• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Would Jesus teach catholicism

phattonez said:
Jesus is a person with two natures. Again, it is the only way to reconcile all of the verses.
Click to expand...

Another way to reconcile all the verses is to take a Unitarian view, (either an Arian like view or a Socinian), infact that view would be much better since it would not require one to make up whole new theories and ignore plainly written verses, you get to just take the scriptures on what they actually say.

Either it's the beginning of time or some random morning. Which do you think is more plausible?
Click to expand...

Ultimately it doesn't matter because it's POETIC LANGUAGE not making a metaphysical claim .... but the actual word used refers to morning.

In their nature, speaking philosophically, there is no difference between a father and son. If we are of a lesser nature, then we get to a point where our ancestors are all of a greater nature and we are less and less. Is that the position you are defending?
Click to expand...

Depends what you mean by nature, but in that sense angels are of the same "nature" as God also, since they are spirit beings. The point is "Orthodox" Trinitarian theology requires them to be one in "being" .... a father and a son are not one in being, I am a different being from my father, dispite us both being human.

And what the original text says is no different.
Click to expand...

Yes ... the word became flesh, that does NOT mean that prior to that the word was a personal being ... the bible uses this sort of language all the time, it's personification, Jesus was Gods will, Gods Logos come in flesh, he was the means in which Gods will was to be done.

EVEN IF we take the word to be a personal being, John 1:1 destroys trinitarian doctrine.

In the begining the word was with 1.THE GOD and the word was 2.God.

If 1.the God and 2.God are refering to the same being, then you have a huge problem, you have a herasy, you have a form of Modalism, if 1.The God refers to the father then you still have a form of modalism. If 1.The God and 2.God are refering to 2 different beings, then guess what, the translations that say the word was "a God" are correct. If 1. The God refers to being and 2.God refers to form, then you go right back to Unitarianism, there is one being God and other beings can be called divine in some sense .... be it angels, judges, moses or Jesus.
 
RGacky3 said:
Another way to reconcile all the verses is to take a Unitarian view, (either an Arian like view or a Socinian), infact that view would be much better since it would not require one to make up whole new theories and ignore plainly written verses, you get to just take the scriptures on what they actually say.
Click to expand...

It doesn't work with John 3:16.

Ultimately it doesn't matter because it's POETIC LANGUAGE not making a metaphysical claim .... but the actual word used refers to morning.
Click to expand...

If it's not making a metaphysical claim then it is meaningless.

Depends what you mean by nature, but in that sense angels are of the same "nature" as God also, since they are spirit beings. The point is "Orthodox" Trinitarian theology requires them to be one in "being" .... a father and a son are not one in being, I am a different being from my father, dispite us both being human.
Click to expand...

Angels are not God and are not one in being with God.

Yes ... the word became flesh, that does NOT mean that prior to that the word was a personal being ... the bible uses this sort of language all the time, it's personification, Jesus was Gods will, Gods Logos come in flesh, he was the means in which Gods will was to be done.
Click to expand...

So before the Incarnation He was a concept and then after the Incarnation was a personal being? He can't be one then the other. He has to be one.

EVEN IF we take the word to be a personal being, John 1:1 destroys trinitarian doctrine.

In the begining the word was with 1.THE GOD and the word was 2.God.

If 1.the God and 2.God are refering to the same being, then you have a huge problem, you have a herasy, you have a form of Modalism, if 1.The God refers to the father then you still have a form of modalism. If 1.The God and 2.God are refering to 2 different beings, then guess what, the translations that say the word was "a God" are correct. If 1. The God refers to being and 2.God refers to form, then you go right back to Unitarianism, there is one being God and other beings can be called divine in some sense .... be it angels, judges, moses or Jesus.
Click to expand...

Except that, again, angels and these others are not begotten of God. Only Jesus is begotten.
 
phattonez said:
1. It doesn't work with John 3:16.

2. If it's not making a metaphysical claim then it is meaningless.

3. Angels are not God and are not one in being with God.

4.So before the Incarnation He was a concept and then after the Incarnation was a personal being? He can't be one then the other. He has to be one.

5. Except that, again, angels and these others are not begotten of God. Only Jesus is begotten.
Click to expand...

1. Yes it does.

2. How so?

3. So what we arn't talking about that verse, and I've already proven that the "one with" and "in union with" language in John is not speaking ontologically, I've done that OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

4. No, not "he" the word is not a "he."

5. So what? We are talking about the use of the words "theos" in John 1:1, no one is arguing that angels and Jesus are on the same level.
 
RGacky3 said:
1. Yes it does.
Click to expand...

How does the act of begetting get reconciled with a unitarian view?

2. How so?
Click to expand...

Because otherwise it's talking about some random morning.

3. So what we arn't talking about that verse, and I've already proven that the "one with" and "in union with" language in John is not speaking ontologically, I've done that OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven it.

4. No, not "he" the word is not a "he."
Click to expand...

The Son was a concept and then a person? Does that make it sound less absurd?

5. So what? We are talking about the use of the words "theos" in John 1:1, no one is arguing that angels and Jesus are on the same level.
Click to expand...

Angels aren't begotten. In fact, look at Hebrews 1:

"in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs."

And then the rest of the chapter:
Hebrews 1 said:
5 For to what angel did God ever say,“Thou art my Son,
today I have begotten thee”?

Or again,
“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the first-born into the world, he says,
“Let all God’s angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,
“Who makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,
“Thy throne, O God,[b] is for ever and ever,
the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy[c] kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;
therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee
with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.”

10 And,
“Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of thy hands;
11 they will perish, but thou remainest;
they will all grow old like a garment,
12 like a mantle thou wilt roll them up,
and they will be changed.[d]
But thou art the same,
and thy years will never end.”
13 But to what angel has he ever said,
“Sit at my right hand,
till I make thy enemies
a stool for thy feet”?
Click to expand...


Jesus is clearly above the angels, and creation is attributed to Him.
 
phattonez said:
1. How does the act of begetting get reconciled with a unitarian view?

2. Because otherwise it's talking about some random morning.

3. You haven't proven it.

4. The Son was a concept and then a person? Does that make it sound less absurd?

5. Angels aren't begotten. In fact, look at Hebrews 1:

"in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of his nature, upholding the universe by his word of power. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has obtained is more excellent than theirs."

And then the rest of the chapter:

6. Jesus is clearly above the angels, and creation is attributed to Him.
Click to expand...

1. It fits PERFECTLY with a unitarian view, begetting necessarily means one is begetting a sepernate being which is later than the one that begets him.

2. It's using poetic language .... it's not reffering to a specific thing, it's a poem.

3. Yes I have, again Jesus uses the SAME language of the apostles being one with each other, being one with him and being one with God, so it's obviously not a metaphysical statement, there is simply NO way.

4. No, The word was Gods will, NOT a person, not the son, and that will, that logos, became manifest in flesh in the person of Jesus the Son .... when a father talks about his son and before he was born he was a twinkle in his eye, it's obviously not literally, not is he saying this "twinkle" is a person.

5. Again SO WHAT, we are talking about the use of the word THEOS, that word can refer to angels and other beings, if you want to debate about begetting fine, but that has nothing to do with John 1:1 which clearly refers to 2 beings.

6. Look at that verse carefully.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?
Or again,

“I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son”?
6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God’s angels worship him.”
7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his servants flames of fire.”
8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is[c] forever and ever,
and the righteous scepter is the scepter of your[d] kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
10 And,

“In the beginning, Lord, you founded the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like clothing;
12 like a cloak you will roll them up,
and like clothing[e] they will be changed.
But you are the same,
and your years will never end.”
13 But to which of the angels has he ever said,

“Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet”?
14 Are not all angels[f] spirits in the divine service, sent to serve for the sake of those who are to inherit salvation?

Who's talking in verse 8 and 9? God?
He says "of the angels God says" .... then "But of the Son he says ...." Thats the end of God speaking.

Then you have a new argument, "in the begining, lord ...."But to which of the angels"

Virst 8 and 9 go together and first 10 to 13 go together.

No re-read it .... Vrs 10 is talking about God the father ... how do we know? because in verse 13 the "he" is refering to the "lord" talked about in verse 10 ..... OR if you insist that Verse that the "lord" of verse 10 is refering to Jesus then it must be Jesus talking in verse 13 ... which is rediculous.

So no Creation IS NOT attributed to Jesus, it's attributed to God the father, and that God the father who who founded the earth and heavens said to Jesus "Sit at my hand ..."

Read Hebrews as it was written in it's full context, don't try and sneak in your theology when it isn't there.
 
I'd never thought of it in quite that way, Clax. Thanks.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No, Catholicism is a brand of Christianity. Jesus is the supplier.
Click to expand...


Christianity are followers of Jesus--correct? I have attended many major religions claiming to be Christian followers of Jesus. Many major teachings of Jesus are not found in one of them. The only teachers I ever found are the JW teachers. ---like this ultra important teaching from Jesus found at Matt 6:33-- Therefore, keep on seeking first the kingdom and his( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added. ( sustenance, covering, spirituality)

Very important to live daily doing these two things--its a guarantee, Jesus' teachers get this truth deep into each ones heart.
 
kjw47 said:
Christianity are followers of Jesus--correct? I have attended many major religions claiming to be Christian followers of Jesus. Many major teachings of Jesus are not found in one of them. The only teachers I ever found are the JW teachers. ---like this ultra important teaching from Jesus found at Matt 6:33-- Therefore, keep on seeking first the kingdom and his( YHWH(Jehovah) righteousness and all these other things will be added. ( sustenance, covering, spirituality)

Very important to live daily doing these two things--its a guarantee, Jesus' teachers get this truth deep into each ones heart.
Click to expand...
all I know about JWs is that they didn't celebrate anything and they go door to door and hand out the watch tower publications.

I have read several different editions. I saw nothing that seemed bizarre in them. As far as teachers, I never do well learning from a teacher.
 
CLAX1911 said:
all I know about JWs is that they didn't celebrate anything and they go door to door and hand out the watch tower publications.

I have read several different editions. I saw nothing that seemed bizarre in them. As far as teachers, I never do well learning from a teacher.
Click to expand...


The quote from Goldwater is straight out of the heart of satan.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom