother it is just this simple; Jesus honors Mary so his One Holy Catholic Apostolic BODY does also!
It is a commandment of God! Catholics are Christian!

I have a Mother and a Father!
Clear Mother Church, Father God! Mary is the Mother of the One Holy Catholic Apostolic BODY of Jesus!

Clear you are Mother-less! You reject Mary! Logic says: If no Mother then no Father! God cannot be your father because Mary cannot be your mother thus Jesus cannot be your brother! Jesus is NOT your brother because God is NOT your father Mary is NOT your mother!
If God was your father you would honor Mary!
If Jesus was your brother you would honor Mary!
Christians Honor Mary; they always have from when the prophesy was first spoken up to today 2000 years later!

 

[Soapy]

…
Dogknox20 said : "Hello Clear.... Catholics worship ONLY God.... Catholics worship Jesus because he is God! Christians have always worshiped Jesus as the scriptures prove! Catholic are Christians, all Christians worship Jesus! Catholics do NOT worship Mary "WE HONOR HER" as the scriptures prophesy! Because we HONOR Mary our mother; you wrongly think we worship her!

Jesus honors Mary his mother; because Catholics are the Body of Jesus we also MUST HONOR Mary our Mother.. It is one of the ten commandments "Honor your father and mother"! Mary is the Mother of the; One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church; Being my Mother I honor Mary as God commands!" (post #1156)

So, you admit that you honor Mary and you MUST HONOR Mary which is the base characteristic of any definition of worship.

……

Honor is not worship.

If it were then we are all guilty of blasphemy every day for the sin of worshipping someone who is not the Father: Yahweh.

Why? Because we all honor someone of higher rank or equal status who performs a great service literally every day!

Praise, Honor, Glorify… Acts given to both Man AND God.

Worship… Act only given to God, to Yahweh: the Father.

Revelation 5:12-14 says:

• “In a loud voice they were saying: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
  
• “Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
• Then the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.

‘Him who lives forever and ever’ is Yahweh God: The Father. Only true Father is to receive worship!

 

[Dogknox20]

Honor is not worship.

If it were then we are all guilty of blasphemy every day for the sin of worshipping someone who is not the Father: Yahweh.

Why? Because we all honor someone of higher rank or equal status who performs a great service literally every day!

Praise, Honor, Glorify… Acts given to both Man AND God.

Worship… Act only given to God, to Yahweh: the Father.

Revelation 5:12-14 says:

• “In a loud voice they were saying: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
  
• “Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
• Then the four living creatures said, “Amen!” And the twenty-four elders fell down and worshiped Him who lives forever and ever.

‘Him who lives forever and ever’ is Yahweh God: The Father. Only true Father is to receive worship!

.
Soapy hello I hope all is well.... Your words from your post above.. Honor is not worship.
I reply: I could not have said it better! Catholics HONOR Mary we do not worship Mary... "Worship is ONLY for God"!

The three wise men are very wise they "WORSHIP the Baby Jesus" because he is God!
Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Worship is ONLY for God! Jesus lets them WORSHIP him because he is God! NEVER...
Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Soapy never do you read Jesus stopping the worship of himself, Jesus know beyond all doubt "Worship is ONLY for God" because he told Satan "Worship is only for God"!
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Jesus lets them worship himself! Never does Jesus stop the worship! Christians have ALWAYS worshiped Jesus just as the scriptures tell you!
Christians have ALWAYS honored Mary.. Just as the scriptures' tell you..

Soapy The Apostles WORSHIP Jesus as he ascends into heaven.. Because they believe Jesus is God!
Luke 24:52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
Soapy Jesus lets the man worship him.. Jesus does not stop the worship.. "Worship is ONLY FOR GOD!"

Rev 14:7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
Soapy.. Do you see it? (The verse above) Who should we worship!?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

QUESTION.. Who made everything.. Who should we WORSHIP?!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Soapy Answer the QUESTION.. "Who made everything"!? Who should we worship....? "The word became man and lived among us"!

 

[Soapy]

.
Soapy hello I hope all is well.... Your words from your post above.. Honor is not worship.
I reply: I could not have said it better! Catholics HONOR Mary we do not worship Mary... "Worship is ONLY for God"!

The three wise men are very wise they "WORSHIP the Baby Jesus" because he is God!
Matthew 2:11 On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Worship is ONLY for God! Jesus lets them WORSHIP him because he is God! NEVER...
Matthew 14:33
Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.”

Soapy never do you read Jesus stopping the worship of himself, Jesus know beyond all doubt "Worship is ONLY for God" because he told Satan "Worship is only for God"!
Matthew 4:10
Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

Matthew 28:9
Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him.

Jesus lets them worship himself! Never does Jesus stop the worship! Christians have ALWAYS worshiped Jesus just as the scriptures tell you!
Christians have ALWAYS honored Mary.. Just as the scriptures' tell you..

Soapy The Apostles WORSHIP Jesus as he ascends into heaven.. Because they believe Jesus is God!
Luke 24:52 Then they worshiped him and returned to Jerusalem with great joy.

John 9:38 Then the man said, “Lord, I believe,” and he worshiped him.
Soapy Jesus lets the man worship him.. Jesus does not stop the worship.. "Worship is ONLY FOR GOD!"

Rev 14:7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
Soapy.. Do you see it? (The verse above) Who should we worship!?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

QUESTION.. Who made everything.. Who should we WORSHIP?!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Soapy Answer the QUESTION.. "Who made everything"!? Who should we worship....? "The word became man and lived among us"!

Well, Dogknox20, I can only agree that worship is for God, the Father, alone because God, the Father is the only true God, and eternal life depends on believing that the Father is that only true God.

Can you explain to me how you are defining ‘God’ such that:

• Jesus is God, and
• Jesus was with God

(As I’ve heard from other Trinitarians that ‘God’ is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’. But I’ve also heard other Trinitarians say that ‘God is Essence’ in which the three (Father, son, and Holy Spirit) share equally)

 

[Dogknox20]

Well, Dogknox20, I can only agree that worship is for God, the Father, alone because God, the Father is the only true God, and eternal life depends on believing that the Father is that only true God.

Can you explain to me how you are defining ‘God’ such that:

• Jesus is God, and
• Jesus was with God

(As I’ve heard from other Trinitarians that ‘God’ is ‘Father, Son, and Holy Spirit’. But I’ve also heard other Trinitarians say that ‘God is Essence’ in which the three (Father, son, and Holy Spirit) share equally)

Soapy Thank you for your post..
You never answered the question.. from the post above #1172
.........................................................
.Rev 14:7 He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.”
Soapy.. Do you see it? (The verse above) Who should we worship!? (above verse)
WHO....
Soapy who made everything?
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

QUESTION.. Who made everything.. Who should we WORSHIP?!
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

John 1:14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.
Soapy Answer the QUESTION.. "Who made everything"!? Who should we worship....? "The word became man and lived among us"!
.........................................................

Now you came back with the question of definition..

• Jesus is God, and
• Jesus was with God

The simple answer is... Jesus is God! He is God because he has the same Authority of God!
All the authority of God is given to Jesus!
17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
They worship Jesus; Jesus accepts the worship because he is God.. All of God' authority falls on Jesus!
THINK: When you speak for someone you represent them with all of their authority! The Mayor speaks for the city! The President speaks for the country!
The Ambassador has all the authority of the country he speaks with all the authority of the Country.. They represent you and me!

Go make disciples of all nations baptizing!
In the name of God the father with all the authority of God make his children/Disciples!
In the name of God the Son with all the authority of God make his children!
In the name of God the Holy Spirit with all the authority of God make his children!

The Church speaks for God in his name not just the name of the Father but the Son and the Holy Spirit because the three are equal in authority!

Of course Jesus was with God because if there is PERFECT LOVE there MUST be TWO! Jesus was with God from the
beginning
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Dogknox20

Dogknox20 said : “Hello Clear; You are mistaken. Honor is NOT worship!”


Dogknox20, I agree that mere honor is not worship.
YOU seem to be mistaken regarding your belief and unwilling to admit publically what the ex and anti-catholics admit regarding your belief.

The ex Catholics and Anti Catholics tell us specifically that YOUR religion Honors Mary MORE than Jesus.
They admit that you worship Mary.
This worship of Mary is not part of authentic Christianity.
Worship of Mary above the Worship of Jesus is wrong in authentic Christianity.


Dogknox20. You own repeated use anti and ex sites against other religions despite their believers telling you that this is a BAD thing to do and your information is tainted and no good.

IF the sites of “ex” and “anti’s” are ok for you to use against other religions, then I do not see why you should object to the ex-catholics and anti-catholics revealing to the world your actual beliefs despite your denials.


As I asked you before :

1) Why would the ex- or anti-catholic sites information on your beliefs not be a good source to describe your beliefs? Many of these Catholics who admit you worship Mary have probably been in your church longer than you and know more about your church than you do.
2) Is it wrong then to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites to obtain information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, your worship of idols and your worship of dead saints?
3) Would you say that it is dishonest to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites for information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, idols and dead saints?

Clear
φιακφιφυσιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy :

Soapy said ; “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)


Your theories are not really based in scripture.
For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture. (post #1167)

Another example is Soapys claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet again you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.
Soapy replied : “And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel,…” (post #1168)

This theory about angels is not a scripture that tells readers that Satan created the body of Adam.
Can you provide a single scripture that supports your claim that Satan created the body of Adam instead of God?

If the scriptures are clear and direct on such subjects, you should be able to provide at least a single scripture that supports your religious theories.
IF no scriptures support your theories, then your theories are not based on the text of the scriptures, but instead, are based on some other principle.




Soapy asked : “What is ‘the hand’ of God?”
I never wrote that to you.

1)This is another example of your tendency to misquote since none of my quotes say "hand of God".

2) Your tendency to repeatedly misquote and paraphrase texts is a symptom of your tendency not to be careful with data.

3) Your need to ask such a simple question is a symptom of ignorance and intellectual laziness.

4) Your request for extra data is a tacit recognition that you also, desire data before you accept a point. This is something you criticize others for requesting.

5) Why don’t you try a minimal amount of study regarding historical symbolism in early Christianity?
It would benefit you to learn what authentic early Christianity was like and your theories could, someday, actually, BE based on scripture.


Clear
φιακφιφυσιω

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy :

Soapy said ; “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)


Your theories are not really based in scripture.
For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture. (post #1167)

Another example is Soapys claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet again you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.
Soapy replied : “And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel,…” (post #1168)

This theory about angels is not a scripture that tells readers that Satan created the body of Adam.
Can you provide a single scripture that supports your claim that Satan created the body of Adam instead of God?

If the scriptures are clear and direct on such subjects, you should be able to provide at least a single scripture that supports your religious theories.
IF no scriptures support your theories, then your theories are not based on the text of the scriptures, but instead, are based on some other principle.




Soapy asked : “What is ‘the hand’ of God?”
I never wrote that to you.

1)This is another example of you tendency to misquote since none of my quotes say "hand of God".

2) Your tendency to repeatedly misquote and paraphrase texts is a symptom of your tendency not to be careful with data.

3) Your need to ask such a simple question is a symptom of ignorance and intellectual laziness.

4) Your request for extra data is a tacit recognition that you also, desire data before you accept a point. This is something you criticize others for requesting.

5) Why don’t you try a minimal amount of study regarding historical symbolism in early Christianity?
It would benefit you to learn what authentic early Christianity was like and your theories could, someday, actually, BE based on scripture.


Clear
φιακφιφυσιω

I don’t think you are someone seeking knowledge of the true Christian God and the purpose for life in his creation.

You have found out that trinity is not credible as a truth in a true Christian theology but is mere trinitarian ideology fallacy. This has led you to no purpose for your research as you appear to still be stuck on brief of some kind of three person one god combination using ‘Historical Data’ as the basis for your conclusions.

However, I would challenge you to put together a cohesive storyline that reflect the scriptures that Christians believe. I would guarantee that you would quickly find so many holes and disparities that you would start doubting the whole Christianity theme.

In fact, if you follow Catholicism you would certainly end up debasing Christianity. Exactly what Satan wants.

So, from you, I want to hear what your research has revealed - beginning to end - about the Christian scriptures.

Failure to provide this ‘Data’ will reveal to me harder exactly what I perceive about your ‘Research’ and what you have found out so far.

Thanks.

 

[Dogknox20]

Hi @Dogknox20

Dogknox20 said : “Hello Clear; You are mistaken. Honor is NOT worship!”


Dogknox20, I agree that mere honor is not worship.
YOU seem to be mistaken regarding your belief and unwilling to admit publically what the ex and anti-catholics admit regarding your belief.

The ex Catholics and Anti Catholics tell us specifically that YOUR religion Honors Mary MORE than Jesus.
They admit that you worship Mary.
This worship of Mary is not part of authentic Christianity.
Worship of Mary above the Worship of Jesus is wrong in authentic Christianity.


Dogknox20. You own repeated use anti and ex sites against other religions despite their believers telling you that this is a BAD thing to do and your information is tainted and no good.

IF the sites of “ex” and “anti’s” are ok for you to use against other religions, then I do not see why you should object to the ex-catholics and anti-catholics revealing to the world your actual beliefs despite your denials.


As I asked you before :

1) Why would the ex- or anti-catholic sites information on your beliefs not be a good source to describe your beliefs? Many of these Catholics who admit you worship Mary have probably been in your church longer than you and know more about your church than you do.
2) Is it wrong then to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites to obtain information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, your worship of idols and your worship of dead saints?
3) Would you say that it is dishonest to use ex-catholic and anti-catholic websites for information regarding your belief in the worship of mary, idols and dead saints?
Clear
φιακφιφυσιω

.
Hello Clear.... I hope all is well...
The difference is.... Catholics can defend their beliefs by the scriptures...The JW or Mormon or who ever can not!
To be protestant, JW, LDS or other cannot accept the scriptures; The Mormon, Protestant, JW has to reject the scriptures as a lie from God' mouth!
Scriptures >> Jesus is ALWAYS WITH his one Holy Catholic Apostolic Church FOREVER WITH to the very end of time! THIS....

Clear this means he cannot be with your man made church; Your church teaches differently, has a different god! Your church was NOT started or established on ROCK by Jesus! Your church does NOT have roots back 2000 years to Jesus!

This also means to reject the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church is to reject God!
John 12:48
There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; the very words I have spoken will condemn them at the last day.
Luke 10:16
“Whoever listens to you listens to me; whoever rejects you rejects me; but whoever rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

QUESTION: Do you reject the ONLY Church Jesus established?! whoever rejects you rejects me

Clear.. Jesus established ONE Church and it was NOT yours! Cry and complain all you want you cannot change the truth or history; you cannot reject the truth for a lie!

 

[Clear]

Hi @Dogknox20

Regarding the willingness to justify use of ex and anti sites as source data regarding what other religions believe
Clear said : "Dogknox20. You own repeated use anti and ex sites against other religions despite their believers telling you that this is a BAD thing to do and your information is tainted and no good. IF the sites of “ex” and “anti’s” are ok for you to use against other religions, then I do not see why you should object to the ex-catholics and anti-catholics revealing to the world your actual beliefs despite your denials. " (post #1175)
Dogknox20 replied : "The difference is.... Catholics can defend their beliefs by the scriptures...The JW or Mormon or who ever can not!
To be protestant, JW, LDS or other cannot accept the scriptures; The Mormon, Protestant, JW has to reject the scriptures as a lie from God' mouth!" (#1178)

Your answer is irrational.
Of course J.W. and Mormon and Lutherans and Baptists and protestants accept the scriptures and use them to justify their beliefs.
They simply interpret them differently than your religious schism does.
Also, how does this answer justify your own willing sin of using ex- and anti-sites against other religions while objecting to it's use to describe your own religious beliefs?



Regarding the claim that your religious schism is the same as the original church of Jesus

If you remember, both you and I agree that the early Roman Christian movement evolved into an organization that did evil such as robbery, slavery, oppression and other evil things in their question for riches and power and influence.
We both agreed that the authentic Church of Jesus Christ did not do these things.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agree that the Roman Christian movement has no evidence that the Apostle Peter ever gave his apostolic power to the roman Christian schism and thus they do not have authentic ecclesiatical authority from God.
The original church of Jesus and it's apostles DID have apostolic level authority.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

If you remember, both you and I agreed that the roman Christian movements office of Bishop was not the same as the earliest authentic bishop in the early and authentic Church of Jesus.
The Original church of Jesus HAD authentic bishops.
Your church is not the same as the authentic Church of Jesus.

Do we need to review the historical data whereby your and I came to this agreement in this thread?

Also, if you remember, the ex-catholics and anti-catholics have already ADMITTED that your belief is not merely to honor Mary, but to worship her, and to worship idols and to worship dead saints.
The original church of Jesus did not worship Mary, did not worship idols such as statues, and icons and did not worship dead saints.
Your church is not the same as the authentic church of Jesus.



Clear
φιακφυεισιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy :

Soapy said ; “For me, the scriptures is quite clear and direct on what the subject is about on the whole. (soapy, in post 1163)


ARE SOAPY’S TWO THEORIES ACTUALLY BASED IN SCRIPTURE?


Clear said : “Your theories are not really based in scripture.

For example, you said : “… it was to HIM (SATAN) that YAHWEH said: ‘Let us create man in our image, in our likeness’… (soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture. (post #1167)

Another example is Soapys claim that "Satan created the body of Adam… "(soapy, in post #1114)
Clear pointed out “Yet again you were unable to provide a single scripture that supports this claim even when you were asked to provide scripture.
Soapy replied : “And I said that the creation of a body is not a hard thing for an Angel,…” (post #1168)

This theory about angels is not a scripture that tells readers that Satan created the body of Adam. Can you provide a single scripture that supports your claim that Satan created the body of Adam instead of God?
If the scriptures are clear and direct on such subjects, you should be able to provide at least a single scripture that supports your religious theories.
IF no scriptures supports your theories, then your theories are not based on the text of the scriptures, but instead, are based on some other principle. (post #1176)





Soapy replied : “I don’t think you are someone seeking knowledge of the true Christian God and the purpose for life in his creation.” (soapy in post 1177)
This irrational and erroneous conclusion is not a scripture that supports your theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?


Soapy replied : “You have found out that trinity is not credible as a truth in a true Christian theology but is mere trinitarian ideology fallacy. This has led you to no purpose for your research as you appear to still be stuck on brief of some kind of three person one god combination using ‘Historical Data’ as the basis for your conclusions.
This irrational and erroneous conclusion is not a scripture that supports your theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?



Soapy replied : “However, I would challenge you to put together a cohesive storyline that reflect the scriptures that Christians believe. I would guarantee that you would quickly find so many holes and disparities that you would start doubting the whole Christianity theme.
This strange claim that a study of the scriptures one would “find so many holes and disparities” in them that would result in doubt in Christianity is strange and it has not been my experience.

However, your criticism of scripture still is not a scripture that supports your two theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?



Soapy replied : “So, from you, I want to hear what your research has revealed - beginning to end - about the Christian scriptures.
Probably you don’t.
This is an irrelevant redirection that is not a scripture that supports your theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support these theories?



Soapy replied : “Failure to provide this ‘Data’ will reveal to me harder exactly what I perceive about your ‘Research’ and what you have found out so far.
Probably it won't reveal anything to you if you are not given more data.
You are not exactly burdened with much data at present.
To leave you ignorant of more data will “reveal” nothing to you.
That is what lack of data does, it leaves you in an ignorant state.

However, this is another irrelevant redirection that is not a scripture that supports your theories and your claim that your theories are biblical based.
Do you have a single scripture to support your two theories?



Clear
φιακφυτωσεω