How can Jesus Christ be the One True Almighty God?

[roselily]

St. John 10:18 Christ has the power to lay down His life and the power to take it back up again.

I understood that what the promise of resurrection signified,

:’ He is Truth,

He is Truth,
:bighanky:’

 

[Winston_Smith]

@ComeHome2Rome: Two things from my experience as a Jehovah’s Witness that caused me to reconsider my beliefs about the Trinity:

1. The more I tried to prove to people that the Trinity was not true, the more I began to realize, much to my discomfort, that it might be true after all. So if you have a chance to discuss with a JW, be calm, patient, loving, and simply keep the discussion going. This keeps the thought process going. It might be years until your kind words will finally have an effect.
2. As a JW, I had a distorted understanding of the Trinity. When I finally let myself just learn the actual teachings about the Trinity, I was drawn to it. So you’ll need to explain the basics.

 

[DelsonJacobs]

The unbelieving Jews, the Muslims, the JWs and others who deny the Divinity of Christ are doing so because of their darkened minds. Both St. Peter and St. Paul talk about those who twist Scripture and distort it into falsehood, to their own destruction.

God knows whether these individuals are honest in their failed attempts to recognize Jesus as God or whether they intentionally twist Scripture to that end.

ComeHome2Rome, I think this is the answer you’re looking for, because all of the bountiful proofs you’ve been given above towards Christ’s Divinity probably won’t do these people any good. The see them and they deny them.

While it is true that Scripture teaches that the devil “has blinded the minds of the unbelievers” (2 Corinthians 4:4), we should not conclude that we can use such as an adequate and final personal conclusion regarding any person who rejects the teachings of Holy Mother Church. To whatever extent a person may be “blinded,” it is not necessarily a permanent condition. If it were I would not be writing this.

Coming to such a conclusion about a fellow human is often an easy way out because we often use it to excuse ourselves of doing more. And such a conclusion would be a tragedy.

“Wrongologist” (yes, there is such a thing) Kathryn Schulz pointed out that when we tell ourselves that others are “blinded” by demonic means we might be showing signs that we ourselves can’t admit to and embrace our own fallibility. This is a mistake the Jehovah’s Witnesses make, and we as Catholics don’t want to do the same, especially in line with Pope Francis’ recent words on avoiding triumphalism. (See zenit.org/en/articles/pope-francis-triumphalism-in-the-church-halts-the-church .)

The modern term that wrongologists use for this is “error blindness,” and when we come to the conclusion that others are just being “blinded by Satan” we might have a bad case of error blindness ourselves—especially when it comes with a feeling of superiority. By God’s grace we may be in the True Church, but we can’t ever say our full understanding of it is likewise as perfect or that being a Catholic prevents us from ever being wrong.

Schulz explains that the way we often deal with others’ inability to accept what we accept usually follows this pattern:

1. We will conclude that the other is ignorant (we often add the assumption that they do not have access to the information we do).
2. When the other is given access to the information (usually from us) but they still don’t come to the same conclusions we have, they are often considered “idiots.”
3. When it becomes clear that the other party can reason like us but still doesn’t come to the conclusions we do, the final conclusion is often that the other is “evil,” refusing to come to believe in the “truth” as part of a malevolent plan.

The truth of the matter is that the subject of the Trinity is meant to be something we cannot fully conceive. On the one hand it is a kindness in that God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, has revealed his true nature to us by revealing the Trinity. On the other hand it is to show us what it means to be human: very much less than the greatness of God and thus incapable of grasping all truth.

It is like the Divine Name of God, YHWH, which the JW community proudly uses as a trademark. The real meaning of the name is not just “I AM” but “I Am Defined by Myself” or “I Prove to Be What I Prove to Be”–God is what God is. We can’t have a handle on God or totally define everything God is. God cannot be contained by the mere pronunciation of a name or the image of an idol or the rational capacity of the human mind. God is the easiest and at the same time most difficult concept we will ever be faced with.

As such we should avoid judging others who don’t accept what we ourselves as Catholics believe not on the basis of our intellect but on a doctrine we can only accept by faith. We don’t become intellectually enlightened to accept the Trinity. We believe it because God graces us to do so.

If my neighbor has not been exposed to this grace because of their own error, I don’t come to the conclusion that they are just incurably blinded. Christ is the light that ends any such blindness, and it may take a lifetime of applying eye salve on my neighbor to help them…(2 Corinthians 4:6; Revelation 3:17-19)

…and you have to be very gentle when applying eye salve on another person, don’t you?

 

[Nicea325]

This I would agree is the key to discussions with a JW. They Watchtower is infallible if you are a witness. If you come to a different conclusion on theological beliefs or interpreting scripture, you are not allowed to speak up about your own personal discoveries without fear of being disfellowshipped and shunned. The changing of their beliefs over time, their many failed prophecies predicting the end of the world, would be enough for anyone with their eyes open to walk away from this false prophet.

Precisely. One has to inform them with their own sources of their ever-changing teachings and doctrines.

 

[Nicea325]

Jesus is the beloved son of God but not the almighty God. However, God game him the power to forgave sins, resurrected the dead (Lazarus), healed the sicks and did other miracles ( like turning water into win at the Cana wedding)

I beg your pardon? You apparently do not comprehend Scripture or have no comprehension of basic theology. Plenty of verses proving you wrong.

 

[SteveVH]

@ComeHome2Rome: Two things from my experience as a Jehovah’s Witness that caused me to reconsider my beliefs about the Trinity:

1. The more I tried to prove to people that the Trinity was not true, the more I began to realize, much to my discomfort, that it might be true after all. So if you have a chance to discuss with a JW, be calm, patient, loving, and simply keep the discussion going. This keeps the thought process going. It might be years until your kind words will finally have an effect.
2. As a JW, I had a distorted understanding of the Trinity. When I finally let myself just learn the actual teachings about the Trinity, I was drawn to it. So you’ll need to explain the basics.

Plant seeds and pray for rain.

 

[JesusMonSauveur]

There are two main problems with the Jehovah’s Witness theology that are tough to work though when discussing the matter of Jesus being God:

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses demand that no doctrine cause confusion to the limits of the human mind.
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses forget that the expression “Son of God” is a play on words both in Semitic terms and, at the same time, heathen religion.

Human limits on God: As their New World Translation puts it: “God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33) The JW uses this verse as a definition for what type of doctrine is allowed and what must be dismissed. If a doctrine transcends human reasoning, states official JW doctrine, this could not come from a God of order. Since the Trinity confuses the human mind and cannot make sense according to reason as a mortal can conceive it, the Trinity doctrine must be false.

Part of the appeal of the JW religion is that it sets limits on God and tosses all ambiguity out. For the Witness faith is not something that co-exists in the face of doubt, instead faith is knowing the absolute unquestionable truth or facts.

This of course means you don’t need faith or hope, but that’s a totally different subject for another thread.

“Son” has to mean what it does in English: This is the problem that even we Catholics sometimes forget.

The reason we know Jesus is God is because that is what the Semitic word “Son” means in this case. To be a “son” of something or someone meant you were one-and-the-same with the subject or were an incarnation of the subject.

For example, Jesus mentions in prayer in John 17 that all the apostles are safe but one, Judas Iscariot. But Jesus doesn’t call Judas by name. Instead he calls Judas “the son of destruction.” (John 17:12) Christ is often recorded as referring to himself as the “Son of Man” and is often called “Son of David,” and at his death a heathen is recorded as saying that Jesus truly was “the Son of God” at Matthew 27:54.

In all these expressions the word “son” never means a direct or immediate descendent of the subject “father.” Jesus is no more the immediate descendent of King David as Judas is not a literal “son of destruction,” as if destruction were something that could procreate. No, the term means that Jesus is the equivalent or fullness of what King David was, namely the Messiah and that Jesus was the Greater Adam of 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 (the word “man” in “Son of Man” literally means “Son of Adam”). And as Judas was the incarnation of “destruction” by his actions, Jesus was the incarnation of God–”son of destruction”=Judas, “Son of God,” Jesus.

There is one other play on words going on. In the first century the Caesars claimed the title “Divi filius” for themselves. It is Latin for “son of God.” You see the Caesars claimed to be mundane incarnations of a greater divine self that they returned to being upon their death. When the emperor was with his subjects on earth, humans were witnessing a human form or a god in the state of being a “human son.”

When the Roman army officer who witnessed the events of Jesus’ death stated that Jesus must have been God’s Son at Matthew 27:54, he was using the word “Son” in the Roman emperor sense, meaning Jesus was the incarnation of God himself.

Of course to the JW, “son” has to mean a literal immediate offspring and only that in the case of Jesus, even though John 17:12 calls Judas the “son of destruction” in the own New World Translation.

And the reason why it has to mean this to the JW is because they are not comfortable with embracing the transcendence of God, nor do they accept mystery and the incapacity of human intellect to fully deal with God as holy.

For them God has to be controlled by proof texts and the scope of human reasoning.

Since neither exists for the fullness of the Trinity, the Witness dismisses it.

 

[JesusMonSauveur]

I beg your pardon? You apparently do not comprehend Scripture or have no comprehension of basic theology. Plenty of verses proving you wrong.

I realized that I didn’t really understand the question the first place therefore I did not answer it correctly.

I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not the ONLY One God. I don’t know if that makes any sense.

 

[JesusMonSauveur]

Excuse me? I see that you claim to be Catholic. I think you better study up on your theology. Jesus is the great “I AM”, the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last. Jesus is the creator of the universe. Jesus is the second Person of the Trinity. He certainly is the Almighty God. The only difference between the Father and Jesus is their relationship. There is only one God. You cannot separate the Father from the Son without God dividing himself and that is an impossibility.

Im not claiming to be a Catholic, I am Catholic and will die catholic. Just because I did not answer the question right does not make me a Non-Catholic.

I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD, incomprehensible to us because God is infinite and we are finite beings. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not God the Father. I guess i should have been more clear.

 

[JesusMonSauveur]

There are two main problems with the Jehovah’s Witness theology that are tough to work though when discussing the matter of Jesus being God:

1. Jehovah’s Witnesses demand that no doctrine cause confusion to the limits of the human mind.
2. Jehovah’s Witnesses forget that the expression “Son of God” is a play on words both in Semitic terms and, at the same time, heathen religion.

Human limits on God: As their New World Translation puts it: “God is [a God], not of disorder, but of peace.” (1 Corinthians 14:33) The JW uses this verse as a definition for what type of doctrine is allowed and what must be dismissed. If a doctrine transcends human reasoning, states official JW doctrine, this could not come from a God of order. Since the Trinity confuses the human mind and cannot make sense according to reason as a mortal can conceive it, the Trinity doctrine must be false.

Part of the appeal of the JW religion is that it sets limits on God and tosses all ambiguity out. For the Witness faith is not something that co-exists in the face of doubt, instead faith is knowing the absolute unquestionable truth or facts.

This of course means you don’t need faith or hope, but that’s a totally different subject for another thread.

“Son” has to mean what it does in English: This is the problem that even we Catholics sometimes forget.

The reason we know Jesus is God is because that is what the Semitic word “Son” means in this case. To be a “son” of something or someone meant you were one-and-the-same with the subject or were an incarnation of the subject.

For example, Jesus mentions in prayer in John 17 that all the apostles are safe but one, Judas Iscariot. But Jesus doesn’t call Judas by name. Instead he calls Judas “the son of destruction.” (John 17:12) Christ is often recorded as referring to himself as the “Son of Man” and is often called “Son of David,” and at his death a heathen is recorded as saying that Jesus truly was “the Son of God” at Matthew 27:54.

In all these expressions the word “son” never means a direct or immediate descendent of the subject “father.” Jesus is no more the immediate descendent of King David as Judas is not a literal “son of destruction,” as if destruction were something that could procreate. No, the term means that Jesus is the equivalent or fullness of what King David was, namely the Messiah and that Jesus was the Greater Adam of 1 Corinthians 15:22, 45 (the word “man” in “Son of Man” literally means “Son of Adam”). And as Judas was the incarnation of “destruction” by his actions, Jesus was the incarnation of God–”son of destruction”=Judas, “Son of God,” Jesus… .

My answer may be misleading. I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD, incomprehensible to us because God is infinite and we are finite beings. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not God the Father. I guess i should have been more clear.

 

[JesusMonSauveur]

Jesus is the beloved son of God but not the almighty God. However, God game him the power to forgave sins, resurrected the dead (Lazarus), healed the sicks and did other miracles ( like turning water into win at the Cana wedding)

My answer may be misleading. I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD, incomprehensible to us because God is infinite and we are finite beings. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not God the Father. I guess i should have been more clear.

 

[SteveVH]

I realized that I didn’t really understand the question the first place therefore I did not answer it correctly.

I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not the ONLY One God. I don’t know if that makes any sense.

No. it doesn’t make sense. Jesus is the ONLY one God. So is the Father and So is the Holy Spirit. The Persons are distinct, but not separate. There is only one God and if Jesus is God then he is the ONLY one God (with the Father and the Holy Spirit).

 

[SteveVH]

Im not claiming to be a Catholic, I am Catholic and will die catholic. Just because I did not answer the question right does not make me a Non-Catholic.

I know that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are 3 distinct persons but make up ONE GOD, incomprehensible to us because God is infinite and we are finite beings. Now, what I meant when I said Jesus is the Only Son of God but Not God is Jesus is God the Son but not God the Father. I guess i should have been more clear.

The reason I questioned if your were Catholic is that what you said is not Catholic belief. It is important because there are thousands of people who read these posts and we don’t want people misled as to what we believe. But hey, I have certainly been wrong on more than one occasion and the great thing about this forum is that we can keep each other in check.

 

[Kc906]

You know, I certainly understand why you say this and there is probably a nugget of truth there, but lately I have really been pondering something that still has me baffled. And this could really apply to many if not all faiths, not just JW’s. To be honest it began while participating on Mormon threads.

What puzzles me and kind of scares me at the same time is that intelligence seems to have nothing to do with a person’s beliefs. Mitt Romney is not a stupid man. I agree with him on many things and he certainly has the capability to use logic and reason. I am pretty much in agreement with Oren Hatch on most issues. Both of these men are intelligent, seemingly well reasoned men. And they are Mormon. When I consider some of the beliefs of Mormons and JW’s as well, I wonder if this person has lost the gift of reason. How, I wonder, can anyone believe what they believe and be living in the same world as me? But they do live in the same world and they are as intelligent as the next person. And they draw completely different conclusions as to what is true. That aspect of human nature frightens me.

So what is the deal? Are we all susceptible to falling into false doctrine or is there something lacking in those that do? They seem to have all of their faculties. And they can look across the room and say the same thing about me. How can Steve really believe all that Catholic stuff? What is it within us that allows people of the same intelligence, in the same culture, with access to the same information, to view truth in such dramatically different ways? I wish someone could answer that question.

Steve have you ever been to a JW Kingdom Hall or a Mormon Temple to attend services? I personally have gone to a Kingdom Hall on four different occasions, but never to a Mormon Temple. I listened to people talk about how long they had “been in the truth,” which means how long they have been studying with the Witnesses. I’ve heard them talk constantly about the Whore of Babylon, which is all of Christendom, with the RCC as the head of that figure from Revelations.

The thing these groups both have in common is that they state they alone have the truth (every religion does this,) with their help you can come to know everything there is to know about God, along with great moral and family values (as long as you are not disfellowshipped.) Both of these groups require men and women to come to their specific religion to understand and be part of the truth, and thus this is the only way to be saved from their point of view (at least from the JW perspective.)

These men you mention are intelligent human beings. I personally think that the Catholic Church is just way behind when it comes to evangelizing others, and having their Catholic Sons and Daughters prepared to defend the faith when they go out into the world. Many religions have bad Sitgmata’s that come along with them, the RCC is no different. We all know the sins that have come within the walls of our Church throughout history. Just like someone like you or I could be turned off by the JW’s based on the countless false predictions of Armageddon in their literature throughout the years, perhaps these men never gave Catholicism (or other religions) an honest chance due to things they had been told/read about, said religion.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So what is the deal? Are we all susceptible to falling into false doctrine or is there something lacking in those that do? They seem to have all of their faculties. And they can look across the room and say the same thing about me. How can Steve really believe all that Catholic stuff? What is it within us that allows people of the same intelligence, in the same culture, with access to the same information, to view truth in such dramatically different ways? ** I wish someone could answer that question.**

The simple answer in my humble opinion is “Covenant”. Mitt has professed an oath or established a covenant which his conscience holds his intelligence too. This is where Mitt and others intelligence is excercised from their oaths, professions of faith and their religious covenants with their communities of faith.

If Mitt can intelligently remove himself from his covenant without appearing…what’s the politically correct word? Wishy washy? It is from his intelligence that keeps him in his covenant relationship with the Mormon faith.

 

[SteveVH]

The simple answer in my humble opinion is “Covenant”. Mitt has professed an oath or established a covenant which his conscience holds his intelligence too. This is where Mitt and others intelligence is excercised from their oaths, professions of faith and their religious covenants with their communities of faith.

If Mitt can intelligently remove himself from his covenant without appearing…what’s the politically correct word? Wishy washy? It is from his intelligence that keeps him in his covenant relationship with the Mormon faith.

Are you saying that because he is intelligent that he only maintains membership in the LDS Church for political reasons; so that he does not appear “wishy-washy”? Hmmm… Not sure about that. If we follow that logic then we must assume that all true believers in the Mormon, or JW, or (fill in the blank) are less than intelligent and that the intelligent ones are just pretending for other reasons. I don’t believe that is true.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Are you saying that because he is intelligent that he only maintains membership in the LDS Church for political reasons; so that he does not appear “wishy-washy”? Hmmm… Not sure about that. If we follow that logic then we must assume that all true believers in the Mormon, or JW, or (fill in the blank) are less than intelligent and that the intelligent ones are just pretending for other reasons. I don’t believe that is true.

No, a membership can easily be canceled and political preferences can be changed anytime. One who enters a covenant by an oath, baptism, profession of faith is bound to it for life.

A membership is never a covenant. One who has simple logic of intelligence who has willfully entered a covenant will find it difficult to reasonably break that covenant. That does not mean a conversion can never take place.

 

[Kc906]

Are you saying that because he is intelligent that he only maintains membership in the LDS Church for political reasons; so that he does not appear “wishy-washy”? Hmmm… Not sure about that. If we follow that logic then we must assume that all true believers in the Mormon, or JW, or (fill in the blank) are less than intelligent and that the intelligent ones are just pretending for other reasons. I don’t believe that is true.

When was the last time that a Priest or Deacon consistantly stood up in front of the congregation and time after time preached about how lucky we are to be a part of the One True Church; that we alone have the fullness of truth regarding what God left for man? Referencing the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, and showing how what they believed is still actually what we Catholics believe today. That the Bible is a Catholic book, compiled together by a Catholic Council who discerned what was scripture and what was not. I can honestly say that I do not know if I have ever heard a message explicitly stated like this within the walls of a Catholic Church. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it gives people a certain level of comfort when they truly feel that they are a part of “the truth.” The JW’s in particular, are given “proof texts” in their meetings that allow them to gain the upper hand on certain topics when having a conversation, unless of course the other party is well prepared.

In the examples of JW’s, they have literature that is supposed to make it easier to understand scripture, and many of the points they make sound logical on their face but of course can be refuted by someone who is well versed in scripture. When you are told that this group has the truth, and they show you things that could lead you to believe this is so, it can be very convincing if you do not have a faith that is strongly rooted.

The Catholic Church doesn’t approarch evangelizing this way, by going door to door with literature. One could argue that mormon or JW families typically are moral, nice, and have a strong emphasis on the family, the curb appeal definitely looks interesting for a non-believer or someone who is not well versed in the Gospel. The kicker of course, is that once you are sucked in to joining the group the game is up. If you start to think for yourself and do research that contradicts what is “the truth,” well you very well may end up losing your family. This is a very sad, but true thing that too many people have had to deal with. Stick with a group who you no longer believe teaches the truth, or lose your family.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

The kicker of course, is that once you are sucked in to joining the group the game is up. If you start to think for yourself and do research that contradicts what is “the truth,”** well you very well may end up losing your family. ** This is a very sad, but true thing that too many people have had to deal with. Stick with a group who you no longer believe teaches the truth, or lose your family.

And that is what a Covenant is; A family:thumbsup:

 

[SteveVH]

No, a membership can easily be canceled and political preferences can be changed anytime. One who enters a covenant by an oath, baptism, profession of faith is bound to it for life.

A membership is never a covenant. One who has simple logic of intelligence who has willfully entered a covenant will find it difficult to reasonably break that covenant. That does not mean a conversion can never take place.

A covenant with a false god, however, is not a covenant. I realize what you are saying, however the deeper question is, why do people of relatively equal intelligence who have access to the same information come to different conclusions regarding truth? That is what I want to know. The fact that one might enter into a covenant means that they, at least at some point, believed it to be true.