aqwsed12345
JoinedPosts by aqwsed12345
-
1
Catholic mass
by road to nowhere intv was on and when i came back in the news was over and mass was on.
the greeting and be with you response, a good in tune hymn, audience seemed awake.
i think i could enjoy a half hour of thus better than a droning talk followed by read paragraph, ask, reread twice as "answer"..
-
-
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat"Neither the phrase nor the concept “in regard to his humanity” occurs in Philippians 2"
You really love "argument from silence". Since the Philippians 2 hymn specifically speaks of the Son's self-emptying (kenosis), becoming man, his death, and his subsequent exaltation, it is of course that this refers to his human nature.
"But supposing he did say that, then Jesus' humanity would be deified along with his divinity. There would be no human Jesus left."
No, the exaltation of Christ does not mean that He has ceased to be human, but that "Jesus Christ, forty days after His resurrection, ascended of Himself into heaven in the sight of His Apostles; and that while as God He was equal to His Father in glory, as man He has been raised above all the Angels and Saints, and constituted Lord of all things." (Catechism of St. Pius X) He exalted him also in his humanity, so according to his human nature. As God, he could not be exalted more. The exaltation of Jesus Christ not only means that he returned to the glory he had before the Incarnation (verse 6), but also that the human nature of Jesus Christ was glorified, which was the instrument of his humility. Although he received the title "The Lord" as a human also, but by this his human nature did not become God (because there can be no change in God), so it means sharing in the divine glory. “The humanity of Christ is a creature, it is not God” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 922).
"the Bible doesn’t bend to fit the shape of Trinity dogma."
There is no need to "bend" anything here, since the Bible does not teach that the Father created/made the Son, but that he gave birth/begotten him, and that the Son is God, not an archangel, and not even the Arians claimed that the Holy Spirit was the same as the power/force (dynamis) of God. How could the Holy Spirit be the same as power (dynamis), when the Spirit himself has power (Lk 4:14, Rom 15:13,19, 1 Cor 2:4), and with His power, He can fill beings (Mic 3:8 cf. Acts 1:8). The power of power? :D
"the Trinity was a later development"
It's absurd and even ridiculous to have a tantrum of the alleged "later development" on the part of a denomination that was established almost two thousand years after the Bible was written, and every few decades even its own publications are considered obsolete, as it constantly changes its doctrines.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
"The Bible writers didn’t seem to know anything about any distinction between human and divine natures."
Argument from silence. Obviously not in terms of explicit and doctrinal definition, but in terms of content yes, compare "Son of God" vs. "Son of Man".
"For example Eph 1.17 talks about praying to the “God of our Lord Jesus Christ”. If Jesus is ‘Lord as respects his divinity’"
According to Philippians 2:9, Christ also received the title "Lord" in regard to his humanity after his death, so your conclusion is not necessary.
"...then this verse says that even the divine Jesus is subject to God. "
Exodus 4:16 says that Moses will be "like God" to his brother Aaron. The fact that Moses was like God to Aaron does not change the fact that Moses and Aaron were equals in their humanity. Similarly, the Father and the Son can also be equal in their divinity even though the Father is the head and relates to the Son as God.
Now, let's look at Hebrews 1:10, where the Father calls the Son "Lord." If the Father can call the Son Lord without ceasing to be Lord Himself, the Son can also call the Father God while remaining God Himself.
Lastly, let's see what Thomas said TO Jesus in John 20:28. "Thomas said TO him, 'My Lord and my God!'" Thus, Jesus was also called "my God." Even if we do not fully understand the relationship between Jesus and the Father, what we do understand is sufficient for us to know that we can have the same relationship with Christ as Thomas did, and we too can call Him our God.
One thing that the organization does not take into account with this text is that Jesus always took great care to distinguish the relationship He had with the Father from that which His disciples had. He never called God "our Father" in relation to Himself and His disciples. (In the priestly prayer in Matthew 6:9, where Jesus addresses the Father as "our Father," Jesus is teaching His disciples how to pray, and it is not about including Himself. His prayer begins accordingly: "Pray then like this:") It's important to note this because by nature, as the Son of God, Jesus has the same nature as God (John 5:18, 19:7), but when He became flesh, Jesus took on human nature, thus becoming the Son of Man. (See John 6:62, Daniel 7:13. The term "Son of Man" is a messianic title referring to His human nature, as He will also come in the body in His Second Coming.) While His divine nature still possesses divine power and authority, due to His human nature, Jesus refers to the Father as His God.
"The Bible writers knew nothing about the Trinity or the dual natures theory of Christ ..."
Argument from silence again. The doctrine of the Trinity as a doctrine is merely an organization certain biblical facts into a system. So the doctrine of the Trinity is the interpretation and systematization of biblical facts published in a philosophical guise.
Scripture teaches that there is one God; yet, it claims, both explicitly and implicitly, that there are three persons who are God. This is a formal logical contradiction, and based on the natural world, we might think this is not possible. Here comes the concept that dissolves the contradiction.
However, if we want to organize the revelation of God found in Scripture, these concepts are very useful. In the first centuries, this was not as necessary; people were satisfied with the belief in one God, but God as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit - how to describe this in the most accessible way for human reason did not concern them.
The statements about Jesus in the New Testament seem formally contradictory because, on one hand, they require us to profess that He is truly God, with all the implications thereof; on the other hand, there are statements that suggest He is not God, but merely a man. This is a formal logical impossibility, as this does not occur in the created world. Yet, this is what Scripture presents, so either we throw the Bible out the window, or we try to resolve this contradiction. The Arian response is to absolutize the attributes that suggest one nature and to attack the other with chisel, fork, and hammer. However, this is not exactly a fair method, as you can see. Again, we are at a point where this needs to be harmonized, and Jesus' dual nature resolves this contradiction. So, was there a problem, or wasn't there?
"...which was not developed until centuries later."
This is ironic, and how many centuries after the Bible was written did the Watchtower and its specific doctrines come into existence?
The Church Fathers say the same thing as the Bible, that the Son was born/begotten of the Father, not that he created/made him, that he is God, and not that Michael the Archangel. And there is absolutely no early Christian source that identifies the Holy Spirit with impersonal power.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
"Jesus was made Lord, and therefore there was a time when he was not Lord"
Of course, considering his human nature, He received the title of "Lord" only after his death, cf. Philippians 2:9. But anyway, as John 20:28 shows, He was Lord and God even before that, considering His divine nature.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Halcon
"It is amply accteped by historians and scholars"
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority )
...more precisely, this is accepted by people like Dan Brown and other anti-Christian, anti-Catholic, atheist, often communist authors who want to prove at all costs that mainstream Christianity is just a collection of stupid legends, and these poor imbeciles couldn't come up with anything on their own.
Why don't you refer then to the Soviet magazine Bezbozhnik, whose ornamentation is very similar to the Watchtower, when it smears the Catholic Church?
-
7
Who are Jesus" other sheep?
by Vanderhoven7 inwatchtower other sheep.
and other sheep i have, which are not of this fold: them also i must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.
(john 10:16).
-
-
aqwsed12345
" I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be one flock, one shepherd." (John 10:16:)
This saying interrupts the reflection on relationships, placed within the shepherd/sheep imagery, to refer to the "other sheep" who will also hear Jesus' voice. Elsewhere in the Gospel, such interruptions pertain to future generations of believers (e.g., 17:20; 20:29). It's possible to connect this saying with the Gentiles, "the Greeks," who are mentioned twice (7:35; 12:20-22). The sheep previously discussed were the few faithful Jews Jesus directly referred to, as he knows all his sheep, and his infinite love embraces each one. He now clearly mentions those faithful who will be brought into the Christian Church from paganism by his apostles and their successors in his name. They, too, will follow his lead so that eventually all distinction between Jews and Gentiles will disappear, leaving just one Church under one head. The prophets often foretold the general conversion of the Gentiles. See Ps. 88; Is. 2:1 and following; 49; 51; 60. This verse, in connection with the next, fills in the thought: I will lay down my life for these sheep as well.
The "other sheep" are the Gentiles, who were outside God's chosen people's fold but whom Christ was destined by God to bring into his fold as well (Ps. 72:8 and following; Is. 2:2 and following; 60). There will be one fold, one shepherd. This does not mean that eventually every person, nation, and individual will convert, but that the dividing wall between the chosen people and the pagans will fall, and all nations will merge into the church, God's chosen people. According to some Scriptures, as the end of the world approaches, great apostasies and unprecedented outbreaks of evil will occur during the time of the Antichrist (Matt. 24; 2 Thess. 2:3 and following).
Therefore, Jesus here announces a hopeful future for all nations. Even when in conflict with his own people, he sees and shows a future where not only his people but also nations, and not just the nations' sons but also his people's members, will find each other and be united with him. Jesus speaks of the evangelistic work among the nations and its hopeful completion and fulfillment, the fulfillment of prophecies (Isaiah 42:6; 49:6; 58:8), in an extremely brief, concise manner but showing a vast perspective. His work, which according to his mission was to be done among the people of Israel (Mt 10:5–6; 15:24), continues among the nations (Mk 16:15; Mt 28:19) and will be successful (Mt 8:11; Lk 13:28). Under the headship of Jesus Christ, the various races of all the nations in the world will eventually unite. It becomes clear that – although salvation comes from Israel – the Savior belongs not only to Israel but to all peoples. Jesus is the redeemer of the world (Jn 4:42; Ezek 37:22–24; 34:23; Hos 1:11; Mic 2:12; Eph 2:14–22; 4:4–6; Jn 17:11,21–23).
It can be easily determined that the "other sheep" are not the supposed "non-anointed" earthly "Jonadab class" of the Watchtower denomination, but rather Christ's sheep of non-Israelite origin.
"My mission is only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)
The "other sheep" (John 10:16) are not members of some secondary class of salvation but are the sheep not of Israel's fold ("not of this sheep pen"), whom Christ leads to the same place ("I must bring them also"), and with whom there will be "one flock," not a group eternally separated from the first. Jesus never spoke of any 144,000 in the Gospels, on the contrary: John 14:2. In JW theology, the "earthly class" (the Jonadabites) is from the same "sheep pen" as the alleged "anointed class": neither is of a different origin in terms of descent, and there will not be "one flock" of two salvation classes, as they will forever be separated. Revelation 21-22 clearly speaks only of "the righteous" who can enter the heavenly Jerusalem descending to the (new) earth, and the sinners who cannot - thus, within "the righteous," there are not two classes.
Jesus said, "I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen..." (John 10:14). In other words,
- there are sheep that are from this sheep pen,
- but there are also sheep that are not from this sheep pen, but from another.
This dual-origin group of sheep became one flock. In Jesus' time, this flock was small, hence Jesus calls this flock initiative a small flock. There's no other way to understand it. Further, "And I heard the number of the sealed: 144,000 sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel" (Revelation 7:4). Note the use of the phrase "from among"! If I select beautiful red apples from a basket of apples, then the number of selected (sealed) apples is less than what was originally in the basket. Even a second grader can understand this. Therefore, if God seals 144,000 "from every tribe of the sons of Israel," then this 144,000 will be less than the total number of members "from every tribe of the sons of Israel." However, if "from every tribe of the sons of Israel" is to be understood as spiritual Israelites, then indeed the spiritual Israelites are more than 144,000. So, this doesn't fit, as the JWs call the 144,000 spiritual Israel. On the other hand, if in this context "from every tribe of the sons of Israel" refers to spiritual Israelites, then why are the specific tribes' names listed, such as Judah, Reuben, Gad, etc.? What do these specific names symbolize? Do the spiritual Israelites divide into such groups? It would be interesting to consider further that if the so-called "rightous" divide into two groups, why couldn't the "wicked ones" also divide into two groups?
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
I do disagree with you, I just pointed out that even IF it were so, it would not be an argument. The bottom line: the CONTENT of Catholic theology was not influenced by some kind of evil "philosophy", and you will not be able to attack it, based on the fact that the philosophical concepts used for the TERMINOLOGY for formulating the doctrines are also used.
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
@Earnest
The misuse of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is a typical example of primitive JW hermeneutics where a verse is sandboxed but not even read properly. They interpret and quote this Bible verse in a misappropriated manner, focusing solely on its first part. This section contains two statements if we look closely:
- "...there is one God for us: the Father, from whom everything originates..."
- "...there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom everything exists..."
Here, of course, the Arians use only the first part of the sentence (taking it out of context!) as "evidence" that the only God is the Father. But what about the second part of the sentence? "There is one Lord, Jesus Christ." Thus, if the first half of the sentence's explanation by the Watchtower excludes the Son, Jesus, as God, then similarly from the second half, they must conclude that only Jesus is Lord, and the Father is not Lord. That would be interesting. However, this fits perfectly within Christian teaching, just as the other quote does, since a few lines down, the Scripture also indicates that the Father and the Son are one (Jn 17:11.22; cf. Jn 10:30). This clearly shows the relationship between the two persons in creation and distinguishes them according to their roles. Therefore, the person from whom creation comes is the Father, while the person through whom creation exists is Jesus. As for the often-voiced argument that here the Father alone is God, excluding Jesus, we can respond that in that case, Jesus is surely Lord alone, excluding the Father, which of course is impossible. This follows from the logic of the text. Moreover, Paul says this against the naming of some as gods by others, not against the naming of Jesus as God, so it cannot be undermined against this. But we know that the Son must be honored just as the Father is honored, that is, the honor that belongs to the Father also belongs to the Son (Jn 5:23). For instance, "Lord" (Greek Kyrios, Hebrew Adonai) is the word that the Jew used not to pronounce God's holy name, YHWH - that is, when God's name was written in the Bible, the Jew read it as "the Lord." This is not clear in English because it uses the term "lord" more generally and in a more versatile manner. This is clear in Thomas the Apostle's confession when he kneels before Jesus, saying, "My Lord, my God" (Jn 20:28) - meaning "Lord" and "God" are used interchangeably in the biblical language, and it's a peculiarity of usage that the Father and the Son are linguistically separated as "God" and as "Lord." What do we see an example of here? That extracting a single sentence from its textual context and ripping it out of the entire Bible leads to misinterpretations and untenable positions. This does not automatically mean that Jesus does not belong to the "one God" as the Father certainly belongs to the "one Lord" (e.g., Mt 11:25; Acts 4:29).
Jehovah's Witnesses refer to this scripture as allegedly indicating that only the Father is the true and complete God. The Christian response to this is that He is called God, from whom everything comes because from eternity, the Son and the Holy Spirit have originated, originate, and will originate from Him, although they are one and the same in the nature, substance of God. And that when He is called one God (by the biblical writer), these words exclude the false gods of the pagans, not the Son and the Holy Spirit, who are however one God with the Father. If we exclude the two other persons because the Father is called one God, by the same reasoning it would follow (from further reading of the verse) that since Jesus Christ is called one Lord, neither the Holy Spirit nor the Father can be one Lord, although Scripture repeatedly expresses the divine majesty, both with the word Lord and with the word God.
The Father's distinctive naming here is not opposed to the other persons of the Trinity, it does not separate them from deity, but in contrast to all creatures created by God, which the creation is attributed to all three persons collectively according to further parts of Scripture, and not solely and separately to the Father. The Father, as the first person in divinity and the origin of the other two, here signifies the Deity that includes all three; the naming of God in Scripture is sometimes attributed to the Father, per excellence, or exclusively, because he is the source of the deity of the other two persons, which they possess through their relationship with the Father, thus it can be said there is one God, the Father, yet the Son is also God, but he is not a different God, but with the Father and the Holy Spirit together they are one God, not without them, or excluding them from deity.
It is enough to point out that here Paul does not name the Father as the only God at the expense of (excluding) the Son, but excluding the pagan idols. Similarly, as he does not name the Son as Lord at the expense of (excluding) the Father, but excluding the pagan idols. Or would a Witness be willing to endorse the consequence of their stance and logic that the Father (or Yahweh) is not Lord?
The name of Jesus is also Yahweh, thus He alone is majestic [God], just as the Father is Yahweh, and as such, He alone is majestic [God]. The Father and the Son are not God at the expense of each other but at the expense of pagan idols. This is what the textual context itself says:
"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords; yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)
Moreover, it is quite characteristic that the Jehovah's Witnesses' denomination elsewhere wants to relativize the deity of Jesus with the divinity of these "so-called" "many gods and many lords." Where does the Word say that Jesus is not part of the true God? According to Paul, the fullness of the deity lives in him bodily (Colossians 2:9).
Therefore, let the Arians etch into their minds that this passage is not written against the deity of Jesus, but against idols. And we have substantiated this with the textual context. For those who need further arguments to refute the Watchtower-Arian interpretation, we can recommend the following article:
-
78
God, one person, or three?
by slimboyfat inthe trinity doctrine says god is three persons in one being.. yet the bible says god is one.. gal 3.20 a mediator, however, implies more than one party; but god is one.
niv.
gal 3.20 now a mediator is not for just one person, but god is one.
-
-
aqwsed12345
From the fact that in a given, specific verse, the term "God" denotes one person (indicated the Father), it does not follow that the Godhead consists of only one divine person, as the Unitarians claim. The fact that the usual appropriate designation of the Son is "the Lord" does not mean that the Father is not Lord. We can refer to the Father and the Son as "the God and the Lord", but nothing follows that one or the other is less Lord or God than the other.