Is Jesus God?

[NotWorthy]

Not such a great idea, a boy would have a hard time travelling 100kms to find another priest. This also confuses Our Fathers authority. **I see Our Fathers authority as absolute, not differing, not changing. If His authority is given to the priests it will be the same from each one who has it. **Shopping for a priest who will forgive me would mean His authority is inconstant or that the refusing priest actually doe not hold it.

Then after finding a priest that will for give me the other priest decision would change?

Traveling 100kms to find another priest is not a hardship, IMO, in order to get absolution. But Texas people think differently from what I understand. In my case, I have 20 priests within 50 miles (80kms) that I could seek out.

I must admit, you caught me totally unawares regarding the refusal of absolutuion, for I’ve never run across a priest who’s refused to absolve me. The only times I’ve heard of this phenomena is where the sinner is unrepentant and plans on continuing to commit the same sin over and over.

But in my example, in the 2nd (or “makeup”) confessional, I would explain my first confession and the fact that the priest refused absolution. I have a feeling the priest would not look to fondly on the first priests refusal. Especially since most priests in my area at least recognize me, even if they don’t know me. I attend daily mass all throughout the diocese, as my work schedule permits. Sometimes its great to be an outside salesman!

 

[NotWorthy]

yes you are right, unless by your understanding another priest has given him forgiveness.
If that is the case and i am dammed due to his unforgiven better he go to heaven and me to hell than both of us going to hell. You have agreed Our Father wants us all, if He cant have me at least He will have one of us.

I’m not sure I understand this point, so forgive my density. Whether or not the priest is in a state of mortal sin or not, is irrelevant to my confession.

Let’s look at a rather graphic example. A priest could get drunk, pick up a hooker, have a go at her, then get out of bed and hear my confession. If he forgives me, I am absolved from my sin.

From my explanation, you can tell if I’m understanding you correctly or not. If not, please steer me in the right direction.

God Bless!

 

[NotWorthy]

**Galatians 4:21-31 would have been a better match. Then, as for the title you could write: Replacement Theology.

Hey, NotWorthy, I think it’s about time to start a new strategy to evangelize the Jewish People. Replacement Theology is no longer a good policy. We have got a little smarter than that.**

I wasn’t aware this was replacement theology. It was “get rid of the old leaders, get new ones, and let the Jews follow the new leaders”. Nobody replaced the Jews. The Jews, just as they did when they progressed from the Abrahamic Covenant, into the Mosaic Covenant, into the Davidic Covenant, were supposed to continue to grow into the New Covenant. It involved fulfilling all the Old Covenants that dealt with the entry of the Gentiles into the covenant.

 

[NotWorthy]

Quote:
Jesus founded what became known as Catholicism but you know that anyway.

RESPONSE:

Actually not. Jesus believed himself to be an end-time prophet who would return during the life time of his immediate follers. Hence there would be no need to establish a new church. As Acts shows, they remained a very observant sect within Judaism awaiting his return. But the Jerusalem community was crushed by the Romans. Paul’s communities survived and, in time, became a “church.” Thus Paul, not Jesus, founded Catholicism a we know it.

Note: The views of JP Marat do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or any other living person.

 

[JP_Marat]

“…Note: The views of JP Marat do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or any other living person”

RESPONSE:

Not the institutional Catholic Church, obviously. They want to keep their jobs.

But I’m afraid you’ll find quite a bit of support for what I wrote. Perhaps you might enjoy reading:

“The Churches The Apostles Left Behind,” by Fr. Raymond Edward Brown. I think it has the imprimatur as do all of Father Brown’s works.

So your assertion must be regarded as “an assertion not supported by the evidence”.

 

[NotWorthy]

“…Note: The views of JP Marat do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or any other living person”

RESPONSE:

Not the institutional Catholic Church, obviously. They want to keep their jobs.

But I’m afraid you’ll find quite a bit of support for what I wrote. Perhaps you might enjoy reading:

“The Churches The Apostles Left Behind,” by Fr. Raymond Edward Brown. I think it has the imprimatur as do all of Father Brown’s works.

So your assertion must be regarded as “an assertion not supported by the evidence”.

JP, I wouldn’t have a single problem with what you write, except for the fact that you are continuing to mislead others into believing that you are part of the “institutional Catholic Church”.

 

[AmbroseSJ]

“…Note: The views of JP Marat do not reflect the views of the Catholic Church or any other living person”

RESPONSE:

Not the institutional Catholic Church, obviously. They want to keep their jobs.

Troll

 

[JP_Marat]

JP, I wouldn’t have a single problem with what you write, except for the fact that you are continuing to mislead others into believing that you are part of the “institutional Catholic Church”.

RESPONSE:

Really? Please present evidence to support your assertion. Please be specific so I can respond.

JPM

 

[JP_Marat]

Troll

RESPONSE.

You think?

If tomorrow a body unquestionably identified as that of Jesus was found in a mass grave in Palestine, do you think that the Vatican news service would carry the report?

Do you think we’d be told that the Holy Spirit inspired the pope to declare “infallibly” that it wasn’t the body of Jesus?

Or would we be told the truth by the institutional church?

JPM

 

[twb1621]

twb1621;5821632:

Ah, Ben, still at it I see…

And you make me think that Jesus was a Catholic. Was he? Can you prove it? If Jesus was not Jewish and his Faith Judaism, the whole Chritianity can collapse.

What was this “what” that Jesus organized and eventually became Catholicism? How was this “what” called before it became Catholicism?

****You are a comedian… Converted from non-believers, Jews, Gentiles, pagans, they became the Disciples of Christ. ****

If you think that the first Pope was Peter, how is it that Christians started being called Christians only with Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone? (Acts 11:26)

Yes, I agree, but the Apostles were not Christians or Catholics for that matter. How could Peter become the first Pope if he had nothing to do with Christians?

Are you asking these questions for real? By the definition of what the word “Christian” originated in reference to, yes they were Christians. Followers of Christ. That should also answer your question regarding Peter.

Now, yes, I am ready to hear when Paul fulfilled his call and went to the Gentiles. Would let me know where to find this in the NT?

**Galatians CH1; 13 **11 For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14 and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 12 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia 13 and then returned to Damascus. 18 1415 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 16 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)

But why? There must have been a reason why they were called Christians for the first time in Antioch and not in Jerusalem or in Alexandria. What happened in Antioch for the disciples to be called Christians for the first time? Believe me, I am ready to accept that it had nothing to do with Paul. What was the background for that change of name? The text is the whole chapter 11 of Acts, and the quote is 11:26 when they are said to have been called Christians for the first time; but the reason, you haven’t told me yet. And I am asking with all my respects for your beliefs. But it is important for me to know. Maybe I have been wrong all the time.

Its correct reference in this regard was to designate believers or followers of Christ.

1 Peter CH4; 15 But let no one among you be made to suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as an intriguer. 16 But whoever is made to suffer as a Christian should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name.
Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16

Are you trying to get at a specific point?

 

[NotWorthy]

"Notworthy:

				Originally Posted by **NotWorthy** 					[forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5825250#post5825250) 				
			*JP, I wouldn't have a single problem with what you write, except for the fact that you are continuing to mislead others into believing that you are part of the "*institutional Catholic Church**".

RESPONSE:

Really? Please present evidence to support your assertion. Please be specific so I can respond.

JPM

Well, let’s go to the tape. When I originally asked why you call yourself Catholic (about a week ago), you said:

Because that’s what I am. However, I’m not a fundamentalist, traditionalist, or gullible Catholic.

I have put aside the things of a child (St. Paul)

 

[Ben_Masada]

Quote:
Jesus founded what became known as Catholicism but you know that anyway.

RESPONSE:

Actually not. Jesus believed himself to be an end-time prophet who would return during the life time of his immediate follers. Hence there would be no need to establish a new church. As Acts shows, they remained a very observant sect within Judaism awaiting his return. But the Jerusalem community was crushed by the Romans. Paul’s communities survived and, in time, became a “church.” Thus Paul, not Jesus, founded Catholicism a we know it.

Quote:
The first pope was Peter who was well established as the spokesperson for the apostles as scripture supports and the one chosen to be the vicar of Christ.

RESPONSE:
No. Peter’s role as leader of the apostles declined. The apostles elected James, Jesus’ brother, to be the first leader (bishop)of the Jerusalem community (nascent Catholic church), not Peter. The first “pope” in the West was Linas. The first pope in the East was Evodius who was Peter’s first successor.

Quote:
Jesus chose Paul to preach His word to the Gentiles because Paul related to them just as Saint James was chosen by our Lord to establish the seat in Jerusalem because he was best to relate to the Jews.

RESPONSE:
No. Jesus never met Paul. The Apostles “sent” Paul to the Gentiles since he was very unpopular with the Jewish converts.

Way to go Marat! I thought I was alone like a pelican in the wilderness.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I wasn’t aware this was replacement theology. It was “get rid of the old leaders, get new ones, and let the Jews follow the new leaders”. Nobody replaced the Jews. The Jews, just as they did when they progressed from the Abrahamic Covenant, into the Mosaic Covenant, into the Davidic Covenant, were supposed to continue to grow into the New Covenant. It involved fulfilling all the Old Covenants that dealt with the entry of the Gentiles into the covenant.

The Gentiles were always welcome into the Jewish covenants. There was never any need of a New Covenant just to add the Gentiles. The real New Covenant is with the House of Israel and that House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31) Gentiles included according to Isaiah 56:1-8.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5823946:

Ben Masada;5823946:

Quote:
Originally Posted by twb1621

And you make me think that Jesus was a Catholic. Was he? Can you prove it? If Jesus was not Jewish and his Faith Judaism, the whole Chritianity can collapse.

What was this “what” that Jesus organized and eventually became Catholicism? How was this “what” called before it became Catholicism?

You are a comedian… Converted from non-believers, Jews, Gentiles, pagans, they became the Disciples of Christ.

If you think that the first Pope was Peter, how is it that Christians started being called Christians only with Paul about 30 years after Jesus had been gone? (Acts 11:26)

Yes, I agree, but the Apostles were not Christians or Catholics for that matter. How could Peter become the first Pope if he had nothing to do with Christians?

Are you asking these questions for real? By the definition of what the word “Christian” originated in reference to, yes they were Christians. Followers of Christ. That should also answer your question regarding Peter.

Yes, I am asking for real, but you are not answering for real. That’s the problem. They were called Christians about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. Why don’t you answer my question?

Now, yes, I am ready to hear when Paul fulfilled his call and went to the Gentiles. Would let me know where to find this in the NT?

Galatians CH1; 13 11 For you heard of my former way of life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it, 14 and progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race, since I was even more a zealot for my ancestral traditions. 15 But when (God), who from my mother’s womb had set me apart and called me through his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son to me, so that I might proclaim him to the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult flesh and blood, 12 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; rather, I went into Arabia 13 and then returned to Damascus. 18 1415 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to confer with Kephas and remained with him for fifteen days. 19 But I did not see any other of the apostles, only James the brother of the Lord. 16 20 (As to what I am writing to you, behold, before God, I am not lying.)

So much writing for nothing because you haven’t answered any of my questions. Show me when Paul decided to go to the Gentiles.

But why? There must have been a reason why they were called Christians for the first time in Antioch and not in Jerusalem or in Alexandria. What happened in Antioch for the disciples to be called Christians for the first time? Believe me, I am ready to accept that it had nothing to do with Paul. What was the background for that change of name? The text is the whole chapter 11 of Acts, and the quote is 11:26 when they are said to have been called Christians for the first time; but the reason, you haven’t told me yet. And I am asking with all my respects for your beliefs. But it is important for me to know. Maybe I have been wrong all the time.

Its correct reference in this regard was to designate believers or followers of Christ.

You keep repeating the same thing which has nothing to do with my question. How can Catholics evangelize Jews by using such a method?

1 Peter CH4; 15 But let no one among you be made to suffer as a murderer, a thief, an evildoer, or as an intriguer. 16 But whoever is made to suffer as a Christian should not be ashamed but glorify God because of the name.
Acts 11:26; 26:28; 1 Peter 4:16

See what I mean? I did not ask anything of the sort.

Are you trying to get at a specific point?

Yes, I am, but you don’t get it.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ben, not to run into the thread late, which is exactly what I’m doing, but I think you are missing the point as well.

Jesus was an observant Jew, to a degree. What do I mean by this? Well, as Catholics believe he is the fulfillment of Judaism (since all things pointed to Him), can Jesus properly be called a Jew in the full sense? Can Jesus be called a Christian either? I mean Jesus wasn’t a folllower of himself…And in this sense, Jesus simply IS. He claimed to be the fulfillment of everything, the messiah, God incarnate, but a messiah to all, Jew or gentile. And as such, to follow him was to change the former meaning of the term “Jew.” *Christian *is simply a name, a name for Jew or gentile that follows Christ. We believe this became called the Catholic Church meaning all-inclusive/universal, as evidenced by Ignatius’ epistle in AD 107.

You seem to be confusing the reality for the term. You argue “how could Peter be the first pope.” Because he was. The term for it came later, but the reality was still existent prior to its definition; the office was from Christ.

I think until you recognize that as how Catholics see things, the debate will be locked in somewhat of a circle.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

Ben I would also be happy to discuss Jeremiah 30:31-34 with you, as well. I think I may be able to share some perspective that may at least shed some light on a different point of view.

 

[NotWorthy]

The Gentiles were always welcome into the Jewish covenants. There was never any need of a New Covenant just to add the Gentiles. The real New Covenant is with the House of Israel and that House of Judah. (Jer. 31:31) Gentiles included according to Isaiah 56:1-8.

The PROMISE to the Gentiles was already there, but not the practice. This was evidenced by the sign above the gate at the Temple that went from the “Court of the Gentiles” to the inner court that said, “Any Gentiles who pass these gates are responsible for their own deaths” (paraphrasing in words, but not in meaning).

Oh yeah, Gentiles were always allowed into the Covenant, as is plain to see. They just has to revoke the Gentile-ness (?).

 

[NotWorthy]

Way to go Marat! I thought I was alone like a pelican in the wilderness.

JP, if this is not a ringing endorsement for your beliefs, than I don’t know what is.

It’s like when the whacko that runs Iran (Achmadinajad?) enthusiastically applauded and backed the statement that President Obama made regarding the US not trying to dictate the actions of other countries any more. Barak had to be thinking, “Gee…thanks a lot…”.

 

[Benadam]

The PROMISE to the Gentiles was already there, but not the practice. This was evidenced by the sign above the gate at the Temple that went from the “Court of the Gentiles” to the inner court that said, “Any Gentiles who pass these gates are responsible for their own deaths” (paraphrasing in words, but not in meaning).

Oh yeah, Gentiles were always allowed into the Covenant, as is plain to see. They just has to revoke the Gentile-ness (?).

In support that the promise was not practiced; Peter, a devout Jew, would require a vision from God confirmed by events that followed to even sit and eat with a Gentile.

 

[NotWorthy]

In support that the promise was not practiced; Peter, a devout Jew, would require a vision from God confirmed by events that followed to even sit and eat with a Gentile.

Although it can’t be confirmed, there was a sign at the entrance to the Temple that said, “Gentiles Welcome! Please leave your foreskins at the door”!

Ok… maybe I just made that up.