Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
At least, I expected you to admit faith as the reason why you believe that Jesus is alive since you cannot present any factual evidence that he is alive.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Oneness of God (non-Trinitarian View)
- Thread starter Coder
- Start date
At least, I expected you to admit faith as the reason why you believe that Jesus is alive since you cannot present any factual evidence that he is alive.
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
Out of the metaphorical, we can talk about angels only as emanations. Angels as beings is possible only during a dream or vision.
Last edited:
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
Everything I said is verifiable, but you don't appear to believe scripture as written, so I could keep quoting it and you could keep rejecting it. As for the factual specifics of Jesus' parables, you might consider that God knows every detail of every human experience. God the Son has no need to make up fictitious stories to illustrate a point. He has all truth at hand and only speaks truth.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
God the son? Can you please give me a verse on that one? Why are you bringing your beliefs into the bible? Just curious.....
moorea944
Well-Known Member
I totally disagree!! Sorry my friend. Too many scripture that tells us that angels can be seen by man at anytime the angel wishes to reveal himself. So many verses!!
Coder
Active Member
Hi,
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
"...in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person...the fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion."
Notice the document says "never presented as a person" and "the fact remains". I think these emphases may be a gentle/subtle clue, for those who have ears, that the Catholic Church is moving towards some revisions for a more accurate presentation of the truth about God. I think recent changes in the Creed may just be the beginning and getting people open to the revisions. I believe that God is doing great things in this new era.
For centuries people have been saying "Why don't Jewish people accept Jesus?" (the NT even says they're blind, true?). The Jewish people have stayed true to the one God. They resisted when the Roman Empire tried to force statues of their (pagan) gods into Temples and synagogues.
Why do you think the Popes have been (rightly) apologizing to Jewish people for decades now? Why do you think Pope Francis is praising Jewish people for keeping their faith throughout centuries of persecution? What faith is the Pope talking about? He's talking about faith in the one true God. Romans 3:1-2
As I mentioned, if you choose to ignore the influence of Greek/Roman/pagan religion and the forcefulness of Roman Empire in "worship my way" or "let's all worship just one way" "because I need blessings for success in battle and the success of the Roman Empire", that's your decision. Constantine saw a vision for "conquering" (coincidence?, to me, it's clearly not). (Constantine also had his wife and son executed, not for me to judge, I'm just showing you that the what you have inherited from the Roman Empire may not be what you think.)
Around the time of Jesus, Julius Caesar was declared "divine" and Octavian declared that he (Octavian) was "Son of God". The Greeks/Romans believed in many gods, including gods who impregnated human women and had human-god children.
Why do you think the Creeds emphasize: "We believe one God", "true God from true God", "you alone are the Most High"? You're dealing with pagans whose only way of understanding God becoming man is one of their "many gods" having god-man offspring which they already believed. No Jewish person would ever need language like this John 4:22. It's all adopted to help pagans.
Notice the prayer to Jesus as a Personal Being "you alone" but the doctrine teaches three Persons. You aren't praying to a "substance" or a "nature" when you pray to Jesus that "you alone" are the Most High, you are praying to a Person. At mass you just got through praying that you believe in one God, the Father. So you just said that the Person of the Father is the one God. Then, a few minutes later you say that the Person Jesus is alone the Most High. You explain it by saying, well, they're all the same God. OK, so what's really important is the one true God then and not three Persons and so the Trinity doctrine really doesn't have much bearing on anything, right? I agree. You can pray to the Holy Spirit, correct? This is the same as praying to God, correct? There is no difference. So, if there is no difference, why is additional terminology necessary? It serves no purpose except to accommodate pagan beliefs, it has no bearing on the very important truth about God that was the great revelation of Judaism - that God is one. Just a "harmless" parable for pagans (parables are a prevalent methodology of Jesus). St. Paul talked about the foolish Galatians going backward. A major advancement of Judaism for humanity was monotheism, again John 4:22.
Rather than strain your brain trying to expiate these aspects of the Trinity doctrine, why not just practice what Christians preach and seek the truth? The truth is that Greek/Roman/pagan religion influenced Christianity.
Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul
Here's a list of beliefs/doctrines:
I think the truth about God is, in Catholic and much Protestant Christianity today, clouded by parabolic (parable) layers in terminology in both Scripture and Doctrine adapted to pagans. It may have been "true" in the sense to help pagans understand one God. I also think some of it was forced by the Roman Empire as "editor-in-chief". The Jewish truth about God that Jesus is recorded as knowing, John 4:22 has been morphed to accommodate pagan religion to such an extent that Christians believe that God is not one Personal Being but some kind of "substance" (nature) that three Persons are all "made of" or "part of". The attempt to fit too many concepts into one bag to accommodate Greek/Roman/pagan father-son god beliefs of course has resulted in a nonsensical "mystery" because it's a pagan accommodation ("All things to all people"). Well, Pope Francis said it's not an era of change but a change of an era and I think it's time to revise doctrines back to true monotheism:
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
"...in Jewish scripture the Holy Spirit is never presented as a person...the fact remains that Christian pneumatological terminology is rooted in that of the Jewish religion."
Notice the document says "never presented as a person" and "the fact remains". I think these emphases may be a gentle/subtle clue, for those who have ears, that the Catholic Church is moving towards some revisions for a more accurate presentation of the truth about God. I think recent changes in the Creed may just be the beginning and getting people open to the revisions. I believe that God is doing great things in this new era.
For centuries people have been saying "Why don't Jewish people accept Jesus?" (the NT even says they're blind, true?). The Jewish people have stayed true to the one God. They resisted when the Roman Empire tried to force statues of their (pagan) gods into Temples and synagogues.
Why do you think the Popes have been (rightly) apologizing to Jewish people for decades now? Why do you think Pope Francis is praising Jewish people for keeping their faith throughout centuries of persecution? What faith is the Pope talking about? He's talking about faith in the one true God. Romans 3:1-2
As I mentioned, if you choose to ignore the influence of Greek/Roman/pagan religion and the forcefulness of Roman Empire in "worship my way" or "let's all worship just one way" "because I need blessings for success in battle and the success of the Roman Empire", that's your decision. Constantine saw a vision for "conquering" (coincidence?, to me, it's clearly not). (Constantine also had his wife and son executed, not for me to judge, I'm just showing you that the what you have inherited from the Roman Empire may not be what you think.)
How can you (relate) pray to God as one Personal Being? Who is the one "Person" in the one "Personal Being"? There is no one Person in the Trinity doctrine therefore there is no one "Personal Being" that you can relate to.
Around the time of Jesus, Julius Caesar was declared "divine" and Octavian declared that he (Octavian) was "Son of God". The Greeks/Romans believed in many gods, including gods who impregnated human women and had human-god children.
Why do you think the Creeds emphasize: "We believe one God", "true God from true God", "you alone are the Most High"? You're dealing with pagans whose only way of understanding God becoming man is one of their "many gods" having god-man offspring which they already believed. No Jewish person would ever need language like this John 4:22. It's all adopted to help pagans.
Notice the prayer to Jesus as a Personal Being "you alone" but the doctrine teaches three Persons. You aren't praying to a "substance" or a "nature" when you pray to Jesus that "you alone" are the Most High, you are praying to a Person. At mass you just got through praying that you believe in one God, the Father. So you just said that the Person of the Father is the one God. Then, a few minutes later you say that the Person Jesus is alone the Most High. You explain it by saying, well, they're all the same God. OK, so what's really important is the one true God then and not three Persons and so the Trinity doctrine really doesn't have much bearing on anything, right? I agree. You can pray to the Holy Spirit, correct? This is the same as praying to God, correct? There is no difference. So, if there is no difference, why is additional terminology necessary? It serves no purpose except to accommodate pagan beliefs, it has no bearing on the very important truth about God that was the great revelation of Judaism - that God is one. Just a "harmless" parable for pagans (parables are a prevalent methodology of Jesus). St. Paul talked about the foolish Galatians going backward. A major advancement of Judaism for humanity was monotheism, again John 4:22.
Rather than strain your brain trying to expiate these aspects of the Trinity doctrine, why not just practice what Christians preach and seek the truth? The truth is that Greek/Roman/pagan religion influenced Christianity.
Yes, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato's_tripartite_theory_of_soul
Here's a list of beliefs/doctrines:
- The soul (Greek Philosophy before Christianity)
- "Ju-piter" "sky father" (father in the sky). Christianity refers to Father in Heaven.
- Jupiter was the main god worshipped by Romans and son of Saturn. Jesus is the central Person worshipped in Christianity and son of the Father in Heaven (sky). Jesus ascended into the "sky" to return to His Father.
- Romans had patron gods. Catholicism has patron saints.
- Hercules, human-god son of the god Zeus. Other gods had human-god children. The doctrine about Jesus uses "Father-Son God" terminology.
- Roman Emperors were titled "Son of God" (Divi Filius). Jesus is called "Son of God".
- Son of God "Divi Filius" Notice Divi, "Divine". The Trinity doctrine teaches that the Father and Son share divine nature (Divi).
Last edited:
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
From the Gospel of Saint John, Chapter 1 - (1) In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. (14) ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,
"The Word" is the Son, the personification of God's revelation to the world as expressed in the old Hebrew sense. Note that John states here that "the Word was God" in the beginning (before creation).
1 John 5:7 - And there are three who give testimony in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And these three are one.
And three in Christ's own words:
John 8:58 - Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. (As in Exodus 3:14 - And God said unto Moses, I Am That I Am: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me unto you.)
John 10:30 - I and the Father are one.
John 14:9 - He that seeth me seeth the Father also.
God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. That means the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; all the one God.
And for some bonus material on that, this is how Saint Mary is known (among many other titles) as the Mother of God.
Luke 1:43 - And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come unto me? (Saint Elizabeth when filled with the Holy Spirit at the Virgin Mary's greeting)
Last edited:
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
Hi Coder -- Gotta get off the computer now, but I want to get back to your last post.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Actually it is not. The word "word" in Hebrew is LOGOS. It means someone's plans, thoughts or reasons. It is talking about God's plans, His spoken word. That was in the beginning and it was God. "Let there be light". God's spoken word was there. Not Jesus. Jesus was not born yet. Then in verse 14 the God's plans became flesh or real. The first few verses are talking about God, not Jesus.
That is a bad translation!!! That is NOT in the org. language. It is completely different!! But i'll let you have fun looking that one up yourself.
Your completely taking these verses out of context because you believe in the trinity.
Jesus was here before Abraham, in God's mind. He was the Logos. He was part of God's plan right from the beginning. Jesus is part of the Gospel which was preached before Abraham.
Yes, that's true. And why did Jesus say that? Is he saying that he is God the creator? No, he's saying that they are one in mind and thought and purpose. How can the son be the father? Or the father be the son? Doesnt make sense, does it.....
Again, God works "through" His son. Jesus is doing the will of his father. Everything that Jesus did, God would have done. Remember that God was working through his son to bring us back to him. (2 Cor 5).
No where is that found in scripture. The trinity totally degrades our Creator.
Mother of God? Are you serious? God does not have a mother, He has always been here before time. Ughhhh....
This is talking about Mary the mother of Jesus. It is NOT talking about God. God is not Jesus. Jesus is the "image" of God, not very God. Plus, I thought you said that the HS is a person?.... How can someone be filled with a person? Doesnt make sense, does it....
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
Wrong, wrong. John uses it here in reference to the to Son of God. You can easily look this it up for a confirmation, and you will find various explanations as to why he chose to put it that way while you're looking. "Incarnate Word" also refers to Jesus, as the Word made flesh. And speaking of that, you say Jesus was not born yet, which makes no difference at all to the meaning of this text because that only pertains to the birth of his human nature as the Messiah. Jesus is the eternally begotten Son, which means there was never a time when he had not been begotten. It's an always-was-always-will-be thing because God exists outside of time.
Okay, I looked it up and had some fun doing it. I can't read the original Greek as written by Saint John, but can read the direct translation by Saint Jerome in the Latin Vulgate Bible, which is Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant in caelo; Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus; et hi tres unum sunt. If you paste that into Google translate, you'll get "For there are three that bear witness in heaven; The Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one."
You are changing what Jesus said here for the sake of that argument, so it won't do.
Putting words in our Lord's mouth again. That's not what he said.
"Go therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Matthew 28:19)
Did Jesus totally degrade our Creator when he said that?
Elizabeth called Mary "Mother of my Lord" as in "I am the Lord thy God." And yes, "very God of very God" just as we say it in the Nicene Creed. Jesus as the Incarnate Word is fully human and fully divine. He is God. Mary is his mother. Ask him if you don't believe me.
The Holy Spirit is a person. That doesn't mean he's human. He is God, so of course it makes sense that a (human) person can be filled with the Holy Spirit.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
I don't see how the notion that any truth in early Christian teaching was altered correlates with the consistency of scripture and sacred tradition as documented by fathers of the Church.
I don't agree with that. And the recent changes in the Creed were only to correct the bad wording of the translation from Latin after Vatican II. The Latin had not been changed, so the Creed did not change.
It seems like quite a stretch to say that all this supports an accommodation to paganism. The whole objective of the Nicene Creed was to combat Arianism, a growing heretical teaching at the time which claimed that Jesus was not divine, but was a created being. So the council expanded the Apostles Creed to lay out in detail that God is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Many thousands of Jews converted to Christianity from the day of Pentecost onward. They knew the Messianic prophesies in the Septuagint, and saw them fulfilled in Jesus. So many were converting that anti-Christian Jews rewrote the Septuagint after the destruction of the Temple in 70 A.D. The new version, the Jamnian-Palestinian Translation, had reworded verses meant to obscure the Messianic prophecies. For example, the prophesy in Isaiah 7:14 stating that a virgin will conceive and give birth to a son was changed to say that a young woman will conceive and give birth to a son. In the later Masoretic Text, which translated the Greek Jamnian-Palestinian Septuagint back to Hebrew (and omitted all the books that had been written in Greek to begin with), the changes were preserved. So Jews have been reading the same corrupted verses even to this day.
Apologizing for what? I guess I haven't followed that. I'd say Pope Francis is probably talking about the Jews keeping their faith in general. As far as their perception of the one true God goes, that would include the Father only because they reject Jesus and don't know the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said to the apostles, "The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you." (John 14:17)
Strain my brain? I think that traditional Christian theology is plainer and simpler. Wouldn't it be easier to just accept that God is who he says he says he is?
You could also have correlated vestal virgins with nuns, but it's still all anecdotal, isn't it?
It would be worth discussing and dissecting each one of those, but my brain really is strained at this late hour. For now I'm thinking that if I say a prayer before going to bed, I could address it specifically to the Father or to the Son or to the Holy Spirit, or I could begin it with "dear Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." I could also just say "dear God." How do you do it? Who do you pray to? Who is Jesus to you?
Ben Avraham
Well-Known Member
Please, show me one. But try to remember that the root of the definition for an angel is the term "messenger." Any one with a message can be considered an angel. From the moment he, she or it delivers the message, the angel no longer exists.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
I agree with you there. The translators got it mostly right, but in some cases they put angels instead of messenger or messengers.
No. An angel is an angel, an immortal, spiritual being. A human messenger is a person who is a messenger. Angels and people are different. And you know that too.
What?
So many people have seen angels. I just dont understand why you would say different..... Dont you read it is scripture?
Moses, Abraham. Adam and Eve. Daniel, Peter, Paul, Jesus, etc, etc....
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Why are you using words that are not in the bible? Incarnate is not in scripture. Like God the son and God the HS. And of course, rapture. This is the problem with most religions, they bring in words and beliefs.
Just because someone is called Lord, doesnt make him God. If that is the case, then Moses, Abraham, certain Angels, some people in England and Japan are all God. Right?
Plus, your bringing in ..... again...... that word, incarnate. Why? Ever wonder if the Nicene Creed got it wrong? I mean, the bible doesnt say that Jesus is God, so why do you?
Coder
Active Member
It's not consistent with all of Scripture.
Matthew 24:16
John 5:26
John 5:19
John 14:28
1 Corinthians 15:27-28
Hebrews 5:8
I'm not referring to consistency but accuracy/truth. I am saying that what consistency has been gleaned/formulated in doctrine is based on pagan influence. Even though I quote the Bible, I also still propose/maintain that much of the Father Son terminology is in line with Roman/pagan beliefs (e.g. sky father, god-human sons of gods). Jewish Scripture also has a concept of God as Father and people as His sons/children. Strong common ground with paganism to have Scriptures that are acceptable to all ("All things to all people"). I think that the reason that "son of god" or now "Son of God" has overwhelming prevalence/importance in Christianity (New Testament and Trinity doctrine) is based on the Roman Empire's influence. I believe that God is one pure Spiritual Personal Being. I'm not debating whether God can come to us in the form of a Man. He spoke to Moses in the Burning Bush. However, I don't think that the Trinity doctrine is an accurate explanation. We don't say "Father, Burning Bush, and Holy Spirit". I think that "Holy Spirit" is the terminology used in Scripture to tie the (Roman/pagan-acceptable) Father-Son (father-son) teaching back to the Jewish roots to indicate that still, we are talking about the one true Judeo-Christian God who does not have parts/persons. John 4:22 John 4:24
http://www.vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01021998_p-24_en.html
I think that the "Son of God" concept took center stage (Divi Filius, Saturn, Jupiter, Zeus, Hercules, ...) and now you have the Trinity doctrine. There's too many coincidences for an intelligent person to ignore IMHO.
The main point is that consistent errors (in doctrine) are still errors. (Also, the Christian Scriptures have apparent inconsistencies.)
(We could discuss on another thread.) I have studied that in depth and I think that this Scripture can be validly interpreted by both Jewish people and/or Christians based on their beliefs. Christianity is making a further stretch though IMHO, because the prophecy speaks of a sign for Ahaz. By midrash, a Christian could refer to this prophecy, but not by the prophecy's direct/literal meaning.
http://jewsforjudaism.org/?s=Almah
Centuries of disrespect/persecution. Fortunately, much of this has been corrected in recent centuries and especially recent decades.
That's a wonderful prophecy. However, I don't believe that the "Him" to know is Three Persons, but the one Personal Being, God. Maybe when some get past the Trinity doctrine, they will know "Him" better.
Yes. You may think that it makes no sense but feel obligated to believe otherwise. Ever heard of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes? I propose that "Emperor", is fitting in this case.
Yes, I think there's a correlation there also. Thank you.
As far as anecdotal, you may want to consider how much of the terminology in the New Testament is anecdotal or simply parable-like based on Roman/pagan influences.(By the way, this has no bearing on the respect that I have for those who commit to their faith such as nuns, I am referring to the truth about God. As I mentioned, I don't believe in black and white, I believe that God honors faith and love.)
I think that Roman Catholicism is very much Roman and that this aspect should not be underestimated. It seems clear from the Church's name and the term "Holy Roman Empire". Perhaps some of the Roman Empire's effects and influences on Christian doctrine and the original Jewish understanding of one God can be seen in light of Psalms 90:4
"We are not living an of change but a change of era." - Pope Francis
Last edited:
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
John 1:14 - And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
The Word made flesh = the Incarnate Word Here's a dictionary definition to confirm it for you.
in·car·nate
ADJECTIVE - (especially of a deity or spirit) embodied in flesh; in human form: "God incarnate"
If a particular word is not in the bible, then does it's meaning become invalid? (And just for the record, "rapture," which is not in the bible is also not in Catholic theology.)
Elizabeth was not referring to Moses, Abraham, Angels or anyone in England or Japan. She was referring to the Lord God.
The bible does say that Jesus is God. It is you who say he is not by rejecting whatever biblical reference you don't want to believe.
Forever_Catholic
Active Member
Have you considered that you can study any number of unrelated religions from around the world and find similar elements among them? They all have a supreme being or beings, for example. Observing or constructing parallels does not establish a practical association.
Are you suggesting that Jewish Scripture was written so as to have common ground with paganism? They have never had any interest in bringing gentiles into their faith, so what would be the motive?. Aside from that, there is no common ground between Judaism and paganism.
The Roman Empire was an adversary to both Jews and Christians until after Constantine's conversion in October 312. So any evidence of a prior alignment with Rome, particularly as it pertained to religion, would be hard to find. On the contrary, innumerable Christians were martyred in favor of accepting the Roman Empire's influence. By the time Rome became a Catholic nation, the the New Testament books had already been written and apostolic teaching was solidly formed and widespread.
And I think there is a magnificent irony in the divine plan to transform pagan Rome into the first Christian nation. I see great poetic justice in a Roman Emperor becoming the best earthly friend that the early Church could have hoped for.
Last edited:
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe Father God is an old testament concept but changed into something new by Jesus.
moorea944
Well-Known Member
Can you show me one verse that tells us that Jesus is God?
Muffled
Jesus in me
I believe there is no problem with the Trinity doctrine. There is a problem with the use of the term "persons" since the theological understanding of how the word is used and common English usage are two very different things.