Are Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses Christian?

[RebeccaJ]

I will say that if LW7 is not trying to say that Jesus prayed for the apostles to become “consubstantial” like His Father and He are “consubstantial” I cannot make sense of what LW7 is saying. Look at his summary here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14148953&postcount=353
Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.

TOm has been posting here since 2004.
He makes mistakes and SOMETIMES (probably not often enough) recognizes it and even posts that he (I) have.
But, very few of the points I made that you dismissed so cavalierly have really been dealt with in a way that would lead me to question my conclusions. So, I will post something similar in the future. You will claim I am “misquoting,” “twisting,” utilizing "sophistry” (a word by which I understand you and Stephen168 mean “intentionally deceiving”) or something else.
I am not “intentionally deceiving.” I am presenting my understanding of history derived from Catholic and non-Catholic sources. I am presenting my understanding of words and arguments. I am not “intentionally deceiving,” and I suggest you are not RESPONDING.
Of course that is fine.
Charity, TOm

Yada Yada yada." Tom only listens to himself.

 

[Horton]

Yada Yada yada." Tom only listens to himself.

Sometimes I wonder if TOm even listens to himself.

 

[jane_doe]

Jesus never said their would be more divine revelation coming after he went back to the Father. You believe that divine revelation had not ended with the Apostolic age, so can you point to specific verses in the Bible which talk about that in particular?

I’m going to make a couple of points here—

1. No where in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age.
2. Throughout the Bible it says how revelation is given by God (Gen 41:39; Matt 16:17, Gal 1:12, Eph 1:17), that God works through prophets (Amos 3:7).
3. **God does not change **(Mal 3:6; Ps 90:2).
4. The Bible talks about prophets in the last days. For examples in the Book of Revelation.

 

[Stephen168]

1. **God does not change **(Mal 3:6; Ps 90:2).

But Joseph Smith changed god

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

TOmNossor;14149977]Hello Gabriel of 12,
I was responding to an assertion that Paul was called because he walked with Jesus. He did not. Paul was called in a vision.

Greetings TOmNossor; Saul (Paul) of Tarsus persecuted the first century Christians by Jewish religious authority. One can debate that Saul (later Paul) sat in judgement seat against Jesus of Nazareth as a Sanhedrin member, and One cannot dispute the fact, when Saul asked “Who are you Lord”, on the road to Damascus; Jesus being a common name, Saul knew exactly which Jesus was speaking to him.

Paul’s calling was followed by miracles, signs and wonders and the gospel message Paul was teaching was confirmed by living witnesses who walked and talked with Jesus as His apostles. There is in no way, Paul’s ministry parallels with Joseph Smith or any other apostle.

Jesus, Peter, James, and John NEVER sought the approval of Ciaphus for their ministry because while Ciaphus may have had some valid Jewish authority, he was not going to embrace the new authority Jesus brought to His church. Thus, Ciaphus’ blessing was not sought by the “fulfillment of Judaism.”

Jesus does not need any approval of men to say the least by Ciaphas. It is Ciaphas who did not have ears to hear or eyes to see the visitation of God made flesh in their midst, which was a fulfillment of prophecy by Isaiah.

What I think you miss about Jesus Christ, He is the fulfillment of the Law and Prophets to which Ciaphas was to bend his knee at the name of Jesus Christ.

Ciaphas Mosaic Law and Prophets point to Jesus coming death and resurrection, this Old Testament is revealed in the New Testament Gospel and Epistles of the apostles. While the New Testament is hidden in the Old Testament. This canon of scripture is The Word of God revealed to our humanity.

Peace be with you

 

[jane_doe]

Greetings TOmNossor; Saul (Paul) of Tarsus persecuted the first century Christians by Jewish religious authority. One can debate that Saul (later Paul) sat in judgement seat against Jesus of Nazareth as a Sanhedrin member, and One cannot dispute the fact,

Reference for this?

when Saul asked “Who are you Lord”, on the road to Damascus; Jesus being a common name, Saul knew exactly which Jesus was speaking to him.

I have never met Jesus face to face. But I was walking on a road, was struck by a vision, and the person in the vision said his name was “Jesus” I could figure out which Jesus it was in a nanosecond.

I’m assuming Saul, being an intelligent person, could likewise do the same. Therefore, the quickness of his question does not indicate that he had previously met Jesus.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jane_doe;14150369]I’m going to make a couple of points here—

1. No where in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age.

Revelation 22:18-21; Gives a warning of curses to anyone adding to God’s Word of prophecy.

Yet: Joseph Smith not only added another gospel of Jesus Christ., to God’s Word of prophecy, Joseph Smith contradicts God’s Word of promise that divinely reveals “the gates of hell will come against His Church, but will not overcome God’s Church”, when Joseph Smith’s prophecy claims; God’s Church fell into full apostasy, which is a contradiction of God’s prophecy.

Please consider the following apostolic teachings which contradict your personal view of bible revelation;

1. 1 Corinthians 11:4For if someone comes and preaches another Jesus* than the one we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received or a different gospel from the one you accepted,… 13* For such people are false apostles, deceitful workers, who masquerade as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan masquerades as an angel of light. 15So it is not strange that his ministers also masquerade as ministers of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds.

Galatians 1:6e I am amazed that you are so quickly forsaking the one who called you* by [the] grace [of Christ] for a different gospel 7(not that there is another). But there are some who are disturbing you and wish to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8f But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach [to you] a gospel other than the one that we preached to you, let that one be accursed!* 9As we have said before, and now I say again, if anyone preaches to you a gospel other than the one that you received, let that one be accursed!

2 Peter 3:… 2** that you should remember the words **spoken beforehand by the holy prophets and the commandment of the Lord and Savior spoken by your apostles.
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts, 4 and saying, “Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation.”
… 9 **The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance. **

1Timothy 6:3 Whoever teaches something different and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the religious teachings 4is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid disposition for arguments and verbal disputes. From these come envy, rivalry, insults, evil suspicions, 5and mutual friction among people with corrupted minds, who are deprived of the truth, supposing religion to be a means of gain.

…* 11But you, man of God,* avoid all this. Instead, pursue righteousness, devotion, faith, love, patience, and gentleness. 12Compete well for the faith. Lay hold of eternal life, to which you were called when you made the noble confession in the presence of many witnesses.13I charge [you] before God, who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus, who gave testimony under Pontius Pilate for the noble confession, **14to keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearance of our Lord Jesus Christ **15that the blessed and only ruler will make manifest at the proper time, the King of kings and Lord of lords,l 16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, and whom no human being has seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal power. Amen

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

2Thessalonians 2:1We ask you, brothers, with regard to the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our assembling with him,a 2not to be shaken out of your minds suddenly, or to be alarmed either by a “spirit,”* or by an oral statement, or by a letter allegedly from us to the effect that the day of the Lord is at hand.b 3Let no one deceive you in any way. For unless the apostasy comes first and the lawless one is revealed,* the one doomed to perdition, 4c who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god and object of worship, so as to seat himself in the temple of God, claiming that he is a god— 5do you not recall that while I was still with you I told you these things?* …11Therefore, God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie, 12that all who have not believed the truth but have approved wrongdoing may be condemned.

13But we ought to give thanks to God for you always, brothers loved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits* for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in truth.g *14To this end he has [also] called you through our gospel to possess the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.h 15Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. **

1Corinthians 4:1Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy…* *6I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, *so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another. …9 For as I see it,**God has exhibited us apostles as the last of all *14I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. 15Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel.g 16Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me. 17For this reason I am sending you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful son in the Lord; he will remind you of my ways in Christ [Jesus], just as I teach them everywhere in every church.

I will conclude with the Spirit;

1John 4:1
Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
2
This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit that acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God,
3
and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in the world*.
4
You belong to God, children, and you have conquered them, for the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
5
They belong to the world; accordingly, their teaching belongs to the world, and the world listens to them.
6
We belong to God, and **anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit. /B

In order for Joseph Smith’s prophecy or revelations to be of the only One True God. Joseph Smith’s revelations can never contradict any of God’s Word divinely revealed by Jesus Christ, in order for Joseph Smith’s disciples to be considered disciples of Jesus
Christ or Christian.

Peace be with you**

 

[Stephen168]

Such logic does not flow at all. For example: John 17:21 says “That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense. Rather, ONE In belief in God, Goodness, Truth, etc.

Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.

What was her point? see post #321 and #331.

Can you or any Catholic define “consubstantiation” or more importantly the creedal word you say every Sunday "consubstantial? "
I personally believe LDS are on common ground (in common with most or all Catholics) when they do not know what to mean when saying "consubstantial. “

Jesus is consubstancial with us in his humanity, and with God in his divinity.

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God’s Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed:
Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son,** our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity**

I think the quote I provided from the catechism is quite clear:

“our Lord Jesus Christ …] consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity”

But human nature and divine nature are different, thus speaking about God is not the same as speaking about human beings. People who have human nature are different beings, the Three Divine Persons in God are one being. God is one because that is his nature.

I cannot agree that it is sufficiently clear, partially because I believe attempts at clarity will prove futile.
Your view that “consubstantial” is synonymous with “of the same species” cannot account for the ways this term is used within Catholic circles and Catholic history.

Nobody said species. They have said substance or nature, which does account for the ways it was used in Catholic history; same substance/nature.

One simple way of illustrating this is that LDS are quite comfortable with what is called by scholars the “generic” meaning of homoousian (consubstantial). I can affirm that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are homoousian/consubstantial (in the “generic” sense).

First, you haven’t illustrated anything. Consubstantial has one sense and that is meaning the same substance. Mormonism rejects the Christian belief that the Son and the Spirit are consubstantial with the Father.

The most prevalent solution to this problem I see in the literature is to say that when homoousian is used of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit it is used in the “numeric” sense and when it is used of Christ’s humanity and our humanity it is used in the “generic” sense. This IMO makes the Father’s at Chalcedon schizophrenic, but it is the best there is IMO. It is also true that the BULK of the Fathers at Nicea used it in the “generic” sense and only the minority, Athanasius included used it in the “numeric” sense. After Nicea Athanasius called those other Father’s his “brothers” and not “Ariomaniacs,” but today those who only affirm the “generic” sense are unwelcome.
So, I do not think this is clear at all. And I have not even brought into the discussion the REASON many of the Father’s at Nicea were so opposed to “consubstantial.” That would further confuse this issue.

First, you have not laid out a problem that needs to be solved. Second, the above is a rambling incoherent mess. It seems the mess is caused by you trying to create two definitions of a word with one definition by claiming it has two “senses.” And you don’t bother to even define the “senses."

 

[jane_doe]

Revelation 22:18-21; Gives a warning of curses to anyone adding to God’s Word of prophecy.

Revelation 22:18-21 is referring to the Book of Revelation and the prophecies therein. It does not refer to a closing of cannon. It obviously does not indicates a closing of canon, as many of the books in the Bible were not written yet, including the Gospel of John. Other scriptures likewise forbid adding/subtracting from God’s Word and likewise do not close the canon (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6)

I repeat my previous statement: nowhere in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age. Such a statement in and of itself is (ironically) adding to the Bible.

I’ll reply to rest of your post after dinner, I just wanted to get this most important one out first.

 

[Stephen168]

Let me say more clearly what I mean.
Jane believes “consubstantial” doesn’t make sense because she cannot possibly understand what the word means within Catholicism. I don’t and nobody else does either. This word from its origin was little more than a stick to beat heretics with.

1. If it clearly expressed pre-Nicene thought, why so much debate and frustration with it. As I have quoted for you, scholars agree that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was subordinationism. There was a CHANGE (or DEVELOPMENT if you like) at Nicea.

You claim nobody understands consubstantial, then it is explained to you, and you continue to claim that nobody understands it again. You don’t like the word because it clearly defines the Christian understanding of the Trinity which Joseph Smith rejected after starting his new religion. ”Scholars" do not agree that pre-Nicea orthodoxy was universally subordination, so there was no development.

1. One of the reason that many Father refused to embrace “homoousian” was that it was the word already condemned as modalist.

But they embraced consubstantial, which is the subject of the post. They also embraced homoousian at the Council. This paragraph seems like an irrelevant tangent on a post about understand the word consubstantial.

1. This “refusal to embrace” was precisely why “homoousain” was chosen. The Arians must be excluded from communion. They would not embrace “homoousian” and thus it was PERFECT.

No, the word was embraced by the Council because it described the Christian understanding of God; the Trinity. Again the word homoousian is not the word consubstantial, another tangent.

1. Pre-Nicea it already had three different meanings and the Father’s at Nicea embraced it by using two different meanings. Athanasius embraced one meaning and Eusebius of C embraced a different meaning. This is not much of an agreement.

You are not talking about the word consubstantial in this paragraph.

1. The word was so unacceptable, it was rejected for decades following Nicea. The world “groaned” under Arianism with most Bishops embracing Semi-Arian creeds.

You are not talking about the word consubstantial in this paragraph either.

1. The Council of Chalcedon took up the word again. In the space of a single sentence (the Catholic scholar asserts) the word homoousian means two different things. When referring to Father, Son, Holy Spirit it means numeric one-substance-ness. When referring to Jesus and mankind it means generic one-substance-ness. This is no way to use a word to communicate truth. I believe the Fathers had the “generic” mean in mind at Chalcedon, but who knows.

You are not talking about the word consubstantial in this paragraph either and are trying to give the word homoousian two meanings when it has one.

I suggest Jane could not possibly have a definition of Homoousian to mean all the stuff it has come to mean unless she believed it was just a stick to beat on others.

And you complete your sophistry by concluding with Jane not understanding homoousian when you started with consubstantial and Jane used neither word.

A poster on this thread denied Catholic dogma by saying that Christ and humans are not homoousian. Awesome.
A poster on this thread said homoousian should be thought of as “same species.” I understand where this comes from, but …

I suggested that we could leave it at “mystery,” but that seems to have been followed.

And so we are here with Catholic denying dogma and …

A poster clearly explained consubstantial. Consubstantial is easy to understand, as is begotten, and made. They are at the heart of the Christian understanding of God. God which Mormonism rejects and is why Mormons are not Christian.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Reference for this?

I have never met Jesus face to face. But I was walking on a road, was struck by a vision, and the person in the vision said his name was “Jesus” I could figure out which Jesus it was in a nanosecond.

I’m assuming Saul, being an intelligent person, could likewise do the same. Therefore, the quickness of his question does not indicate that he had previously met Jesus.

Please allow me to correct your misunderstanding or your mistake of my post.

First of all, I do not claim the scriptures record Saul meeting Jesus face to face before his resurrection. I repeat; one can debate that Saul may have sat in judgment of Jesus Sanhedrin trial; but that is for another thread, if you care to start another, I would be happy to change the subject elsewhere with you., with biblical, historical and scholary opinion’s references of debate on this particular subject.

I believe the status quo subject of this thread suffices here.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Revelation 22:18-21 is referring to the Book of Revelation and the prophecies therein. It does not refer to a closing of cannon. It obviously does not indicates a closing of canon, as many of the books in the Bible were not written yet, including the Gospel of John. Other scriptures likewise forbid adding/subtracting from God’s Word and likewise do not close the canon (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6)

I repeat my previous statement: nowhere in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age. Such a statement in and of itself is (ironically) adding to the Bible.

I’ll reply to rest of your post after dinner, I just wanted to get this most important one out first.

Lol… the bible never ever mentions another prophet to come like Joseph Smith. Joseph Somth’s name is never in the bible, so why should anyone believe Joseph Smith’s new gospel?. Does not such an argument sound baseless as your claim, of not reading about "ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age?

The only coming of another making divine false claims, when scripture speaks of these, is revealed as the anti-Christ and or false prophet.

Your reading of scripture appears to be interpreting only words. Which neglects the full content of divine revelation by God and His Church revealed in the New Testament.

Let him who has ears to hear, what God’s Word made flesh speaks, and let him who has eyes to see what God reveals to the eyes of the heart.

If you read the scriptures I listed above, they teach and reveal there are no more new gospels or divine revelations in addition to what Jesus and the Apostles reveal.

If you believe there is divine revelation different than the one Jesus reveals and the apostles teach, then you have another gospel which scripture has already accursed.

I see you selected Revelations which is the heavenly liturgy that reveals the full content of the whole bible. So, your assertion that God’s Word is limited to only the book of Revelation when Revelation speaks of those who are accursed who add too the prophecies written in the book of Revelation, when Revelation does just that, Reveal **all of God’s prophecies **coming to fulfillment in the Son of Man.

But such a subject to digress here with you, may be above the pay rate here,.

Peace be with you

 

[LivingWaters7]

I’ll respond to individual posts later (just got in from work), but all I’ll say for now is that this has become way more complicated and convoluted than it should be, and I’m not sure why.

As I outlined earlier, in response to:

So explain that to me. How are God and Christ “one” yet they don’t share the same substance? Doesn’t one logically have to follow from the other?

jane doe said:

Such logic does not flow at all. For example: John 17:21 says “That they all may be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you have sent me.”
Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantation? That doesn’t make any sense. Rather, ONE In belief in God, Goodness, Truth, etc.

My question is, why doesn’t it make any sense?

As I said earlier, by “co-substantiation” I assume jane doe means consubstantiation, but anyway, my question is, what does jane doe believe the word means that leads her to say that Padres logic doesn’t flow at all, and that us being one with the Father through consubstantiation doesn’t make sense. She said that Tom had addressed this, but as I showed in my post, he didn’t, and I’m just wondering what her thought process is that leads her to say what she said.

Not sure why this is so difficult.

 

[jane_doe]

Lol… the bible never ever mentions another prophet to come like Joseph Smith. Joseph Somth’s name is never in the bible, so why should anyone believe Joseph Smith’s new gospel?. Does not such an argument sound baseless as your claim, of not reading about "ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age?

The only coming of another making divine false claims, when scripture speaks of these, is revealed as the anti-Christ and or false prophet.

Your reading of scripture appears to be interpreting only words. Which neglects the full content of divine revelation by God and His Church revealed in the New Testament.

Let him who has ears to hear, what God’s Word made flesh speaks, and let him who has eyes to see what God reveals to the eyes of the heart.

If you read the scriptures I listed above, they teach and reveal there are no more new gospels or divine revelations in addition to what Jesus and the Apostles reveal.

If you believe there is divine revelation different than the one Jesus reveals and the apostles teach, then you have another gospel which scripture has already accursed.

I see you selected Revelations which is the heavenly liturgy that reveals the full content of the whole bible. So, your assertion that God’s Word is limited to only the book of Revelation when Revelation speaks of those who are accursed who add too the prophecies written in the book of Revelation, when Revelation does just that, Reveal **all of God’s prophecies **coming to fulfillment in the Son of Man.

But such a subject to digress here with you, may be above the pay rate here,.

Peace be with you

None of this replies to anything I said.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

None of this replies to anything I said.

Sure it does;

you made the claim;

jane_doe;14150369]I’m going to make a couple of points here—

1. No where in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age.

I have no idea why you bring up the canon of scripture?

My answer to your claim follows;

Revelation 22:18-21; Gives a warning of curses to anyone adding to God’s Word of prophecy.

Then you responded;

Originally Posted by jane_doe View Post
Revelation 22:18-21 is referring to the Book of Revelation and the prophecies therein. It does not refer to a closing of cannon…Other scriptures likewise forbid adding/subtracting from God’s Word and likewise do not close the canon (Deuteronomy 4:2, Deuteronomy 12:32, and Proverbs 30:6)
I repeat my previous statement: nowhere in the Bible does there say there will be a ceasing of revelation after the Apostolic age

.

In short was my response see post 407,408
“I see you selected Revelations ( apart from the other scriptures I provided for you) which is the heavenly liturgy that reveals the full content of the whole bible. So, your assertion that God’s Word is limited to only the book of Revelation when Revelation speaks of those who are accursed who add too the prophecies written in the book of Revelation, when Revelation does just that, Reveal all of God’s prophecies coming to fulfillment in the Son of Man”.

In summary, because Revelations sums up the whole of Scripture and prophecy. To add one letter to this book is the same as adding one letter to the whole of scripture.

Let me briefly explain; Your scholarly approach to scripture is secular and not theological.
The theological or divine revelation revealed in the book of revelations encompasses the whole of God’s revealed Word in all of scripture, to add, “no pun intended”, no one can add to these prophecies revealed in the book of revelation.

Your scholarly approach to Revelations does not enter into the mysteries of God’s prophecies revealed in the book of revelation. Your approach towards the book of Revelations places a limit on God’s Word to time and space, and discounts God’s prophecies revealed in space and time, fulfilled in the book of Revelation, when the book of Revelations is fulfilling all of God’s prophecy revealed from the eternal heavens. One needs a theological undertaking here towards God’s prophecies to which no one can add to them, which includes all prophecy.

“God has exhibited us apostles as the last of all” there are no more new prophets or prophecies after the last apostles.

1Corinthians 4:1Thus should one regard us: as servants of Christ and stewards of the mysteries of God. 2Now it is of course required of stewards that they be found trustworthy…* 6I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brothers, so that you may learn from us not to go beyond what is written, so that none of you will be inflated with pride in favor of one person over against another. …9 For as I see it,God has exhibited us apostles as the last of all **

Please see the other scriptures which contradict your claim in post 407 and 408.

p.s you never answered my question? What makes you a Christian?

Peace be with you

 

[jane_doe]

I have no idea why you bring up the canon of scripture?

Because you’re arguing for a closed canon. It’s the subject matter.

In summary, because Revelations sums up the whole of Scripture and prophecy.

Do you have a Biblical reference for this, or is this your added commentary?

To add one letter to this book is the same as adding one letter to the whole of scripture.

But one can casually ignore the other three places in scripture where it says the same thing?
And one can ignore that much of the Bible was written after this verse and that’s ok?
No! Your interpretation is logically faulty.

Your scholarly approach to scripture is secular and not theological. [Jane abridging]

Your scholarly approach to Revelations does not enter into the mysteries of God’s prophecies revealed in the book of revelation. Your approach towards the book of Revelations places a limit on God’s Word to time and space, and discounts God’s prophecies revealed in space and time, fulfilled in the book of Revelation, when the book of Revelations is fulfilling all of God’s prophecy revealed from the eternal heavens.

False assumptions.

Please see the other scriptures which contradict your claim in post 407 and 408.

I already thoroughly addressed some of them, see post 389.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

jane_doe;14150858]Because you’re arguing for a closed canon. It’s the subject matter

.

I am sorry jane, I cannot take any of your posting’s as valid or serious, when you make the false assumption, that I am arguing for a closed canon when I never was.

In closing; I revealed to you that there is no more added or new public divine revelation as another gospel Joseph Smith introduced. Scripture reveals these new gospels are accursed.

Peace be with you

 

[jane_doe]

.

I am sorry jane, I cannot take any of your posting’s as valid or serious, when you make the false assumption, that I am arguing for a closed canon when I never was.

In closing; I revealed to you that there is no more added or new public divine revelation as another gospel Joseph Smith introduced. Scripture reveals these new gospels are accursed.

Peace be with you

You’re free to your opinion, and I respect ate. Have good night yourself

 

[TOmNossor]

TOmNossor;14150004:

I will say that if LW7 is not trying to say that Jesus prayed for the apostles to become “consubstantial” like His Father and He are “consubstantial” I cannot make sense of what LW7 is saying. Look at his summary here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=14148953&postcount=353

Nobody on this thread may be able to define “consubstantial,” but I am pretty sure there is no definition that voids Jane’s point.
Hi TOmNossor, Which are the verses of the passage and what is your interpretation or belief about them?
Thank you in advance.

Hello again.
I will tell you what I see in the summary offered on this post. You can tell me what I misunderstand about this summary. I think that will show what I am saying well enough (but you need to read LW7’s summary of the conversation).
Jane suggest that in John 17:21 we have a piece of Biblical text that can help us know HOW God the Father and God the Son are one. I will say that I know of no other text in the Bible that lends itself as well to answer HOW God the Father and God the Son are ONE than this scripture.
Jesus in what is called the “High Priestly prayer” says:
John 17:21 KJV: That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
She asks then, “Are we to be one with the Father through co-substantiation. That doesn’t make any sense.”
LW7 does not reply to the spirit of her question which IMO is quite obvious. He sees that she has used the term “co-substantiation” which of course is not the word “consubstantiation.” I have no idea what point he wants to make, but he suggests that if Jane doesn’t understand what “co-substantiation” or “consubstantiation” (to LW7’s credit he does not seem to fixated on the incorrect term like other posters) then of course it will not make sense. He asks her to define the word.
So, you have suggested that “consubstantial” means “same nature.” Alcstr understands what you say to mean “like: same species.”
I have offered something I have learned from Protestant and/or Catholic scholars that ONE meaning of Homoousian (Consubstantial) is “of one substance in the generic sense.” This “generic” sense is the sense all Catholic scholars take when claiming that Christ is consubstantial with mankind. It is reasonably explained as “same species.” (even though Stephen168 says that “Nobody said species.”) But, the high priestly prayer doesn’t work with this meaning.
“That they (the disciples) may be one (species) as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one (species)”
The disciples are already one species. If the oneness of Father and Son is consubstantial in this meaning then it makes no sense for Christ to ask that the disciples become one (with themselves concerning their species) when they are already one with themselves concerning their species.
Now, you personally have not mentioned this, but there is a 2nd meaning scholars recognize for homoousian. It is called homoousian in the “numeric” sense. Most Christian scholars I have read who deal with this demand that the Father and the Son are homoousian in the “numerically one in substance” not “generically one in substance.”
So, if we use homoousian in the numeric sense, we have.
“That they (the disciples) may be one (numerically in substance, a single being) as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one (numerically in substance, a single being)”
I think this is a particularly difficult read here.
The third sense of homoousian was specifically denied (by Constantine interestingly enough).

So, I suggest that you can say “co-substantiation” and have little understanding of the nuance of this word homoousian and still know that John 17:21 militates against believing that the Father and the Son are one due to their homoousian. And I further suggest that insisting on a thorough exploration of the definition of the word homoousian is a distraction from Jane’s point which was quite good.

Hope that makes sense.

Let me say that I do not believe complexity equals falsity. I do believe that Catholicism DEVELOPED into positions that are unlikely to be what original Christianity believed. The idea that the Fathers at Chalcedon meant,
“Christ is homoousian (in the numeric sense) with God the Father in His divinity, and Christ is homoousian (in the generic sense) with mankind in His humanity” IMO makes the Chalcedon Fathers either jokesters or schizophrenic and I think they were neither.
Similarly the exchange formula: “Christ become what we are so that we might become what He is.” Is interpreted in a way that makes Irenaeus either a jokester of schizophrenic. Discussed by Catholic scholar Daniel Keating.
IMO these are both symptoms of a radical creator/creature dichotomy that DEVELOPED in early Christianity. It is IMO quite possible to adequately elevate and respect Christ and His divinity without defining divinity as that which is totally and completely incompatible with humanity. God’s absolute immutability is another development in these areas discussed by Eastern Orthodox scholar Jaroslav Pelikan.
I see fingerprints in many places, but perhaps I see wrongly.
Charity, TOm