Watchtower: Jesus is not "a god"!

[metis]

Matthew 16[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Also, there's Pentecost that involved Jesus' issuance of the paraclete that would guide his Church. And logic should tell one why would Jesus allow the Church to be destroyed after the Apostles were gone? Wouldn't he supposedly know that would destroy that which he created?

And, btw, if one dismisses all those who came after the Apostles, then maybe they should give their Bible to someone who can use it because it was the Catholic Church in the 4th century that chose the canon of the Bible that almost all Christians use. If one actually believes that the Holy Spirit is gone, thus ignoring Jesus' promises that he would send us the Holy Spirit, and if they also believe that the Church fell into "apostacy", then how could such a supposedly tainted Church choose the scriptures most of us use?

It is this kind of illogic and ignorance of early Church history that makes it all but impossible to have a serious discussion with some people here, thus I don't spend much time with them because they almost always have an excuse or they divert into another topic.

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy

If you want answers concerning the 3=1 trinity doctrine, I suggest you ask someone who IS a 3=1 trinitarian. I am not a 3=1 trinitarian.

Clear

 

[Soapy]

Matthew 16[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Also, there's Pentecost that involved Jesus' issuance of the paraclete that would guide his Church. And logic should tell one why would Jesus allow the Church to be destroyed after the Apostles were gone? Wouldn't he supposedly know that would destroy that which he created?

And, btw, if one dismisses all those who came after the Apostles, then maybe they should give their Bible to someone who can use it because it was the Catholic Church in the 4th century that chose the canon of the Bible that almost all Christians use. If one actually believes that the Holy Spirit is gone, thus ignoring Jesus' promises that he would send us the Holy Spirit, and if they also believe that the Church fell into "apostacy", then how could such a supposedly tainted Church choose the scriptures most of us use?

It is this kind of illogic and ignorance of early Church history that makes it all but impossible to have a serious discussion with some people here, thus I don't spend much time with them because they almost always have an excuse or they divert into another topic.

Jesus knew and spoke of the great ‘famine’ that would take place. But he also stated that there would a remnant of believers through whom the church would be reestablished with him as the head. This would be as he said: ‘The Son if man coming with his powerful angels’.

Ask a trinitarian who the Son of man is …. and from where is the son of man coming from?

The answer is that the son of man is coming from Heaven.

So, where currently is the son of man?

In Heaven? Yes!

I believe Trinitarians claim Jesus RESUMED BEING GOD when he was raised up to Heaven… Scripture verse, please? Oh, there are none… oh dear!!
So the son of man is ‘God in Heaven’??? (Three query marks deliberately as in one question three queries - a trinity God question!)

‘RESUMED’ being God that they claim he never stopped being!!!

Im still trying to find out from Trinitarians how trinity-Jesus decided when he wanted to be all powerful and all-know God and when he wanted to be fleshly weak and lacking knowledge man…

Is it possible to STOP being GOD?

Is it possible for fleshly man, a physical image of the holy and righteous and sinless nature of God to BE GOD that he images? Can an image BE what it images … while only being able reflect what it’s source does?

Can the light from the lamp BE the lamp from which the light shines?

Surely the SOURCE of the light is ONE but the rays are millions… God is one but the Sons of God are many!! The Sons of God are not God whom they are sons of…!

Jesus called some Jews, ‘Sons of their Father… the liar from the beginning!’… why? Because the definition of ‘Son’ is ‘He who carries out the works of their Father’… hence, the Sons of ‘Satan’ are those who do the works of Satan… WHY IS IT SO HARD TO APPLY THIS TO SONS OF GOD?

Jesus stated that he had only said he was ‘God’s Son’ because he was ‘doing the works of his Father’… and scriptures tells us that:

• ‘All who are led by the spirit are sons of God’

Yet Trinitarians cannot stomach this truth and so they claim that a Son of God is an uncreated offspring… (I have never heard of such nonsense!!) - because the offspring of a HUMAN CHILD has the same FLESH NATURE as their human Father…

See, they exchange the truth for the lie… in that the question was not a definition of a human Son but Son as a spiritual definition. Off course, some answer and just say, ‘daddy’… oh boy!! You can just smell the deceit in them!!! True sons of their Father… and he was a liar from the beginning!!!

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy

You repeatedly make the incorrect assumption that I am a 3=1 trinitarian and ask me to justify that doctrine.
Your assumption on this point has always been and remains incorrect. I am not a 3=1 trinitarian.
If you want answers concerning the 3=1 trinity, I suggest you ask someone who IS a 3=1 trinitarian.

Clear

You believe the trinity claim at the expense of the truth… I don’t call you trinitarian outright but your summary as I see it is pointed in that direction.

I showed you that trinity claims are false and that your research is coming to nought because you are a believer in Christianity therefore you don’t understand what is really is about.

You read ‘claims’ and ‘believe’ claims of a trinity because all you are is a RESEARCHER with no agenda (perhaps writing a book but I don’t accuse you of it!) collecting and believing any old tosh that has a date and person attached to it as your ‘Historical Data’ (strange wording!!)

JUST BECAUSE someone says this of that DOES NOT MEAN that person is telling the truth.

But, hey, You have read what I said…. That is now HISTORICAL DATA, too!!! So you gotta believe me as well…

I asked you to summarise what you’ve found so far … and so far you’ve summaries NOTHING!

Scared?
Can’t figure out trinity?
Realise the nonsense that it is?

THE FATHER is the ONLY TRUE GOD.

Stick with that… all else falls into place.

Nowhere in scriptures is Jesus called ‘GOD’!! Except in the heresy that you claim as ‘Historical Data’… yet, a person like yourself, wise, intelligent, learned, meticulous, and formal… CANNOT SEE THE FARCE that you are believing…

I would ask YOU a serious of questions but I’m sure you won’t answer (you haven’t really so far! You just avoid my questions claiming I’m not answering yours … even after I have answered you… why? Because you hoped I wouldn’t answer… Sad!!)

Tgis is why Jesus singled out the Jews and the Greeks for a type of condemnation:

• The Jews seeks signs as proof…
• The Greeks seek wisdom as proof…

Which category are you in?

• The Researcher seeks ‘Historical Data’ as proof!

Ha! But WHICH ‘Historical Data’ are you going to believe in your wisdom and what is the sign of the truth of in your wisdom?

Your research will end with:

• There is no definitive historical data as evidence to the efficacy of any of the various trinitarian beliefs of Christianity. Various groups variously purport to have expounded their version of their belief but that is immediately countered by others who believed slightly or greatly differently. The outcome of all this is that all should believe and have faith in whichever belief they think is right…

Put your own way….

The truth is that NO TRINITARIAN belief is right! Yes, it is by FAITH that Christians believe … but trinitarian Faith is false Faith… and Jesus warns us of ‘The great Whore in the whole world has indulged in’ (‘whole world’ evidently excluded those of them that did not indulge in the whore).

And think! Which belief has indulged itself in every facet of WORLD WIDE Christian belief… Trinity!

Trinity from the HOLY(?) Roman Catholic Church under the orders of the hated enemy of Christians: Romans under Emperor Constantine, et al.

Trinity by any name or inference of that ‘God’ is not one… Or JW or Christadelphian, Oneness Apostolic or Pentecostal, Seven-Day-Adventist, Mormon…

 

[Clear]

Hi @Soapy and @metis

I did not want to interrupt your own discussion but simply wanted to make a specific point.

Metis quotes Matt 16:18 as : "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Metis' translation is incorrect. The actual greek reads "the gates of hades" shall not prevail against it..."
There is no greek source text for a new testament version that says "powers of death".

While the specific wording may not matter to you conversation, the correct wording will definitely have meaning to historians who are aware of the early Christian doctrines concerning hades.

Also, soapy, your last post #1244 is simply an obsessive insistence that you know what I believe better than I know what I believe. This is irrational.

thanks

Clear
φυτζεισισιω

 

[Clear]

Hi @metis


1) THE PRINCIPLE BY WHICH THE GATHERING TO CHRIST WOULD BE LED WAS NEVER PETER
Metis said : “Also, Jesus said he would guide his Church until the end of time, thus your position logically must have it that he either lied or was wrong.” (post #1236)
Clear responded : "1) Can you quote the actual text you are getting this “guide his church” quote from so that readers can examine this phrase to see if it is actually what Jesus said or if you are misquoting? I think you are misquoting the phrasing to make it say something it does not say. 2) Are you instead referring to the principle whereby Jesus would “build” his church, and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against that principle?
Metis replied by quoting Matthew 16:18 "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."


Metis, If you read your own quote, it says "I will build my church" .
It does not say "I will guide my church until the end of time" as you claimed in post #1236.

I have already pointed out in post #1245 that your quote "powers of death" is an incorrect quote since no New Testament greek source text says this.
The authentic text is "gates of hades".
You are not being accurate in your claims and in your quotes.



2) THE PRINCIPLE BY WHICH THE GATHERING TO CHRIST WOULD OCCUR WAS REVELATION
Metis said : "Also, there's Pentecost that involved Jesus' issuance of the paraclete that would guide his Church."
Yes, THIS is the principle of revelation from God by which the Church was to be guided.

Thus Jesus indicates to Peter, in Matthew 16:17 that Peter was blessed because the messiahship of Jesus was REVEALED to Peter by God.

REVELATION was the principle by which Peter came to know Jesus was the Christ
and
REVELATION is the main principle by which individuals in future were to come to this knowledge just as Peter had.


Clear
φυτζειακσιω

 

[Soapy]

Hi @Soapy and @metis

I did not want to interrupt your own discussion but simply wanted to make a specific point.

Metis quotes Matt 16:18 as : "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it."

Metis' translation is incorrect. The actual greek reads "the gates of hades" shall not prevail against it..."
There is no greek source text for a new testament version that says "powers of death".

While the specific wording may not matter to you conversation, the correct wording will definitely have meaning to historians who are aware of the early Christian doctrines concerning hades.

Also, soapy, your last post #1244 is simply an obsessive insistence that you know what I believe better than I know what I believe. This is irrational.

thanks

Clear
φυτζεισισιω

Clear, you say my point about your point is obsessive. I think you need to look in the mirror.

You, too, are obsessive about ‘Historical Data’ being the only source acceptable to you as evidence of what the church, early or otherwise, believed. And you are over obsessive about quotes..,exact wording, when, in fact, much of what we read is down to the whims of the translators. Words change their meaning over time so it must be seen that it is the Holy Spirit revelation and the gist of things that will reveal the true meaning.

As a way of ‘testing the spirit’ of the wording, be it known that the scriptures is CODED, and like any good system, like even in mankind with our data storage, there are INTEGRITY CHECKS embedded in the scriptures so any alterations can be found and discredited. Like, do we think as humans, some part of image of God, that God Himself would not provide integrity checks for his word?… knowing that there will be a time when Satan would target easily influenced individuals into altering the holy scriptures.

So, for me, I can determine that a scripture verse has been altered because it failed integrity checking. I’m sure you do something similar in your research but because you don’t really have a target belief if is harder to spot.

Think of this: I am a mathematician and trying to solve a theorem. You are NOT a mathematician but are interested in a particular math theory or hypothesis. You aren’t really interested in the full truth of what you are seeking but just something that looks great for your book you are writing.

There is a particular problem - a sticky area which various other people present to you. You BELIEVE what they present because they are mathematicians of renown. Euler, Pythagoras, Fermat, … BUT GUESS WHAT, even these eminent persons were WRONG about their beliefs on certain matters at some stage in the formulation of their hypotheses. I gave you an example before where a formula result was incorrect from a casual reading because within the equation was a zero divided by zero element - which discredits the whole formula…! But because you don’t really understand the Math, you don’t notice and continue to believe in what the eminent one tell you. If I point out the error you claim I am wrong because you only believe eminent ones!

Like… when the church compelled the whole of ‘the world’ that the Earth was the centre of the universe. Galileo and Copernicus, against all known authorised belief, both claimed the church was wrong.,, How embarrassed was the Church when they finally had to agree they were wrong. How did they re-adjust their doctrine to their congregation….

Same what I’m saying to you. Trinity is false. And despite your intelligence, and because you aren’t really after truth, you cannot see that it is so!

Start off with the purpose of the messiah…

What purpose is served by GOD coming into his own creation to save his own creation from a great sin caused by his own creation!!! There is no justice in an unsinnable, immortal, holy, individual ‘pretending’ to be ‘tempted’, or ‘Dying’, or indeed, having the throne of a human being to rule over what he, as God, would already be ruler over!!

Try fitting in a trinity theorem into that scenario … yet Jesus is HEIR to God.. and GOD he is heir to???

And he, despite being CO-EQUAL GOD with the Father, is INFERIOR to the Father… (I know Trinitarians can’t stand to say it… they call it RANKED BELOW in order to dampen the reality. And, exactky what does ‘EQUAL’ mean to a trinitarian if co-equals are NOT EQUALS …. And, immutable means he changes several times in his lifetime… wow! As the Queen said to her audience, ‘Words mean what I want them to mean’.

And, I wasn’t really reading what Metis was saying. I’m posting on other threads at at work at other times…

but I’ll take a look, thanks.

 

[metis]

Some just like to play word games because translations vary, but those who have never seriously studied theology often don't know that.

Here's from the RSV, which is considered being the most direct interpretations, and the RSV is the translation of choice for most theologians:

Matthew 16[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

So, are we to believe that Jesus created his Church only to have it die decades later?

But as expected, direct questions that I posted last got ignored or sidestepped.

 

[Clear]

Hi @metis :


Metis said : “Also, Jesus said he would guide his Church until the end of time,...” (post #1236)
Clear responded : "1) Can you quote the actual text you are getting this “guide his church” quote from so that readers can examine this phrase to see if it is actually what Jesus said or if you are misquoting? I think you are misquoting the phrasing …
Metis replied Matthew 16:18 "…on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (post #1241)
Clear pointed out :Metis, If you read your own quote, it says "I will build my church" . It does not say "I will guide my church until the end of time" as you claimed in post #1236.
Also, your quote "powers of death" is an incorrect quote since no New Testament greek source text says this. The authentic text is "gates of hades". (post #1246)
Metis replied : “Some just like to play word games because translations vary,…” (post #1248)


1) “WORD GAMES” ARE AN ABUSE OF WORDS AND TEXTS

“Word games” are attempts to manipulate words, typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous. (“laziness with facts” is a different issue).

I’m asking that when you “quote” a bible text, or any other text, that you do not manipulate it or quote it inaccurately and this is why I pointed out that your “quotes” of biblical texts were NOT biblical texts.

For examples :
You claimed that “Jesus said he would guide his church until the end of time” (Metis, post #1236).
I asked for the biblical quote for this since there is no biblical quote that says this.
When you provided the authentic phrase, it was NOT "I will guide my church", but it was "I will build my church"
IF you consciously tried to pass this text off as “authentic”, then this is a "word game".

Also :
Your quote of the text in the RSV Matt 16:18 is “the powers of death shall not prevail against it…. (Metis, post #1236) ”
Again, there is no Greek source text that reads according to your quote..

The Greek text is Και επι ταυτ τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτησ
οικοδομησω is NOT "guide" but to "build" and the πυλαι αδου are not the "powers of death" but are the "gates of hades".
The GN4 does not list ANY variant texts for these phrases.
Ask someone you trust who reads Greek to tell you what these words say.

I might as well remind you that the RSV is NOT the biblical text of choice for any theologian who can read Greek and who wants to know what the source text says.



2) OFFERING READERS AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE IS TO IGNORE RATIONAL OPTIONS
Metis said : “So, are we to believe that Jesus created his Church only to have it die decades later?” (post #1248)

Of course we do not have to believe this.
This is an irrational choice you are offering readers.

Whether other Christian congregations would have taken the place of the roman congregation in their growth and spreading throughout the world, I think that the principle of revelation by which Peter came to know Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16:17, (and which was operating from earlier periods of time) continues to operate and guide individuals toward greater levels of truth and civility completely independent of the Roman Christian movement.



I might remind readers that none of these points supports the Roman Claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.


Clear
φυτζτωδρτωω

 

[metis]

Hi @metis :


Metis said : “Also, Jesus said he would guide his Church until the end of time,...” (post #1236)
Clear responded : "1) Can you quote the actual text you are getting this “guide his church” quote from so that readers can examine this phrase to see if it is actually what Jesus said or if you are misquoting? I think you are misquoting the phrasing …
Metis replied Matthew 16:18 "…on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (post #1241)
Clear pointed out :Metis, If you read your own quote, it says "I will build my church" . It does not say "I will guide my church until the end of time" as you claimed in post #1236.
Also, your quote "powers of death" is an incorrect quote since no New Testament greek source text says this. The authentic text is "gates of hades". (post #1246)
Metis replied : “Some just like to play word games because translations vary,…” (post #1248)


1) “WORD GAMES” ARE AN ABUSE OF WORDS AND TEXTS

“Word games” are attempts to manipulate words, typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous. (“laziness with facts” is a different issue).

I’m asking that when you “quote” a bible text, or any other text, that you do not manipulate it or quote it inaccurately and this is why I pointed out that your “quotes” of biblical texts were NOT biblical texts.

For examples :
You claimed that “Jesus said he would guide his church until the end of time” (Metis, post #1236).
I asked for the biblical quote for this since there is no biblical quote that says this.
When you provided the authentic phrase, it was NOT "I will guide my church", but it was "I will build my church"
IF you consciously tried to pass this text off as “authentic”, then this is a "word game".

Also :
Your quote of the text in the RSV Matt 16:18 is “the powers of death shall not prevail against it…. (Metis, post #1236) ”
Again, there is no Greek source text that reads according to your quote..

The Greek text is Και επι ταυτ τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτησ
οικοδομησω is NOT "guide" but to "build" and the πυλαι αδου are not the "powers of death" but are the "gates of hades".
The GN4 does not list ANY variant texts for these phrases.
Ask someone you trust who reads Greek to tell you what these words say.

I might as well remind you that the RSV is NOT the biblical text of choice for any theologian who can read Greek and who wants to know what the source text says.



2) OFFERING READERS AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE IS TO IGNORE RATIONAL OPTIONS
Metis said : “So, are we to believe that Jesus created his Church only to have it die decades later?” (post #1248)

This is an irrational choice you are offering readers.

Whether other Christian congregations would have taken the place of the roman congregation in their growth and spreading throughout the world, I think that the principle of revelation by which Peter came to know Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16:17, (and which was operating from earlier periods of time) continues to operate and guide individuals toward greater levels of truth and civility completely independent of the Roman Christian movement.



I might remind readers that none of these points supports the Roman Claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.


Clear
φυτζτωδρτωω

It's time for me to use my "ignore" option since you don't answer the questions I ask and then play games like with the above. It is clearly impossible to have a serious theological discussion with you .

Also, if one is serious about theology, then they wouldn't post out of the certitude that you do because there is so little in this arena that's a "gimme". IOW, certainty is the enemy of good theology, and also good scholarship in general.

However, I don't leave you in anger but only with disappointment, so take care.

 

[Soapy]

It's time for me to use my "ignore" option since you don't answer the questions I ask and then play games like with the above. It is clearly impossible to have a serious theological discussion with you .

Also, if one is serious about theology, then they wouldn't post out of the certitude that you do because there is so little in this arena that's a "gimme". IOW, certainty is the enemy of good theology, and also good scholarship in general.

However, I don't leave you in anger but only with disappointment, so take care.

I agree that @Clear does not answer questions set to him but yet demands that others answer to him.

In any case, since you’ve blocked him (I presume you’ve done that) it doesn’t matter.

 

[Muffled]

"Dogknox, if you can show me one single verse of scripture which describes God with the word "three," I will take your research and comments more seriously.

"I believe that most (if not all) trinity explanations and creeds do use the word "three." But it hasn't come from scripture!"
................................................

I knew, of course, that you could not answer the simple challenge above.

How about this?:
Please show me any depiction (dream, vision, description, etc.) showing God as three in Scripture.

I believe one does not have to see the word three to be able to count to three. That is also the null hypothesis that three is not mentioned and in order to prove that you must show it is necessary for three to be said.

 

[Clear]

Hi @metis and forum readers


1) REGARDING THE HISTORICAL POINTS THAT

a) THE APOSTLE PETER WAS NEVER A STANDING BISHOP OF ROME
b) THE ROMAN CONGREGATION NEVER OBTAINED APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY

Metis said : “It's time for me to use my "ignore" option since you don't answer the questions I ask and then play games like with the above. It is clearly impossible to have a serious theological discussion with you . (POST #1250)

Metis : Asking you NOT to change the wording of biblical quotes is NOT a word game.

You quoted : “Jesus said he would guide his church until the end of time” (Metis, post #1236).
When I asked where you got this quote from, you replied with Matt 16:18
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,... (Metis, post #1248)

Matthew 16:18-19 is NOT the same quote you gave and instead, it speaks of the principle upon which the gathering together to the gospel was to occur (This is what greek Ekklesia means).
To offer an incorrect biblical “quote” is a word game if it is done on purpose. If it is laziness with quoting that is different
Pointing out the error is not a word game.
I just want you to be careful when you offer a “quote” from the bible and make sure it is an actual “quote” and not a paraphrase you make up.


2) REGARDING THE CERTAINTY OF THE LACK OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE THAT PETER WAS A STANDING BISHOP OF ROME

Metis said : “Also, if one is serious about theology, then they wouldn't post out of the certitude that you do because there is so little in this arena that's a "gimme". IOW, certainty is the enemy of good theology, and also good scholarship in general.”

Metis, I pointed out that historians, WONDERFUL AND GOOD historians, CATHOLIC historians, have tried for CENTURIES to make the connection between Peter and a bishopric.
NONE of them have been able to do this.
YOU were not able to do this.
NO one, so far, in the history of the world, has been able to do this.
THAT statement is, so far, correct.

Why is the catholic claim that Peter WAS a bishop of rome to be taken as a certainty when there is no historical data to support the claim?


3) REGARDING DISAPPOINTMENT IN A DEBATE
Metis said : “However, I don't leave you in anger but only with disappointment, so take care.”

Your disengagement with “disappointment” was inevitable once you make a claim that you cannot support.
If you remember, this is not the first time we’ve discussed this SAME, lack of evidence for your claim that Peter was a standing bishop of rome and not the first time me you have attempted to support the claim that Peter left the church with special authority.

In 2017 you attempted the same argument regarding authority.
If you don't trust the Catholic Church, why do you trust the Bible?

If you did not have data to support this proposition then, why would you assume a debate would end up with you not being again, disappointed?
You suggested “early 2nd century” literature supported your position.
When I agreed this era literature was appropriate, you then were unable to find and offer any “early 2nd century” literature that actually supported your position.

Your disengagement at that time was one of disappointment.

My point is not to frustrate you but to simply make the point that if the finest religious and non religious historians in the history of the world have tried to find actual historical data to support the proposition that the apostle Peter had ever been a standing Bishop of Rome, or that the apostle Peter had ever given the roman congregation his apostolic authority, and have never found that supporting data, then it is historically a non-occurrence and is a back-claim made in later centuries (for which we DO have historical data confirming).



4) REGARDING THE USE OF THE “IGNORE BUTTON”

Metis said : “It's time for me to use my "ignore" option

Yes, you placed me on "ignore" the last time we had this conversation about Peter and Authority.
If you don't trust the Catholic Church, why do you trust the Bible?

While you may place me on ignore, I certain do NOT intend on placing you on ignore ever.
I like some of the insights in many of your posts and have learned important thoughts from you from time to time.
I hope you will keep posting and I will pay attention to those posts that are relevant.






Hi @Soapy

I did see your last message to Metis. I'm sorry, but If you asked some questions to me in the last few posts, I would not have seen them.

I simply didn’t read your posts.
I assumed that your posts were probably criticisms of a trinity that I don’t believe in anyway and so I skipped over them.
I apologize, but I am trying to spend my time on relevant data so I have been skipping reading your posts until I see something relevant to an actual debate that is going on at the time you post.



Clear
φυτζφυδρακω

 

[Soapy]

I believe one does not have to see the word three to be able to count to three. That is also the null hypothesis that three is not mentioned and in order to prove that you must show it is necessary for three to be said.

Where did the idea that God is three and God is One at the same time m, come from or is shown in the scriptures?

Is there anything within creation that reflect the three-someness of a trinity God?

Satan is called ‘God’ in the scriptures.

Moses is called ‘God’ in the scriptures.

Holy men of heroic nature are called ‘God(s)’ in the scriptures (‘I said ye are Gods’)

How many ‘Gods’ are there?

 

[Clear]

Metis claimed : "And, btw, if one dismisses all those who came after the Apostles, then maybe they should give their Bible to someone who can use it because it was the Catholic Church in the 4th century that chose the canon of the Bible that almost all Christians use." (post #1250)


I think the logic here is not good.

1) THE HYPOTHETICAL CANON PRODUCED IF ANOTHER RELIGIOUS MOVEMENT HAD BECOME THE DOMINANT CHRISTIAN MOVEMENT
An alternate history may simply have resulted in a different church or churches becoming dominant with similar or different canons being adopted by western christianity.

For example, if the older and more original church in Jerusalem (which historically fled to pella) had become the dominant movement with the dominant theology, then their hypothetical Canon may have been similar, though they may have kept Jewish Enoch and books such as a version of Tobit inside the canon (or not – one simply can’t tell).

Conversely, If the Christian church of Alexandria or another African church had become dominant, then the canon may have included the shepherd and an enoch, (and perhaps like the current Ethiopian orthodox, may have included Jubilees and Barnabas, ezra, sirach etc.). Again, one can't really tell what the canon may have been in that case.

The point is that a group of proof texts that were used to “prove” a religious point have always been popular whether among the Jews or among the early Christians.

Specific groups of quotes have always been used by the various movement as polemics to “prove” their points.

Scriptures which became popular to use as proof texts would, presumably have become part of the canon and other texts which disagreed with the dominant and popular doctrines would, presumably have not been included in the most popular canon.

In any case, some sort of canon would have resulted from whatever Christian movement became the dominant movement.



2) THE FORMATION OF A POPULAR CANON DOES NOT CONFIRM DOCTRINE
Another point is that IF one claims that a movement that creates a popular canon should receive doctrinal credibility simply from creating their personal canon, then the Catholics should give Judaism priority since the roman church inherited their Old Testament Canon from Jewish writings.


3) "FORCING" A POPULATION TO ACCEPT A SPECIFIC BELIEF IS NOT EVIDENCE FOR THAT BELIEF

Another point is that certain doctrines were not chosen by early roman religionists, but instead, certain doctrines were forced upon them by the Roman political/religious movement by pain of death.

For example, once Constantine took sides regarding the “athenasian” trinity, the writings of the “arian” trinity were banned upon pain of death. If someone were caught with such writings, the edicts of the emperor meant having such texts would mean the death of the possessor.

Such tactics forced an appearance of belief and a forced adherence to practices upon those under such edicts whether or not they actually believed in the doctrines they were forced to claim to believe.

Similar mechanisms would have been at play during the various religious inquisitions which forced religious acquiescence in appearance and acts rather than actual belief.


Clear
φυτζσεακακω

 

[paarsurrey]

Please read my post #168 in the thread:
The JW's claim Jesus was not son of Adam.
It is very relevant here also :

If Jesus was not Son of Adam then he could not be Son of Man as well, as he had no seed of a man and he had only seed of a woman and with the same reason he was not Son of God also ,as he had no seed of G-d also. Right friends, please?

Since Jesus had no (physical) seed of God/Allah/YHVH,
Jesus shared no attribute of God/Allah/YHVH, please. Right?

Regards

 

[YoursTrue]

Matthew 16[16] Simon Peter replied, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
[17] And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Also, there's Pentecost that involved Jesus' issuance of the paraclete that would guide his Church. And logic should tell one why would Jesus allow the Church to be destroyed after the Apostles were gone? Wouldn't he supposedly know that would destroy that which he created?

And, btw, if one dismisses all those who came after the Apostles, then maybe they should give their Bible to someone who can use it because it was the Catholic Church in the 4th century that chose the canon of the Bible that almost all Christians use. If one actually believes that the Holy Spirit is gone, thus ignoring Jesus' promises that he would send us the Holy Spirit, and if they also believe that the Church fell into "apostacy", then how could such a supposedly tainted Church choose the scriptures most of us use?

It is this kind of illogic and ignorance of early Church history that makes it all but impossible to have a serious discussion with some people here, thus I don't spend much time with them because they almost always have an excuse or they divert into another topic.

It is the consideration that holy spirit concluded the putting together of the books in terms of solidarity, meaning authenticity and perpetuity. The Catholic Church was instrumental (used by holy spirit) in this. As you mentioned, some other religious circles do not have the same view of what is considered inspired.

 

[YoursTrue]

Since Jesus had no (physical) seed of God/Allah/YHVH,
Jesus shared no attribute of God/Allah/YHVH, please. Right?

Regards

Interesting point, paarsurrey, because Mary also had genes that were inherited from Adam and Eve.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hi @metis :


Metis said : “Also, Jesus said he would guide his Church until the end of time,...” (post #1236)
Clear responded : "1) Can you quote the actual text you are getting this “guide his church” quote from so that readers can examine this phrase to see if it is actually what Jesus said or if you are misquoting? I think you are misquoting the phrasing …
Metis replied Matthew 16:18 "…on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it." (post #1241)
Clear pointed out :Metis, If you read your own quote, it says "I will build my church" . It does not say "I will guide my church until the end of time" as you claimed in post #1236.
Also, your quote "powers of death" is an incorrect quote since no New Testament greek source text says this. The authentic text is "gates of hades". (post #1246)
Metis replied : “Some just like to play word games because translations vary,…” (post #1248)


1) “WORD GAMES” ARE AN ABUSE OF WORDS AND TEXTS

“Word games” are attempts to manipulate words, typically in a way that is unfair or unscrupulous. (“laziness with facts” is a different issue).

I’m asking that when you “quote” a bible text, or any other text, that you do not manipulate it or quote it inaccurately and this is why I pointed out that your “quotes” of biblical texts were NOT biblical texts.

For examples :
You claimed that “Jesus said he would guide his church until the end of time” (Metis, post #1236).
I asked for the biblical quote for this since there is no biblical quote that says this.
When you provided the authentic phrase, it was NOT "I will guide my church", but it was "I will build my church"
IF you consciously tried to pass this text off as “authentic”, then this is a "word game".

Also :
Your quote of the text in the RSV Matt 16:18 is “the powers of death shall not prevail against it…. (Metis, post #1236) ”
Again, there is no Greek source text that reads according to your quote..

The Greek text is Και επι ταυτ τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν και πυλαι αδου ου κατισχυσουσιν αυτησ
οικοδομησω is NOT "guide" but to "build" and the πυλαι αδου are not the "powers of death" but are the "gates of hades".
The GN4 does not list ANY variant texts for these phrases.
Ask someone you trust who reads Greek to tell you what these words say.

I might as well remind you that the RSV is NOT the biblical text of choice for any theologian who can read Greek and who wants to know what the source text says.



2) OFFERING READERS AN IRRATIONAL CHOICE IS TO IGNORE RATIONAL OPTIONS
Metis said : “So, are we to believe that Jesus created his Church only to have it die decades later?” (post #1248)

Of course we do not have to believe this.
This is an irrational choice you are offering readers.

Whether other Christian congregations would have taken the place of the roman congregation in their growth and spreading throughout the world, I think that the principle of revelation by which Peter came to know Jesus was the Christ in Matthew 16:17, (and which was operating from earlier periods of time) continues to operate and guide individuals toward greater levels of truth and civility completely independent of the Roman Christian movement.



I might remind readers that none of these points supports the Roman Claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.


Clear
φυτζτωδρτωω

With all that consideration in mind, what should/would a 'church' teach its members or adherents? Especially one that is guided by holy spirit.
Galatians 5:22,23 - On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

 

[Clear]

With all that consideration in mind, what should/would a 'church' teach its members or adherents? Especially one that is guided by holy spirit.
Galatians 5:22,23 - On the other hand, the fruitage of the spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Hi @YoursTrue

I very much agree with you that the purpose of Gods great, cosmic plan is to teach individuals principles that will prepare them to be able to live together in a social heaven in joy and unity forever.

This principle is confirmed in much of the early literature such as the synagogal prayers (e.g. #3, aposCon 7.34.1-8), and early hymns (e.g. “the pearl”) and Jewish literature (e.g. Zohar).


I think this specific observation of yours is profound and insightful.


Clear
φυτζνεσιτζω