Do Gregory of Nyssa and John of Damascus claim that Pagan teachings were incorporated into their Doctrine of the Trinity?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dan_Parker
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tomster said:
Dan,

Don’t forget to include this one too. It’s very informative.

catholic.com/thisrock/quickquestions/keyword/Jehovahs%20Witness
Click to expand...
I finally looked over some of those. Very interesting! Now I see where the arguments were coming from on this board. None of the ones I saw presented a problem, and since my responses were not as predicted in those quickquestions I can see why there were no satisfactory responses to my posts. I broke the script.
 
Not really. I was browsing and found myself in the non-Catholic JW/LDS thread. I registered and a Catholic named PFMerger linked over here. My interest is discussing Scripture with others who hold different views, being challenged and challenging others to examine their beliefs. I don’t consider this part of my ministry. It is a hobby. It is fun.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)

I apologize.
 
Dan,

If you feel up to answering some of the other ?'s from my post #71, they still remain.😉
 
LionHeart777 said:
Thanks for your opinion on what the Bible writers teach and don’t teach, but I disagree with you. How should we resolve this? Who should we take this matter before?
Click to expand...
I believe I illustrate this with the post in my signature called Trinity. We should take as our foundational and essential doctrine what bible writers teach in context. I don’t argue that all that is said about a particular teaching in one passage. However the basic concept should be articulated. Foundational doctrines such as eternal life, ransom sacrifice, baptism, eternal punishment, etc are not established with systematic theology. They are all taught by one or more bible writers as basic concepts and then later these teachings are expanded upon, once again in context.

Can you provide a legitimate Christian teaching whose basic concept is established by combining passages from different bible writers all teaching a subject other than the basic concept that is extracted and pasted together like a patchwork quilt at a sewing bee?

The Trinity stands alone. Why is that?
 
Dan_Parker said:
I believe I illustrate this
Click to expand...
All Catholic teaching is “a legitimate Christian teaching whose basic concept is established by combining passages from different bible writers”. The fundamental basic concept of course is the Christ, Jesus. Some of the determining factors in interpreting Biblical text include but are not limited to:

In what form it was written, e.g., prose, poetry, history, etc. (Literary Form)
Why it was written.
When it was written.
What is the whole book about?
What is the meaning of each word?
How does it fit in with other parts of the Bible on the same subject?
The Old Testament is organized under three major headings:
The Law - this is the first in importance and consists of the first five books.
The Prophets - this consists of the preaching attributed to the prophets and their writings and the Books of Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings.
The Writings - this consists of the remainder of the Old Testament.
The Bible is God’s gift to us. The Bible is God’s love letter to His people. It was written over many centuries and contains different kinds of writing. We all need help to interpret what is being said in the different books. The Catholic Church offers that help.

We can also provide historically verified documentation and codex supporting the era the documents have generated from, the terms and wording used in its origin as well as support to the lineage of the Catholic Faith as that which Jesus founded. What I would request of you is to provide your educational degrees (masters required to compare to others) in Ancient languages, ancient civilizations, and written form, and the supported document trail dating back 2000 years verifying the references you use to present your faith as biblically accurate and Catholicism wrongfully presented.

REV CH7; 9 After this I had a vision of a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation, race, people, and tongue. They stood before the throne and before the Lamb, wearing white robes and holding palm branches in their hands. 10 They cried out in a loud voice: “Salvation comes from our God, who is seated on the throne, and from the Lamb.”
11 All the angels stood around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures. They prostrated themselves before the throne, worshiped God, 12 and exclaimed: “Amen. Blessing and glory, wisdom and thanksgiving, honor, power, and might be to our God forever and ever. Amen.” 13 Then one of the elders spoke up and said to me, “Who are these wearing white robes, and where did they come from?” 14 I said to him, “My lord, you are the one who knows.” He said to me, "These are the ones who have survived the time of great distress; they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. 15 “For this reason they stand before God’s throne and worship him day and night in his temple. The one who sits on the throne will shelter them.”

[1-17] An interlude of two visions precedes the breaking of the seventh seal, just as two more will separate the sixth and seventh trumpets (Rev 10). In the first vision (⇒ Rev 7:1-8), the elect receive the seal of the living God as protection against the coming cataclysm; cf ⇒ Rev 14:1; ⇒ Ezekiel 9:4-6; ⇒ 2 Cor 1:22; ⇒ Eph 1:13; ⇒ 4:30. The second vision (⇒ Rev 7:9-17) portrays the faithful Christians before God’s throne to encourage those on earth to persevere to the end, even to death.

[4-9] One hundred and forty-four thousand: the square of twelve (the number of Israel’s tribes) multiplied by a thousand, symbolic of the new Israel (cf ⇒ Rev 14:1-5; ⇒ Gal 6:16; ⇒ James 1:1) that embraces people from every nation, race, people, and tongue (⇒ Rev 7:9).
5 [5-8] Judah is placed first because of Christ; cf “the Lion of the tribe of Judah” (⇒ Rev 5:5). Dan is omitted because of a later tradition that the antichrist would arise from it.
6 [9] White robes . . . palm branches: symbols of joy and victory; see the note on ⇒ Rev 3:5.
7 [10] Salvation comes from: literally, “(let) salvation (be ascribed) to.” A similar hymn of praise is found at the fall of the dragon (⇒ Rev 12:10) and of Babylon (⇒ Rev 19:1).

Should anyone feel I am being unreasonble, please correct me in my request.
 
Tomster said:
Dan,

You must be very busy trying to keep up. Don’t forget the above link. It pretty much says it all.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the need to debate links, but as it appears, those arguments are coming to me from those reading them (and perhaps even from someone who is writing them!)
 
Dan_Parker said:
I don’t see the need to debate links, but as it appears, those arguments are coming to me from those reading them (and perhaps even from someone who is writing them!)
Click to expand...
Dan,

Once again, and this is getting pretty old, I am not asking you to debate a link. How could one debate an inanimate object anyway? Duh! I am asking you to refute it, point by point, from the very latest doctrinal pronouncements from your home office in Brooklyn, New York.

Please, Dan, make the effort, point by point. Denials and “I just don’t see it” comments are not good enough. The facts Dan, just the facts. Your credibility is really at stake here.
 
WORSHIPING JESUS
Click to expand...
We should expect to find that the Society’s newer teachings, while more developed than older teachings, are essentially the same as the older ones. In actuality there often is no such continuity. The Society has done a 180-degree turn on some doctrines, while vacillating back and forth between possible interpretations on others. Its so-called “bright light” has been flickering on and off.
Click to expand...
"Question: The fact that our Lord received worship is claimed by some to be an evidence that while on earth he was God the Father disguised in a body of flesh and not really a man. Was he really worshiped, or is the translation faulty? Answer: Yes, we believe our Lord Jesus while on earth was really worshiped, and properly so . . . " (Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1898, 216).
Click to expand...
“Since Jehovah God now reigns as King by means of his capital organization Zion, then whosoever would worship him must also worship and bow down to Jehovah’s Chief One in that capital organization, namely, Christ Jesus, his Co-regent on the throne of The Theocracy” (The Watchtower, October 15, 1945, 313).
Click to expand...
“Hebrews 1:6 relates to Jesus’ position under God. . . . Though Psalm 97:7, which speaks about worshiping God, was applied to Christ at Hebrews 1:6, Paul had shown that the resurrected Jesus is ‘the reflection of [God’s] glory and the exact representation of his very being’ (Heb. 1:1–3). So any ‘worship’ the angels give God’s Son is relative and is directed through him to Jehovah” (The Watchtower, January 15, 1992, 23; brackets in original).
Click to expand...
“From Jesus’ words and actions, it is clear that only Jehovah God is to be worshiped” (The Watchtower, May 1, 1989, 18).
Click to expand...
“Religious leaders of Christendom followed the same course. They replaced the name Jehovah with ‘God’ (‘Allah’ in Arabic) and ‘Lord.’ That contributed to the development of the false doctrine of the Trinity, which has no basis in the Holy Scriptures. Because of this, millions mistakenly worship Jesus and the holy spirit and consider them equal to God” (The Watchtower, November 1, 1993, 4).
Click to expand...
Hi Dan,

I looked over Tom’s link here, and I just had a quick question. Does it present a problem to you that Watchtower changed its views on worshiping the son? Or is this article inacurate on the doctrinal changes it presents?

God bless,
Ut
 
Tomster said:
Dan,

Once again, and this is getting pretty old, I am not asking you to debate a link. How could one debate an inanimate object anyway? Duh! I am asking you to refute it, point by point, from the very latest doctrinal pronouncements from your home office in Brooklyn, New York.

Please, Dan, make the effort, point by point. Denials and “I just don’t see it” comments are not good enough. The facts Dan, just the facts. Your credibility is really at stake here.
Click to expand...
I have already said before that I am here to talk to people, particularly friendly and respectful people. If you look at my participation here it is clear I don’t back off from Scriptural challenges. If you would like to put those arguments into your own words and defend them, then I will participate. But you need to put as much effort into the discussion as I do. And from looking at those links, you can be sure that they won’t give you all the information you will need to complete the subjects you select.
 
Dan_Parker said:
I have already said before that I am here to talk to people, particularly friendly and respectful people. If you look at my participation here it is clear I don’t back off from Scriptural challenges. .
Click to expand...
I have responded to this three times and deleted each time. I’ll go now.:rolleyes:
 
Dan_Parker said:
I have already said before that I am here to talk to people, particularly friendly and respectful people. If you look at my participation here it is clear I don’t back off from Scriptural challenges. If you would like to put those arguments into your own words and defend them, then I will participate. But you need to put as much effort into the discussion as I do. And from looking at those links, you can be sure that they won’t give you all the information you will need to complete the subjects you select.
Click to expand...
look out, here it comes…:eek:
 
utunumsint said:
Hi Dan,

I looked over Tom’s link here, and I just had a quick question. Does it present a problem to you that Watchtower changed its views on worshiping the son? Or is this article inacurate on the doctrinal changes it presents?

God bless,
Ut
Click to expand...
Maybe that should be the starting point for any discussion, the ever changing doctrinal positions of the JW’s. My first link exposes it. Dan has refused to address it. How can we discuss anything else until he clears it up? After all, what was true for him yesterday is no longer true for him today. One can only wonder what will be true for him tomorrow. So, I think Dan needs to clear this up before we can move on to all of the rest of the contradictions of his sect. What say you utunimsint?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top