pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[inJESUS]

Originally Posted by pro_universal
My reasons are as follows:

1. The theology itself was something I could not honestly believe anymore.

the theology is found in the Bible.The doctrine of the Trinity is arrived at in much the same way as a scientific theory. A scientific theory, for the most part, is a reasoned explanation of observed (or unobserved, in some cases) phenomena in the natural world. Analogously, the doctrine of the Trinity is a reasoned explanation of what we observe to be the phenomena of God in the Bible. Church fathers, councils, denominations, etc. have been so overwhelmed with the evidence for the trinity in the scripture that there has been a universal creedal acknowledgement in church history. Is the Bible corrupt Pro?

The fact of the matter is, the trinity does not make sense to anyone who doesn’t already believe it

.God himself does not make sense to anyone who doesn’t already believe .

It is not a logical doctrine, and while I acknowledge that God is beyond understanding…this isn’t the case with the trinity. The trinity is easy to understand; it’s just contradictory, that’s what makes it so tough for outsiders to accept that it makes sense.

why then millions accept that it makes sense? if indeed it does not make sense then you won’t find millions who believe otherwise. The trinity is in the Bible that’s why it was made a doctrine, not the other way round.Which means if the trinity doesnt make sense then Jesus’ words as well.

Furthermore, you said people “made” Jesus divine. This is a typical islamic mindset. Did you read the church Fathers of the first and second century who were disciples of disciples? do you think these people did not know what they believe in?

 

[inJESUS]

It’s my opinion that Jesus was a good person whose followers got carried away and decided that he was God.

a response to Pro from Mathetes:

Chapter VII.—The manifestation of Christ.
For, as I said, this was no mere earthly invention which was delivered to them, **nor is it a mere human system of opinion, **which they judge it right to preserve so carefully, nor has a dispensation of mere human mysteries been committed to them, but truly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things—by whom He made the heavens—by whom he enclosed the sea within its proper bounds—whose ordinances295295 Literally, “mysteries.” all the stars296296 Literally, “elements.” faithfully observe—from whom the has received the measure of his daily course to be observed whom the moon obeys, being commanded to shine in the night, and whom the stars also obey, following the moon in her course; by whom all things have been arranged, and placed within their proper limits, and to whom all are subject—the heavens and the things that are therein, the earth and the things that are therein, the sea and the things that are therein—fire, air, and the abyss—the things which are in the heights, the things which are in the depths, and the things which lie between. This [messenger] He sent to them. Was it then, as one299299 Literally, “one of men.” might conceive, for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror? By no means, but under the influence of clemency and meekness. As a king sends his son, who is also a king, so sent He Him; as God .He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Saviour He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has no place in the character of God. As calling us He sent Him, not as vengefully pursuing us; as loving us He sent Him, not as judging us. For He will yet send Him to judge us, and who shall endure His appearing A considerable gap here occurs in the mss. … Do you not see them exposed to wild beasts, 28 that they may be persuaded to deny the Lord, and yet not overcome? Do you not see that the more of them are punished, the greater becomes the number of the rest? This does not seem to be the work of man: this is the power of God; these are the evidences of His manifestation

 

[inJESUS]

Another response to Pro from Ignatius (1rst century disciple)

Chapter VII.—Beware of false teachers.
For some are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, whom ye must flee as ye would wild beasts. For they are ravening dogs, who bite secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, inasmuch as they are men who can scarcely be cured. There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible even Jesus Christ our Lord.
But some most worthless persons are in the habit of carrying about the name [of Jesus Christ] in wicked guile, while yet they practise things unworthy of God, and hold opinions contrary to the doctrine of Christ, to their own destruction, and that of those who give credit to them, whom you must avoid as ye would wild beasts. For “the righteous man who avoids them is saved for ever; but the destruction of the ungodly is sudden, and a subject of rejoicing.”For “they are dumb dogs, that cannot barkraving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began,but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For “the Word was made flesh. Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.

Doesn’t Ignatius know what he is talking about? Beware of false Islam dear Pro.

 

[inJESUS]

And this one to Pro which nearly matches with Islam:

Chapter VI.—Abstain from the poison of heretics.
I therefore, yet not I, but the love of Jesus Christ, entreat you that ye use Christian nourishment only, and abstain from herbage of a different kind; I mean heresy. For those [that are given to this] mix up Jesus Christ with their own poison, speaking things which are unworthy of credit, like those who administer a deadly drug in sweet wine, which he who is ignorant of does greedily take, with a fatal pleasure leading to his own death.

I therefore, yet not I, out the love of Jesus Christ, “entreat you that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgment. For there are some vain talkers and deceivers, not Christians, but Christ-betrayers, bearing about the name of Christ in deceit, and “corrupting the word of the Gospel; while they intermix the poison of their deceit with their persuasive talk, as if they mingled aconite with sweet wine, that so he who drinks, being deceived in his taste by the very great sweetness of the draught, may incautiously meet with his death. One of the ancients gives us this advice, “Let no man be called good who mixes good with evil.” For they speak of Christ, not that they may preach Christ, but that they may reject Christ; and they speak of the law, not that they may establish the law, but that they may proclaim things contrary to it. For they alienate Christ from the Father, and the law from Christ. They also calumniate His being born of the Virgin; they are ashamed of His cross; they deny His passion; and they do not believe His resurrection. They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.

these heretics at the apostles’ time did not die. They are now Muslims.

 

[Contarini]

The fact of the matter is, the trinity does not make sense to anyone who doesn’t already believe it. It is not a logical doctrine, and while I acknowledge that God is beyond understanding…this isn’t the case with the trinity. The trinity is easy to understand; it’s just contradictory, that’s what makes it so tough for outsiders to accept that it makes sense.

Not that you need another long post from me, but this bit from your earlier post caught my eye because a number of other people have been responding to it.

If the Trinity is so easy to understand, perhaps you could explain it to us? It’s not easy even for great Christian theologians to understand. I can see a legitimate argument to the effect that the Trinity is unnecessary obfuscation and makes a mystery where there is none (or not the kind of mystery Christians claim). But if you really think the Trinity is easy to understand (and hence a simple mathematical contradiction), you’re not dealing with it on more than a cartoon level.

Edwin

 

[M_Oliver]

This is bad information, not trying to be mean. Jesus is God! These statements that you make that say that Jesus had a beginning were a heresy in the early Church. Jesus is God and I will show you in scripture where this is said.

John 5:18
For this reason the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because he was not only breaking the sabbath, but was also calling God his own Father, thereby making himself equal to God.

As Scripture put it, Jesus was making himself equal to God, by claiming to be his Son.

John 9:58
Very truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.

I AM was the name given to Abraham by God.

Scripture says, and this is an accurate translation, that…

Who {Jesus Christ} is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)

“Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Eph. 1:3)

“We are thanking the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Col. 1:3)

I Pet. 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3)

“…there is ONE God, the FATHER…” (I Cor. 8:6)

These Scripture refute the “co-equalness” of the trinity theory. That is the root of the theory…the “co-equal” relationship between Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. It just isn’t the case. EVERYTHING is under the Father. There is nothing or no one ABOVE the Father.

Having said that I’ll say this…

Is Christ God? YES HE IS!

"Yet to the Son [this is GOD speaking]: ‘Thy throne, O GOD, is for the eon of the eon…" (Heb. 1:8).

And also:

Who [Jesus], being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging [taking by force or plundering] to be EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil. 2:6).

Is Christ worthy of worship? YES HE IS!

“And lo! A leper, coming to Him, WORSHIPED Him, saying…” (Mat. 8:2),

“lo! One approaching Him [Jesus], a chief, WORSHIPED Him…” (Mat. 9:18),

“Now those in the ship WORSHIP Him, saying, ‘truly, God’s Son art Thou!’”

“Yet she, coming, WORSHIPS Him, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’” (Mat. 15:25).

So you are right. You just understand the rest of it incorrectly.

 

[tequilamac]

Scripture says, and this is an accurate translation, that…

Who {Jesus Christ} is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)

“Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Eph. 1:3)

“We are thanking the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ”
(Col. 1:3)

I Pet. 1:3: “Blessed be the God and Father OF our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:3)

“…there is ONE God, the FATHER…” (I Cor. 8:6)

These Scripture refute the “co-equalness” of the trinity theory. That is the root of the theory…the “co-equal” relationship between Christ, the Father and the Holy Spirit. It just isn’t the case. EVERYTHING is under the Father. There is nothing or no one ABOVE the Father.

Having said that I’ll say this…

Is Christ God? YES HE IS!

"Yet to the Son [this is GOD speaking]: ‘Thy throne, O GOD, is for the eon of the eon…" (Heb. 1:8).

And also:

Who [Jesus], being inherently in the form of God, deems it not pillaging [taking by force or plundering] to be EQUAL WITH GOD" (Phil. 2:6).

Is Christ worthy of worship? YES HE IS!

“And lo! A leper, coming to Him, WORSHIPED Him, saying…” (Mat. 8:2),

“lo! One approaching Him [Jesus], a chief, WORSHIPED Him…” (Mat. 9:18),

“Now those in the ship WORSHIP Him, saying, ‘truly, God’s Son art Thou!’”

“Yet she, coming, WORSHIPS Him, saying, ‘Lord, help me!’” (Mat. 15:25).

So you are right. You just understand the rest of it incorrectly.

Actually for the question in consideration- that of who is God and whether he came before or later, you are both correct. But it can be summed up much more simply.

John
Chapter 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

 

[M_Oliver]

M_Oliver, anybody who claims that Jesus is not God, makes finite his sacrifice, since only God is infinite and only he could make an infinte Sacrfice. Jesus is God and God is him, it is in this verse it is revealed to us:

John 14:11
Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me…

Jesus and the Father are one, yet two seperate persons. This oneness makes it possible that they are ONE God.
You cannot seperate Jesus and the Father for they are always one, and they are always equal although the Father is the eternal origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Also for your assurance another quote:
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.

M_Oliver, sorry but such a conclusion is heretical and anti-biblical and I cannot allow anybody to fall into such a heresy.
Jesus had two natures, human and Divine. Your verses apply to human, mine to his divine.

Post #86 explains with Scripture.

 

[M_Oliver]

Actually for the question in consideration- that of who is God and whether he came before or later, you are both correct. But it can be summed up much more simply.

John
Chapter 1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

He was in the beginning with God.

Yes He was. But at the beginning of what though? You see how deep this can get? Check this out…

In the beginning7225 God430 created1254 (853) the heaven8064 and the earth.776 (Genesis 1:1)

“beginning”

H7225
ראשׁית
rê’shîyth
ray-sheeth’
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

This is the definition of Christ Himself! The firstfruit of all creatures {YOU, ME, EVERYTHING ELSE} from the Father.

And because Christ is God, as I proved in post #86, is why the God H430 is plural.

Christ was created first…and through Christ {the beginning} the Father created the heavens and the earth. Through Christ but WITH Christ…hence the plural .

You cited a great Scripture…

In1722 the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316 (John 1:1)

“beginning”

G746
ἀρχή
archē
ar-khay’
From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

Again. The perfect definition of Christ and why He is LORD over us all.

“In the beginning” is not a reference to time. It is a reference to Jesus Christ.

 

[Damascus]

Dont you guys ever wonder if you are only feeding fuel to the “fire” here?

I mean, did you ever think that the purpose of this thread was to refine his apologetic skills for Islam?

It occured to me that was the point of this post.

 

[M_Oliver]

Dont you guys ever wonder if you are only feeding fuel to the “fire” here?

I mean, did you ever think that the purpose of this thread was to refine his apologetic skills for Islam?

It occured to me that was the point of this post.

Yes. But this is the problem with any message board. The OP can post multiple subjects in one post and before you know it the thread is way off topic. It is a great intention to keep a thread 100% on topic but humans can’t do it

It is no different here than anywhere else.

 

[LilyM]

Dont you guys ever wonder if you are only feeding fuel to the “fire” here?

I mean, did you ever think that the purpose of this thread was to refine his apologetic skills for Islam?

It occured to me that was the point of this post.

Well, the opposite is also true.

Pro, by giving what are really pretty weak anti-Catholic arguments has probably made a lot of us stronger in our faith … and I don’t think he/she has made anyone more amenable to Islam really.

Pro, NOT that I’m assuming you’re Muslim or about to become one, nor do I endorse the more negative anti-Islamic sentiment that is sometimes spread around here.

 

[pro_universal]

Not that you need another long post from me, but this bit from your earlier post caught my eye because a number of other people have been responding to it.

If the Trinity is so easy to understand, perhaps you could explain it to us? It’s not easy even for great Christian theologians to understand. I can see a legitimate argument to the effect that the Trinity is unnecessary obfuscation and makes a mystery where there is none (or not the kind of mystery Christians claim). But if you really think the Trinity is easy to understand (and hence a simple mathematical contradiction), you’re not dealing with it on more than a cartoon level.

Edwin

I want to take my time and research answers to your other long post, rather than relying on vague memory from books and lectures long ago.

When I say the trinity is easy to understand, I mean to say that it is easy to repeat the complete formula and that the vocabulary and grammar are quite clear.

The problem I see is that usually “understanding” is taken to mean “understand that it makes sense.” The words themselves are easy to understand, but the logic they follow is impossible because it’s a textbook case of contradiction.

Dealing with it beyond that is trying to make something that is obviously a contradiction into a coherent teaching, and that is why it is difficult.

As an example, “Bill clinton exists and does not exist.” It’s very simple, but not coherent. There is an easy answer regarding its consistency: that is, it’s not.

That’s how I see the trinity. Sure, it’s very complicated if you believe it must be true. That’s how we ended up with fine explorations of substance, form, and more in St. Augustine’s and St. Aquinas’s writings on the subject.

But if you don’t presume that the trinity must be true and therefore somewhat coherent, it is no problem at all. A few lines of text complete the doctrine, and the conclusion is obvious: it is a contradiction. You’re right to say that this is a cartoon level of understanding, but a deeper level of exploration will not suffice to make it less contradictory.

I agree though, that if you are a committed believer, it has to be considered beyond the facial level. The problem is that no such exploration is ever going to solve the initial problem, which is that it is quite clearly a contradiction. The best attempts I’ve read by the Church greats only reached as far as “it’s a mystery that faith will help us to ponder”, or something similar.

 

[Image_of_God]

Yes He was. But at the beginning of what though? You see how deep this can get? Check this out…

In the beginning7225 God430 created1254 (853) the heaven8064 and the earth.776 (Genesis 1:1)

“beginning”

H7225
ראשׁית
rê’shîyth
ray-sheeth’
From the same as H7218; the first, in place, time, order or rank (specifically a firstfruit): - beginning, chief (-est), first (-fruits, part, time), principal thing.

This is the definition of Christ Himself! The firstfruit of all creatures {YOU, ME, EVERYTHING ELSE} from the Father.

And because Christ is God, as I proved in post #86, is why the God H430 is plural.

Christ was created first…and through Christ {the beginning} the Father created the heavens and the earth. Through Christ but WITH Christ…hence the plural .

You cited a great Scripture…

In1722 the beginning746 was2258 the3588 Word,3056 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 with4314 God,2316 and2532 the3588 Word3056 was2258 God.2316 (John 1:1)

“beginning”

G746
ἀρχή
archē
ar-khay’
From G756; (properly abstract) a commencement, or (concrete) chief (in various applications of order, time, place or rank): - beginning, corner, (at the, the) first (estate), magistrate, power, principality, principle, rule.

Again. The perfect definition of Christ and why He is LORD over us all.

“In the beginning” is not a reference to time. It is a reference to Jesus Christ.

Christ was not created. This is a heresy, please do not teach such. For if Jesus was created, his sacrifice on the cross would be finite. But this is not the case. His HUMAN nature was created, but his DIVINE nature was eternally born, meaning born without beginning. There is no beginnig to God, but this beginning refers to the beginnig of the world. Beginning is a reference to time, for if there was not time there was no beginning. We both know that there is no beginning for God. If we know the Word was God, then he has no beginning.

John 1:14
And the Word became flesh and lived among us, and we have seen his glory, the glory of a father’s only son, full of grace and truth.

If then nothing could be Created without Christ, how could Christ be created without Himself?
Then we conclude that Christ cannot have been created because He Himself could not be created without Himself.
Without Himself, Nothing can be created.

So, if the Word was God, and from previous knowledge, we know that God is infinte and that from the passage above, became human, we know that his sacrifice is infinte.

Once again, I feel the need to warn you of such a heretical teaching, for such a teaching was not excepted by the Early Church and such is wrong. Please stop!

 

[prayforwisdom]

pro_universal;1502020:

Sure, but ask yourself this: Would a just God make salvation dependent in a significant way on believing in a doctrine which no rational mind can conclude is coherent?

It’s my opinion that Jesus was a good person whose followers got carried away and decided that he was God. Then, they came up with a hasty doctrine so that they could still claim to be Jews. To consider how successful this doctrine has been in convincing Jews that the trinity is an orthodox concept, you need only ask an Orthodox Jew what the Jewish faith says about a God with a body.

What doctrine are you referring to when you say “Would a just God make salvation dependent in a significant way on believing in a doctrine which no rational mind can conclude is coherent?”?

What do you mean by “a God with a body”? What doctrine are you referring to when you say “a God with a body”?

And, who cares what a modern day Orthodox Jew says about this doctrine?

If you are referring to the incarnation, it convinced first century Jews, such as the Apostles, including St Paul who was a Pharisee before becoming a Christian.

Even today, there are (from what i understand), at least thousands of Jews who believe this, such as Jews for Jesus.

What doctrine are you referring to when you say “Would a just God make salvation dependent in a significant way on believing in a doctrine which no rational mind can conclude is coherent?”?

If you are referring to the Incarnation, you are wrong because a rational mind can conclude it is coherent because it is coherent.

If you are referring to the Trinity, you are wrong because a rational mind can conclude it is coherent because it is coherent (as I showed in one of my above posts).

 

[prayforwisdom]

When I say the trinity is easy to understand, I mean to say that it is easy to repeat the complete formula and that the vocabulary and grammar are quite clear.

The problem I see is that usually “understanding” is taken to mean “understand that it makes sense.” The words themselves are easy to understand, but the logic they follow is impossible because it’s a textbook case of contradiction.

Dealing with it beyond that is trying to make something that is obviously a contradiction into a coherent teaching, and that is why it is difficult.

As an example, “Bill clinton exists and does not exist.” It’s very simple, but not coherent. There is an easy answer regarding its consistency: that is, it’s not.

You have yet to show that the Trinity is “obviously a contradiction”. It is not a contradiction.

Giving an example of a real contradiction “Bill clinton exists and does not exist.” does not show that the Trinity is a contradiction.

 

[inJESUS]

there is a heresy that said Jesus is a lesser god than the Father or something like that. Isn’t it what Oliver is implying?

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

To no longer be Catholic is your free choice. To have opposing opinions in contrast to your view of Islam is also free choice. It’s a forum, remember?

Indeed, this isn’t the case in Islam. Even so-called ‘moderate’ clerics and scholars agree that apostasizing from Islam = physical death.

Also, asking an Orthodox Jew about Judaism isn’t the same as asking a first century Jew. Orthodox Judaism of today is Pharasitical Judaism, the Judaism Christ was disgusted with, which interprets the Torah with the Talmud (which did not exist in Jesus’ time) There were many factions of Judaism in first century Palestine, for instance those who believed in the resurrection of the body, and those who did not (Sadducees). One only need look into the book of Macabees to see that God knew what He was doing… for he equated the Messiah with the Son of God in the Old Testament.

Pro, it seems to me that the main reason you stayed Catholic was to defend the Muslims on the board. And I mean that is all you ever did while you were here. You never defended your Catholic faith (while you were still Catholic) on this board, that I remember seeing. At least you are finally being truthful with yourself.

Godspeed! You are in my prayers. It’s not my wish to see any Catholic (even a “cradle Catholic” apostate from Holy Mother Church.

www.scripturecatholic.com

P.S. You claim that one of the reasons that made you leave the Catholic Church was the “behavior of its membership”. You fail to mention the good that Catholicism has done in its communities. In many countries there are no such things as public schools, or public schools are way too expensive for the average person. Yet, one will find many Catholic schools to take up the load the government cannot in educating its youth. The same goes for hospitals, and universities. Without the Catholic Church we would not have our modern hospitals or our modern university system.

Well, I too am disgusted with a lot of the way secularism has ruined Western civilization (from the enlightenment onwards). But, today if you ask Muslims who is a good Muslim they look up to, a lot of them will say Ahmadinijad or Osama bin Laden, while Catholics would say Saint Francis de Sales, Saint Francis of Assisi, Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta, John Paul the Great, and so on. We need only see who looks up to whom, to guage a religion.

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

there is a heresy that said Jesus is a lesser god than the Father or something like that. Isn’t it what Oliver is implying?

Yes, M_Oliver is an Arian, which is an early heresy orthodox Christians fought to the death against! It is present in many forms in modern day religions (Jehovahs Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.).

 

[inJESUS]

Yes, M_Oliver is an Arian, which is an early heresy orthodox Christians fought to the death against! It is present in many forms in modern day religions (Jehovahs Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.).

thx strange how heresies are coming back again against the Church…but what the heck, gates of hell will not stop the Church…shame on people who do not learn from their Fathers who knew their faith much better…