pro_universal's reasons for leavin the Catholic Church

[janryboy]

No, I am not trying to get off track. I am clearly trying to prevent pro from believing anything Oliver is typing, because such a belief is unbiblical and lacks reason all together . Pro already has enough problems, and I do not want him to have anymore with what Oliver is typing, but I guess we should get back on track again.

yeah, I get your point. Thanks!

 

[tequilamac]

Problem is, people like pro universal come to CAF and tell uswhat is wrong with Catholicism. He may or may not have been a Catholic. But he is absolutely incapable of telling us what advantage there is to being a Muslim, or a Jew? If one asks, he can just say well it is because the Trinity this and the Trinity that. Or the Church this or the Church that. What he has not been able to do so far is explain that Islam or Judaism is a better route to go because Islam or Judaism …
All he can do is find fault with Catholicism which any kid in short pants can do. He cannot and others on the forum dissastisfied with the Church cannot offer us anything better. Interesting.

 

[M_Oliver]

I will not claim that I do understand Scripture. It is God’s voice and requires supernatural interpretation made manifest for our sake.
Let me continue in this sense, that I will always agree that the Son is obedient to the Father, but I have to say, that God is God. There is no God and another God lower them him. There is one God and three persons in him. John 5:18 clearly states that no one can call Jesus, God’s Son without also making him equal to the Father.

John 5:23
So they may honor the Son, just as the honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father.

Once again you misinterpret Scripture, no one who does not call Jesus God, can call the Father God. Just as the above passage indicates, if you say there is a time when the Word did not exist, you say the same about the Father.

John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

This passage above shows they are inseperable. One thing you say about the other you will be saying about the other. And since there was never a time when the Father was nonexistent, neither is there for the Son. This passage most supports the Trinity.

John 10:33
The Jews answered, It is not for a good work we are going to stone you, but for blasphemy, because you, though only a human being, are making yourself God.

M_Oliver, if you believe that Jesus is God, you must also believe two other things:

There never was a time when God did not exist
God can do anything he wills

John 16:15
All that the Father has is mine

This indicates that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that Jesus and the Father do not share. If Jesus is created, he CANNOT be divine and if you say this, you say also that the Father is not divine. They both share their divinity, and to be divine means to have no beginnig.

John 17:3
And this is eternal life, that they may know YOU, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

Once again, I will state that there is nothing that the Father has, that Jesus does not have. In the passage above, Jesus says that they may know the Father who is the true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent. This could only be one thing, that Jesus and the Father are one in being, but seperate in persons, because Jesus just said they should know the Father has been sent in him.

I will state once again that whatever you say about the Son, you say about the Father, because He and the Father are one. Whoever says there was a time when the Father was not says also that about the Son and viceversa.

I will comment on your comments, yours are in BOLD…

"Let me continue in this sense, that I will always agree that the Son is obedient to the Father, but I have to say, that God is God."

We agree.

"There is no God and another God lower them him. There is one God and three persons in him."

We DISAGREE. Not one single Scripture inspired by God says there are THREE persons in ONE God. Men say so, Scripture does not. If you are quoting 1 John 5:7 in most bibles you had better do some research.

**The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, (John 5:22)

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:23)

“Once again you misinterpret Scripture, no one who does not call Jesus God, can call the Father God. Just as the above passage indicates, if you say there is a time when the Word did not exist, you say the same about the Father.”**

You misinterpret what I have said because you don’t understand what I said. It is a familiar scenario. I included verse 22 so that all could see the reason behind verse verse 23 that you posted.

**"John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

This passage most supports the Trinity."**

We really disagree. How does this passage support the “trinity”???

**"M_Oliver, if you believe that Jesus is God, you must also believe two other things:

There never was a time when God did not exist
God can do anything he wills"**

We agree. In fact I am glad that you admit that God can do anything He wills. There is not alot of that around here. To admit that you admit that your will is under the control of God’s will. We don’t have a free will. God is in control and He does anything He wills, that includes controlling His creation.

**"John 16:15
All that the Father has is mine

This indicates that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that Jesus and the Father do not share."**

Now you know the mystery of why the Father created humanity

 

[M_Oliver]

No he is right.

To imply that Jesus is created and that His Father is not is to imply that they are not one, and that they are two different substances.

You said that the Father is God and is not created. You also state that the Son is God and he is created. And by correct reasoning you are saying that one God is created and the other God is not. You also say that they are both God, but unequal.
Do not be decieved, God is not unequal with himself.
Either you admit that Jesus is God and the Father is God and they are equal because they are both God and we know God is not created, or you are saying Jesus is not God at all, which is completely unbiblical.

I am not misunderstanding anything, I have interpreted everything you have presented correctly. The only problem is that your beliefs lack reason. Faith without reason does not come from God.

“created” should be “manifested”…my apologies. I admire your passion. Mine, equal to yours, has brought threats of suspension and eviction from this board .

Are you seeing this moderator? Learn something from it.

 

[tequilamac]

I will comment on your comments, yours are in BOLD…

"Let me continue in this sense, that I will always agree that the Son is obedient to the Father, but I have to say, that God is God."

We agree.

"There is no God and another God lower them him. There is one God and three persons in him."

We DISAGREE. Not one single Scripture inspired by God says there are THREE persons in ONE God. Men say so, Scripture does not. If you are quoting 1 John 5:7 in most bibles you had better do some research.

**The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, (John 5:22)

that all may honor the Son, just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. (John 5:23)

“Once again you misinterpret Scripture, no one who does not call Jesus God, can call the Father God. Just as the above passage indicates, if you say there is a time when the Word did not exist, you say the same about the Father.”**

You misinterpret what I have said because you don’t understand what I said. It is a familiar scenario. I included verse 22 so that all could see the reason behind verse verse 23 that you posted.

**"John 10:30
The Father and I are one.

This passage most supports the Trinity."**

We really disagree. How does this passage support the “trinity”???

**"M_Oliver, if you believe that Jesus is God, you must also believe two other things:

There never was a time when God did not exist
God can do anything he wills"**

We agree. In fact I am glad that you admit that God can do anything He wills. There is not alot of that around here. To admit that you admit that your will is under the control of God’s will. We don’t have a free will. God is in control and He does anything He wills, that includes controlling His creation.

**"John 16:15
All that the Father has is mine

This indicates that there is NOTHING, absolutely nothing that Jesus and the Father do not share."**

Now you know the mystery of why the Father created humanity

You are not a surprise to me M Oliver. So really what you are doing here is trying to negate Catholicism. The Trinity is a Catholic belief. You will gain very little by attempting to negate it.
Free will is only logical in God. If we did not have free will, God would be a slave driver. Also, we are not buddhists and we are not fatalists. Therefore we claim free will. If you do not have a free will, then it is not God in control of you, it is obviously the opposite. But again, that is a conscious free decision of yours.

 

[Image_of_God]

I will comment on your comments, yours are in BOLD…

"Let me continue in this sense, that I will always agree that the Son is obedient to the Father, but I have to say, that God is God."

We agree.
Yes.

"There is no God and another God lower them him. There is one God and three persons in him."

We do not even agree on this. For you say that the Son is created, and therefore if he is created he cannot be divine, so you imply that the Son does not share divinity with his Father.
You also say that the Son could not have raised himself up. But this is contrary to what the Bible says about the authority of the Father being given to the Son. If you look above you said we agree that God can do anything he wills. But we do not agree. Because you say that the Son is God, but he cannot raise himself from the dead. But does not the Bible say that the Father has given all authority to the Son? Yes it does, and you continue to imply the following about Jesus who you say is God:

God did not raise himself from the dead
God is created
There is someone greater than God.

 

[Image_of_God]

“created” should be “manifested”…my apologies. I admire your passion. Mine, equal to yours, has brought threats of suspension and eviction from this board .

Are you seeing this moderator? Learn something from it.

If this is occuring, then I think we should listen to the moderators and stop. But do have to disagree with your belief on free will. Yes, God does direct all creation, but he does not direct angels and humans, as he does the flowers and nature. If you do not have the freedom to choose your own destiny then you say that God forces people into hell, and that is a lie. He directs human with the respect of their freedom. God predestines no one to hell. Humans are responsible for their sins says the Lord.

The Lord would not make someone responsible for something that he forced them to do. Such is contrary to his Justice and his Mercy.

It is awing however, that you would do anything to push away from Catholiscism, even though the Truth is only in her bosom and is right before you!

I would rethink whatever faith you are believing and make sure it is biblical.

 

[Image_of_God]

You are not a surprise to me M Oliver. So really what you are doing here is trying to negate Catholicism. The Trinity is a Catholic belief. You will gain very little by attempting to negate it.
Free will is only logical in God. If we did not have free will, God would be a slave driver. Also, we are not buddhists and we are not fatalists. Therefore we claim free will. If you do not have a free will, then it is not God in control of you, it is obviously the opposite. But again, that is a conscious free decision of yours.

I agree .

 

[murtad]

Any reasonable analogy you come up with will fail, because to be reasonable, an analogy has to be logically coherent.

What will your definition of “logically coherent” be ?

If it’s logically coherent, it cannot match the trinity…because the basic articles of the belief are themselves contradictory. No amount of adding to them or explaining other aspects can possibly:

Trinity is very very logically coherent. Its only you who does not know the meaning of “logically coherent”.

 

[prayforwisdom]

The problem is that the reality with which early Christians were confronted was itself contradictory. They were Jews coming from a religion where any image of God and any suggestion that he was material was blasphemy. Yet, they decided that their leader, a man, was God. The roots are contradictory, and the trinity grew up to reconcile those two opposing beliefs…namely the Jewish invisible God with the belief that Jesus the man was himself God.

The “roots” are not contradictory. Nor is “the reality with which early Christians were confronted” contradictory. You seem to pile misunderstanding upon misunderstanding.

Both Christians and Jews accept the belief that God’s Divine nature is invisible. This belief does not contradict the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Jesus is both God and man. He was visible in His human nature but invisible in His Divine nature.

You seem to be confusing the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of the Trinity. In any case, both of these doctrines, the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of the Trinity, are not contradictory. They are Biblically and logically coherent.

They did not “decide’ that their leader was God. Jesus claimed to be God, and proved it too. They simply accepted His claims and proof.

You should learn more about the Bible, Christian Theology, Church history, and even logic before you make claims like the above.

 

[prayforwisdom]

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#II

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

The Incarnation
newadvent.org/cathen/07706b.htm

Christology
newadvent.org/cathen/14597a.htm

The Blessed Trinity
newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

 

[prayforwisdom]

vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p2.htm#II

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c2a2.htm

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

 

[pro_universal]

The “roots” are not contradictory. Nor is “the reality with which early Christians were confronted” contradictory. You seem to pile misunderstanding upon misunderstanding.

Okay, for Jews, God was invisible, and the very notion that you would be able to see God was blasphemy. God was, in their theology, completely different from a man. No similitude whatsoever.

For Christians, God was a man with a body like ours.

That is definitely contradictory-invisible God, versus visible God.

Both Christians and Jews accept the belief that God’s Divine nature is invisible. This belief does not contradict the Christian belief that Jesus is God. Jesus is both God and man. He was visible in His human nature but invisible in His Divine nature.

Yes, it does. If you don’t believe me, ask some Jewish friends of yours. It is idolatry to them, and they called it that from the beginning. God has no visible image or nature in Judaism, at least in the sense that God has a face and a height.

You seem to be confusing the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of the Trinity. In any case, both of these doctrines, the doctrine of the Incarnation with the doctrine of the Trinity, are not contradictory. They are Biblically and logically coherent.

Biblically, maybe. Logically, they are about as close to a textbook example of contradiction as you can get. The reason for this is the fundamental problem outlined above, the Jewish invisible, incorporeal God, versus the Christian God with a body.

They did not “decide’ that their leader was God. Jesus claimed to be God, and proved it too. They simply accepted His claims and proof.

You should learn more about the Bible, Christian Theology, Church history, and even logic before you make claims like the above.

Maybe so, but that certainly doesn’t make it any less contradictory.

If you think I got Christian theology wrong, just tell me which point on my list was not true of the Trinity.

 

[inJESUS]

Okay, for Jews, God was invisible, and the very notion that you would be able to see God was blasphemy. God was, in their theology, completely different from a man. No similitude whatsoever.

The LORD appeared to Abraham by the terebinth of Mamre, as he sat in the entrance of his tent, while the day was growing hot.
2
Looking up, he saw three men standing nearby. When he saw them, he ran from the entrance of the tent to greet them; and bowing to the ground…

Then the **man **said, “You shall no longer be spoken of as Jacob, but as Israel, because you have contended with divine and human beings and have prevailed.”
30
Jacob then asked him, “Do tell me your name, please.” He answered, “Why should you want to know my name?” With that, he bade him farewell.
31
4 Jacob named the place Peniel, “Because I have seen **God **face to face,” he said, “yet my life has been spared.”

Isaiah 9:6 For to us a **child **is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful, Counselor, **Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace." **This verse points out the inescapable fact that the Messiah is God Almighty appearing in human form. That this passage was considered Messianic is evident from the fact that verse7 says that the Child would sit on the throne of David forever, a description which only fits the Messiah.

“And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and of supplication; then they will look on **Me **( God) whom they have pierced; they will mourn for **Him **(God!!) as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.”
Zecharia 12:10

God is talking about Himself.

14
Sing and rejoice, O daughter Zion! See, **I am coming to dwell among you, says the LORD. **15
Many nations shall join themselves to the LORD on that day, and they shall be his people, and he will dwell among you, and you shall know that the LORD of hosts has sent me to you.
God who comes or God who sends??

 

[prayforwisdom]

Here’s a small quote from

God Has No Body
catholic.com/library/God_Has_No_Body.asp

"The Church Fathers… loudly declared the fact that God is an unchangeable, immaterial spirit who has an entirely simple (“incomposite”) nature—that is, a nature containing no parts. Since all bodies extend through space and thus can be divided into parts, it is clear that God cannot have a body.

“What of Christ’s body?” you may ask. It is true that Jesus, who is God, assumed an earthly body when he was born of the Blessed Virgin, and that this body, now glorified, continues to exist. But since the Lord only took on human flesh in these “last days,” and since God has always existed, without beginning or end, we must still conclude that having a body is not part of God’s unchangeable nature: he exists in eternity as pure spirit, even though he chose for the Son to also take on a human nature in addition to his bodiless, timeless, divine nature."

 

[Contarini]

Okay, for Jews, God was invisible, and the very notion that you would be able to see God was blasphemy. God was, in their theology, completely different from a man. No similitude whatsoever.

For Christians, God was a man with a body like ours.

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. No one has claimed that “God was a man with a body like ours.” Christians make a distinction between the divine Essence and the Incarnate Son. The divine Essence is not limited to a body, which your caricature implies.

Of course if you state Christianity in Islamic terms, Christianity will seem contradictory. Any religion can be caricatured that way.

Yes, it does. If you don’t believe me, ask some Jewish friends of yours. It is idolatry to them, and they called it that from the beginning. God has no visible image or nature in Judaism, at least in the sense that God has a face and a height.

Asking modern Jews isn’t necessarily going to tell us what Jews of Jesus’ day believed. I don’t recall anywhere in the OT denying that God has a body. (On the contrary, the OT says that no one can see God’s face and live. That was later interpreted to mean that God doesn’t have a body–and of course that’s what I actually believe. But in the original context it could easily mean–in fact it most naturally means–that God has a face and the sight of that Face would strike any mortal dead. It’s not that God is invisible, but that the sight of God is too awesome and terrifying for human flesh and blood to stand.) Both Jews and Christians did come to believe this. But in Jesus’ day there were texts that seem to say that God does have a body, and spoke of mystics having a vision of God. The Jewish text Shi’ur Komah actually measures God’s body. Of course many people will claim that this is only metaphorical. But Prof. Kalman Bland, a rabbi with whom I took a class on Jewish mysticism at Duke, argued that at this point Jews had not yet embraced the idea that God was immaterial.

You’re not only caricaturing Christianity, but you’re reading later Jewish philosophy back into the first century.

Edwin

 

[jAlex]

Asking modern Jews isn’t necessarily going to tell us what Jews of Jesus’ day believed. I don’t recall anywhere in the OT denying that God has a body. (On the contrary, the OT says that no one can see God’s face and live. That was later interpreted to mean that God doesn’t have a body–and of course that’s what I actually believe. But in the original context it could easily mean–in fact it most naturally means–that God has a face and the sight of that Face would strike any mortal dead. It’s not that God is invisible, but that the sight of God is too awesome and terrifying for human flesh and blood to stand.) Both Jews and Christians did come to believe this. But in Jesus’ day there were texts that seem to say that God does have a body, and spoke of mystics having a vision of God. The Jewish text Shi’ur Komah actually measures God’s body. Of course many people will claim that this is only metaphorical. But Prof. Kalman Bland, a rabbi with whom I took a class on Jewish mysticism at Duke, argued that at this point Jews had not yet embraced the idea that God was immaterial.

You’re not only caricaturing Christianity, but you’re reading later Jewish philosophy back into the first century.

Edwin

Edwin,

Now you’re not only educating him, you are also educating me ! :tiphat:

Thanks,
Alex.

 

[pro_universal]

I’m sorry, but that’s nonsense. No one has claimed that “God was a man with a body like ours.” Christians make a distinction between the divine Essence and the Incarnate Son. The divine Essence is not limited to a body, which your caricature implies.

No, it does not. “Limited to” was not a phrase I used, and it’s not part of the teaching.

But certainly, the Body of Christ is God. Would you deny that statement?

Asking modern Jews isn’t necessarily going to tell us what Jews of Jesus’ day believed. I don’t recall anywhere in the OT denying that God has a body.

It can at least tell us what Jews of today believe. And we can ask how they ended up believing that Jesus as God is idolatry.

(On the contrary, the OT says that no one can see God’s face and live. That was later interpreted to mean that God doesn’t have a body–and of course that’s what I actually believe. But in the original context it could easily mean–in fact it most naturally means–that God has a face and the sight of that Face would strike any mortal dead. It’s not that God is invisible, but that the sight of God is too awesome and terrifying for human flesh and blood to stand.)

Well, God being too awesome for human flesh and blood would certainly be a contradictory reality also.

Both Jews and Christians did come to believe this. But in Jesus’ day there were texts that seem to say that God does have a body, and spoke of mystics having a vision of God. The Jewish text Shi’ur Komah actually measures God’s body. Of course many people will claim that this is only metaphorical. But Prof. Kalman Bland, a rabbi with whom I took a class on Jewish mysticism at Duke, argued that at this point Jews had not yet embraced the idea that God was immaterial.

Well, certainly some Jews embraced this idea that God was not material (the Christians), but they were rejected by the other Jews. This is shakey, to say the least.

You’re not only caricaturing Christianity, but you’re reading later Jewish philosophy back into the first century.

Edwin

Again, as much as you want to argue the history, the basic teachings themselves are the contradiction. I believe the history explains why such a contradictory teaching was embraced, but the contradiction is in the teaching itself.

The numbered list is simple, but it’s also a collection of statements that you can definitely make about the trinity (they come from the Athanasian creed.) And they are obviously, taken together, contradictory.

So while I do not accept that the ancient Jews left room for a God with a body, it’s not necessary to agree on this point to see the problem with the trinity. Any elaboration of the teaching will include a number of contradictions, like “Jesus is God” and “Jesus is not God”, “The Father is God” and “God is Jesus” but “Jesus is not the Father.”

There are only three possible ways that the teaching is anything but contradictory:

1. Drop the claim that there is only one God
2. Drop the claim that God is one and indivisible. A God with separate parts (and thus, limits) can fit this theory.
3. Accept that using your mind leads you to the wrong conclusion about the trintiy, and that any God who wants you to believe in the trinity does not want you to be thinking logically about it. Maybe there’s some mysterious “level of existence” where no rules of logic apply, and circles can be squares.

Of the three, 3 just explains the contradiction away.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Ella

*Pro, I respect you for following your conscience. I pray that God leads you on your journey for the Truth.
*
Oh Ella, I wish you hadn’t said that. You are encouraging him to believe that his conscience is being truthful, when you know full well that he has been seduced by the Father of Lies.

Would you say Eve was following her conscience when she ate the apple? She too had been seduced by the Father of Lies, and was perfectly willing to believe.

 

[murtad]

Ella

*Pro, I respect you for following your conscience. I pray that God leads you on your journey for the Truth.
*
Oh Ella, I wish you hadn’t said that. You are encouraging him to believe that his conscience is being truthful, when you know full well that he has been seduced by the Father of Lies.

Would you say Eve was following her conscience when she ate the apple? She too had been seduced by the Father of Lies, and was perfectly willing to believe.

You are correct in saying human conscience can be either right or wrong as it is simply our emotions.

Mainline Protestants (such as Anglikans, Lutherans and Methodists) and Islamists follow their conscience, which is why they mis-interpret Bible and are led astray! This is what is meant by “following our conscience”

English language or any language is political language. Its words and their meanings may differ from one man to another man. IMO, the best book to learn any language is the Bible (along with the CCC). This can end the confusion of language, which is not a new phenomena but occured thousands of years ago at Babel.