Can Jesus be God and have a god?

[Fomalhaut]

I just have to post that, sorry if that offend you, I hope that can make you laugh.

http://imgup.ru/images/veax3123820.jpg

 

[SonCatcher]

If the Jewish Priests, Pharisees, and Rabbis could lose their way, then what makes you think that our Popes, Bishops, and priests are immune? You don’t need to answer because we are getting a bit off topic, but maybe it’s something to think about.

Individually they are not. However, as a body, the successors of the Apostles are protected from error by the Holy Spirit.

 

[SonCatcher]

I just have to post that, sorry if that offend you, I hope that can make you laugh.

http://imgup.ru/images/veax3123820.jpg

Modalist. But funny, nonetheless.

 

[JK8619]

Your question ties in exactly with what JWs spout, so it is relevant. I know their doctrines well.

You are just comparing me to Jehovah’s Witnesses because you think that it will somehow discredit me by comparing me to what’s considered a cult by many people (i am not giving my opinion of JWs here). My beliefs about Jesus and God are actually more similar to the Biblical Unitarian belief.

 

[JK8619]

I just have to post that, sorry if that offend you, I hope that can make you laugh.

http://imgup.ru/images/veax3123820.jpg

Thanks for the laugh.

 

[johnnyjones]

You are just comparing me to Jehovah’s Witnesses because you think that it will somehow discredit me by comparing me to what’s considered a cult by many people (i am not giving my opinion of JWs here). My beliefs about Jesus and God are actually more similar to the Biblical Unitarian belief.

I have no interest in discrediting you. I find your remark immature and ultra defensive. My point was only that what you are asking , is what they believe.

Apparently you disregarded the time and effort I put into trying to help you understand the seeming dilemma between God and Jesus. If you can get a hold on your sensitivity level, read what was further included in my post.

 

[JK8619]

I have no interest in discrediting you. I find your remark immature and ultra defensive. My point was only that what you are asking , is what they believe.

Apparently you disregarded the time and effort I put into trying to help you understand the seeming dilemma between God and Jesus. If you can get a hold on your sensitivity level, read what was further included in my post.

Yeah, repeatedly comparing me to a JW was real helpful.

 

[SonCatcher]

I realize all of that, but if the writings of the apostles conflict with later church tradition, then I will side with what the apostles wrote.

Protestants say the same, yet they defend the divinity of Christ.

In fact, while I don’t normally do this, even virulent anti-Catholics have some powerful articles regarding the divinity of Christ:

Is Jesus God?
Jesus id God

Don’t browse their site, however. Their discussion of anything other than Fundamentalist Evangeliclism really turns the stomach.

 

[johnnyjones]

Yeah, repeatedly comparing me to a JW was real helpful.

Your question lines up with what the JWs believe about the deity of Christ and that is a reality. You can’t rearrange that fact. You somehow developed a case of self pity even though no reference to you being a JW was stated. Wise up.

 

[Wandile]

I’m surprised nobody has mentioned the Athanasian creed yet. It deals with this specific issue :

…Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting Salvation, that he also believe rightly the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man.

God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before
the worlds; and Man, of the substance of His mother,
born into the world. Perfect God and Perfect Man, of a
reasonable Soul and human Flesh subsisting. Equal
to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to
the Father as touching His Manhood. Who, although
He be God and Man, yet He is not two, but One
Christ.

Jesus is explained in the hypostatic union. In his deity he is equal to the Father but in his manhood he is inferior and thus has a God above him.

 

[R_C]

R_C,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question. You made some good points, better than most who argue for the trinity, but I still don’t agree with many of your beliefs. For a time I really wanted to believe in the trinity doctrine because it is what the church teaches. The more I read the bible, the more I could not accept the trinity. Not just because I don’t see it there, but because I see it as a contradiction to the scripture. I believe in Jesus as the Messiah and a prophet, but not God. It’s not just the verses that I have listed, but many others as well that make me believe what I do. I have even studied a bit of koine Greek to get a more accurate idea of what certain verses mean and it just further reinforced my beliefs. I doubt I’ll ever accept the trinity doctrine, but I am always willing to listen to new ideas about it.

Without trying to be offensive, I think you are acting with a little bit of an excess of presumption here. Do you really consider yourself such a high-ranking biblical scholar, as to be able to discard 20 centuries of Catholic theology in favor of a couple of really old and repeatedly refused errors - the idea, that is, that God is not a Trinity, or that Christ is a lesser figure than God?

No matter how many verses you can locate, even if you were as gifted as Thomas Aquinas and could memorize the whole Bible and many other treatises and be able to quote them off the top of your head, you would still not be able to make a solid point against the Trinity, or against the divinity of Christ…simply because many others have tried for a very long time and have not succeeded; and nothing hints at the possibility of you succeding where thei failed, since there is only so much one can argue from a rational standpoint until all arguments are exhausted. Not that you are attempting to refute something, but simply following something already refuted without being aware of the arguments brought forth agains it.

And by the way, that which we loosely term “unitarianism” is a doctrine that has been in development in the past 2 centuries (3 at most), and the very fact that it is in open contradiction with what orthodox Christianity has been for basically ever should suffice from disqualifying it. I mean, there are - for that matter - much more ancient and attractive erroneous doctrines that one may follow, whose followers, of course, back up their arguments with a wide selection of Biblical quotes. Ultimately, they all fall under the condemnation of Paul:

I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. Even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema.

I exhort you to start reading the writings of the Church Fathers and of the Doctors of the Church on these matters. Once you have learned the solid foundations of orthodox Christian doctrine, you can then - at your own risk - read about new and erroneous doctrines, and you will then be able to see the errors for yourself, because you will have something most respectable to compare them against.

 

[Della]

If the Jewish Priests, Pharisees, and Rabbis could lose their way, then what makes you think that our Popes, Bishops, and priests are immune? You don’t need to answer because we are getting a bit off topic, but maybe it’s something to think about.

Jesus promised the Apostles they would not “lose their way”:

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The same charism is passed on to those upon whom the bishop lays his hands.

If Jesus was not both God and man his words would mean nothing. If he could not promise the Holy Spirit, then he is not the Son of God. If the Father did not listen to the Son, we wouldn’t be here discussing this issue. The Church has full authority to decide matters of faith and morals until Christ comes again, because Jesus gave that authority to Peter and the Apostles.

 

[JK8619]

Do you really consider yourself such a high-ranking biblical scholar, as to be able to discard 20 centuries of Catholic theology…

17 centuries, and maybe so. Unfortunately I don’t have the time now to lay out a good argument (I actually was not looking for an argument on the trinity, but an answer to the questions about the verses that I posted) with all the different posters that have responded, taking the topic in different directions. You have made some intelligent points. If I new you personally, I would love to discuss this topic in person with you, but that is obviously not an option. One thing I have learned is that it is difficult to discuss something so complicated as the trinity at an online forum. I mainly wanted to address the verse that I listed, but it has become evident that to really discuss those verses, you probably would have to go over the trinity in general, which is what is happening. I plan on only posting on this thread once or twice more.

-JK

No matter how many verses you can locate, even if you were as gifted as Thomas Aquinas and could memorize the whole Bible and many other treatises and be able to quote them off the top of your head, you would still not be able to make a solid point against the Trinity, or against the divinity of Christ…simply because many others have tried for a very long time and have not succeeded; and nothing hints at the possibility of you succeding where thei failed, since there is only so much one can argue from a rational standpoint until all arguments are exhausted. Not that you are attempting to refute something, but simply following something already refuted without being aware of the arguments brought forth agains it.

And by the way, that which we loosely term “unitarianism” is a doctrine that has been in development in the past 2 centuries (3 at most), and the very fact that it is in open contradiction with what orthodox Christianity has been for basically ever should suffice from disqualifying it. I mean, there are - for that matter - much more ancient and attractive erroneous doctrines that one may follow, whose followers, of course, back up their arguments with a wide selection of Biblical quotes. Ultimately, they all fall under the condemnation of Paul

Those are mostly opinions, not facts, but thanks anyway. I do appreciate the way you conduct yourself, speaking politely, even though we disagree on this topic. You have given me some insight on how Trinitarians understand the verses I have posted.

There is one last thing that I find interesting and would like to mention. I have come across several devout, life long Catholics that had no idea, until sometime into adulthood, that the Church teaches that Jesus is God. Of those who I knew personally, not one ever accepted the trinity. I’m not trying to make any points by this. I just find it interesting that so many Catholics that attend Mass regularly do not know something that is considered so important.

Thanks,
JK

 

[SonCatcher]

17 centuries

That’s your opinion.

This tract on the main CA site cites the Church Fathers as as early as 110 AD explicitly referring to Jesus as God.

Ignatius of Antioch, per tradition, learned directly from the Apostles.

Do you honestly believe that the Apostles would be unable to correctly convey Jesus’ nature to their own students?

 

[JK8619]

Jesus promised the Apostles they would not “lose their way”:

i am well aware of that, but I am not aware of him making that promise to all later clergy. Remember, Jesus said that even the elect may be fooled. -JK

John 14:26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.

John 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.

The same charism is passed on to those upon whom the bishop lays his hands.

If Jesus was not both God and man his words would mean nothing.

I disagree because he was given authority over us from God. Maybe it’s just me, but your point doesn’t seem to make sense. None of the prophets are God. Does that make their words meaningless to you? I would be interested in a clarification.

JK

 

[JK8619]

I am not sure if I will have time to continue posting on this thread, but I got a couple of sections.

1. I would suggest reading John chapter 17. Jesus’s prayer to God may help you better understand their relationship.
2. check out biblicalunitarian.com.

JK

 

[SonCatcher]

i am well aware of that, but I am not aware of him making that promise to all later clergy. Remember, Jesus said that even the elect may be fooled. -JK

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 24:24[/BIBLEDRB]

That “if possible” seems to remove the chance that the elect could actually be fooled.

Still, your statement begs the question: Since Ignatius of Antioch is not supposed to have had major teachers besides the Apstles, who could have even deceived him?

 

[johnnyjones]

Water. One of the greatest symbols in sacred scripture. It can be a solid, a liquid or a vapor. One substance, yet it can manifest itself in separate and distinct ways.

John 1:1 If the word WAS God He (Jesus) is God, and when Jesus “has a God” he has one as a man, and speaks with the limitations of a man. He can also speak in His human body as God. Col 2:9 “In Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead BODILY.”

 

[SonCatcher]

I am not sure if I will have time to continue posting on this thread, but I got a couple of sections.

1. I would suggest reading John chapter 17. Jesus’s prayer to God may help you better understand their relationship.

JK

Funny you should mention John 17.

[BIBLEDRB]John 17:5[/BIBLEDRB]

Jesus acknowledges here His own Eternal nature. Not even the angels are eternal.

 

[R_C]

Those are mostly opinions, not facts, but thanks anyway. I do appreciate the way you conduct yourself, speaking politely, even though we disagree on this topic. You have given me some insight on how Trinitarians understand the verses I have posted.

There is one last thing that I find interesting and would like to mention. I have come across several devout, life long Catholics that had no idea, until sometime into adulthood, that the Church teaches that Jesus is God. Of those who I knew personally, not one ever accepted the trinity. I’m not trying to make any points by this. I just find it interesting that so many Catholics that attend Mass regularly do not know something that is considered so important.

Thanks,
JK

I also appreciate how you keep the debate. I am not arguing that those arguments are weak - far from it! However, I know with certainty that they are ultimately erroneous. However - as you wisely say - since we cannot truly discuss this material online, I am forced to limit my remarks to my opinions.

It certainly does not mean much that many Catholics ignore basic things. I know that in the US alone only 24% of “Catholics” attend Holy Mass on Sunday (a precept of Holy Church that binds us under pain of mortal sin). In fact, there was a time in history when over 90% of all bishops were under the Arian heresy and incurred in excommunication, and only 1 to 3% of the episcopal sees remained in the faith. Of course, this did not make Arianism right, and the Spirit enlightened several great theologians to refute their argument and eventually the heresy vanished - some traces surviving to this days in “unitarianism” and other small modern doctrines as such.

I do sincerely doubt that the ignorance of the Catholic doctrine is so profound, for every Holy Mass has, in the Minor Elevation, the prayer, when lifting Christ in the Eucharist: “through Him, with Him, and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honor and glory is yours, Almighty Father, forever and ever”, and every Sunday (“Dominus Die”, “Lord’s Day”) we pray the Credo, the Christian Profession of Faith, which is without doubt a most clear and concise teaching of the Trinity and of the dual nature of Christ.

I would, again, exhort you to consider what the Church Fathers and the Church Doctors - particularly Thomas Aquinas - had to say on these topics. Their writings constitute orthodox Christian tradition, and we know where their teaching comes from. All other arguments, no matter how complex or solid or scriptural or subtle may be, we do not know where they come from and are only truthful in appearance.

Already in the second century (110 AD more or less), Ignatius of Antioch was very explicit:

Study, therefore, to be established in the doctrines of the Lord and the apostles, that so all things, whatsoever ye do, may prosper both in the flesh and spirit; in faith and love; in the Son, and in the Father, and in the Spirit

Also in the second century Polycarp, writing to refute the Patripassian heresy of Praxeas, wrote:

We however, as we indeed have always done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son …] who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel. …] And at the same time the mystery of the oikonomia is safeguarded, for the unity is distributed in a Trinity. Placed in order, the three are the Father, Son, and Spirit. They are three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in being, but in form; not in power, but in kind; of one being, however, and one condition and one power, because he is one God of whom degrees and forms and kinds are taken into account in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

The Catholic Encyclopedia may present an interesting summary here , but if you seek to understand this most profound mystery, you cannot, for the sake of intellectual honesty, omit to learn what orthodox doctrine has taught ever since - as I showed - the first century AD.

Dinner is ready May the Holy Spirit strengthen you in your blessed search for wisdom.