St. Peter and St. Paul believed that God is the God of Jesus...how then can they have believed Jesus is God as well?

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

Over 33000 churches, with millions of followers don’t believe the Catholic Church, not to mention all the other faiths and non-believers. Many are smarter than you. So they obviously have a way of justifying their belief in the bible without the CC. I don’t know how, but they do. More people are not Catholic than are Catholic.

No, they really don’t. I have never once talked with a Protestant who can give any sort of valid argument for why they believe in the Bible.

And it is precisely because of their erroneous views of Scripture - i.e., sola scriptura and private interpretation - that give rise to thousands upon thousands of ecclesial communities that can’t agree on almost anything.

So the question that needs to be answered is why do you accept the Scriptures? What makes you think that only they are believable and free of error?

 

[luv_pis]

How does one explain these passages:

Romans 15:6
so that with one heart and mouth you may glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort,

Ephesians 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ.

1 Peter 1:3
Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

www.biblegateway.com

Just look at the verses from Sts. Paul and Peter on there own and explain them. Simple. If you can’t don’t worry about it.

Hmmm…hmmm… MH84, I’ve read through the posts here, and I’ve seen *agangbern *reply to you that Psalm 45:6-7 was also quoted in the book of Hebrews, so that the message of the passage was in effect that God the Son’s God is God (did that make sense?). Why did you not respond to that?

But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.”

Hebrews 1:8-9, emphases mine. Note that the author of Hebrews says that the speaker is GOD through King David, one of the prophets.

Also, you asked, and I quote

How can Paul say this, but still think that Jesus was his Creator?

If you include the few verses following from the quote above from Hebrews, it would read:

But of the Son he says, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.”

And, "Thou, Lord, didst found the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of thy hands; they will perish, but thou remainest; they will all grow old like a garment, like a mantle thou wilt roll them up, and they will be changed. But thou art the same, and thy years will never end."

Hebrews 1:8-12, emphases mine

You should read the whole of the first chapter of Hebrews, it will clear up everything, I believe.

NOTE: The passages are from the RSV

 

[Usagi]

Usagi,

1. Thank you for this well set out answer. It makes a lot of sense to me, and I think you have seen the point I have been coming from. Im interested though, why the Catholic Church did not adopt the same understanding of the “ontologically dependant” Trinity? Are the West in disagreement with the East in this opinion? Because if one looks at the Athanasian creed, for example, there is no trace of that what so ever, but the sctiptures as we know say something different.

Western Catholics don’t emphasize the monarchy of the Father as much as Eastern Christians (both Catholic and Orthodox, I suspect) do, but I would argue that the concept is still there.

Understand, the Easterners still believe that there is only one God in three equal Persons; we have that many councils in common at least. So there’s not a real difference of belief here.

Even the Athanasian Creed, as I read it, upholds both points. It certainly reiterates again and again that the three Persons are equal in every way. But it also is careful to describe the relations between the Persons thusly: the Father is uncreated, unbegotten, and unproceeding from any other entity. The Son is uncreated and unproceeding, but is begotten of the Father. The Spirit is uncreated and unbegotten, but proceeds from the Father (and the Son, in the West). Even to the writers of the Athanasian Creed, then, the Son and Spirit “come from” the Father, though They do not follow Him in time and are in no way less than He.

I mentioned also the common Western view of the Trinity: that the Father is God in Himself, the Son God’s self-knowledge, and the Spirit the love between the Father and the Son. Again, the Father in a sense “comes first,” though not in a way that would strip the other two Persons of true, equal, and eternal Godhood.

Even the names “Father” and “Son” indicate a certain priority; a father begets a son, but a son does not beget his father.

Usagi

(cont’d)

 

[Usagi]

(cont.)

1. Regarding your theory against the apostles dumping all of the information, so to speak, on the new converts, is this plausible in reality if one believes that it is at the core of Catholic teaching, or did this become the core at a later time? IOW, at first did they just preach that Jesus was God’s servant “whom God raised from the dead” or did they preach everything they knew immediately?

I’m sorry, I may have miscommunicated my thoughts there. I wasn’t meaning to indicate that Peter and Paul might have deliberately concealed any of the truth they knew. I was simply offering some alternative hypotheses as to why the doctrine of the Trinity in its fully developed form is not set forth clearly in Scripture.

I tend to believe myself (though some here might find it heretical) that the doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation did indeed develop over time from kernels of truth. The direct followers of Jesus, especially after the Resurrection and Ascension, had a sense that Jesus was both a human being like us and also something more, something very closely connected to God Himself. He was distinct from the One He called His Father, yet they were “one” in a way no other could be one with God. At least some of the Scriptural writers clearly held that Jesus pre-existed His human life, and was there at the Creation – indeed, was the one through Whom Creation was accomplished. Jesus accomplished things and made claims for himself that seemed blasphemous when applied to anyone but God. Yet being Jewish, the early Christians felt they must hold tightly to belief in one God, and they so instructed the Gentile converts.

Over time (again, in the way I tend to imagine things happened), these basic notions were refined. Early Gnostics tried to claim Christ for themselves, drawing a sharp line between Jesus the man and Christ the spirit-being – and Christian writers drew on both the writings of the apostles and their handed-down Tradition to refute the notion. The notion that Jesus might have been just another human servant of God, even a great one like Moses or Elijah or David, was likewise rejected. The proto-orthodox Christians may not have had the precise words to explain how and why these alternatives were wrong, but they knew them to be a distortion of what they’d been taught.

Finally, other heresies led to the great ecumenical councils of the fourth century. (That was quite awhile after the first generation, certainly, but not long at all after Christianity was finally legalized, so that Christians could concentrate on hammering out theological details and not on trying to worship without being arrested and killed.) In those gatherings, amid much argument, the handed-down seeds of apostolic truth were developed into philosophically precise statements, delineating exactly what the Church did and did not believe.

Now, I believe the Holy Spirit guided that whole process, the same Holy Spirit Who inspired the Scriptural writers to write as they did. So I’m willing to accept the final statements as legitimate developments of the original truths – not additions without justification, but refinements brought about by repeated questioning and study.

Usagi

(cont’d)

 

[Usagi]

(cont.)

1. Why did they decide to leave out two important concepts (the Blessed Trinity and that Jesus was God the Son) from the written Sctiptures? They included a lot of information that was less important or vital (but more complicated) to the Christian understanding. Could it be that maybe they were not yet sure about the doctrine 100%?

“Not yet sure” isn’t quite how I’d put it, because it sounds as though they were completely making things up as they went along. As I expressed above, I don’t think the fully developed doctrines were present in the first century. Certainly, Peter and Paul did not go about discussing three hypostases in one ousia, or one Person with two natures. On the other hand, we know from the Scriptures that they sometimes spoke of Jesus as man and sometimes as God, which is the key tension that both the Trinity and Incarnation doctrines in their full forms were trying to explain.

I suspect one reason why some people have been impatient with you (though I also apologize on their behalf, as you seem to be seriously struggling and need help from your brothers and sisters rather than ridicule) is that you are essentially recapitulating the same debates and discussions that led to the formulation of the Trinity and Incarnation doctrines in the first place. All the different factions in those disputes went to the Scriptures to bolster their points as well – and there are, clearly, passages of Scripture that can be taken to support nearly all of them. That’s the very reason why it’s important to read Scripture in the light of Tradition and Church teaching. Scripture gives us those raw kernels of original revelation, perhaps with an early polish of development for some of the later books. Many, many passages make it clear there is only one God. Some passages, on the other hand, suggest that Jesus is God, while simultaneously being distinct from the Father. A few hold similar implications about the Spirit. Likewise, sometimes the text goes out of its way to emphasize Jesus’ true humanity, while in other places it paints a cosmic and divine image of Him.

The Church already spent a great deal of time wrestling with how to reconcile those seemingly contradictory assertions. She already went through the same agonizing questions you have. And she came up with the fully-formed Trinity and Incarnation doctrines as her answers.

I dont mean to make light of your doubts and questions. I’ll continue to try to explain why I think the Trinity and Incarnation are reasonable extrapolations from the Biblical data for as long as you like. But you do seem to be coming at things from a strange (and, yes, very “Protestant”) direction. You want to personally extract the developed doctrines from the original kernels of truth without following any of the in-between steps. And when that is difficult, you begin to think that the developed doctrines were just pulled out of nowhere and stapled onto the Biblical data. Further, you seem to be taking the Bible as a fait accompli while placing little trust in the Church that preserved the Scriptures and the Tradition that surrounds and clarifies them. Yes, a great many other people do that, too. We think they’re going about it the wrong way, too. And when it seems that you, a fellow Catholic, are going down the same path, we don’t get it.

Thanks again.

You’re welcome!

Usagi

 

[MH84]

So the question that needs to be answered is why do you accept the Scriptures? What makes you think that only they are believable and free of error?

I guess because I believe God is the primary author of the Scriptures, and that I believe that the events recorded about Jesus are true.

I want to put forward something that I am not saying I believe (since Im still a practicing Catholic), but could make sense to me:

Who says God had to inspire scriptures for the Catholic Church only? The scriptures could have been written by Christians (not necessary those who were Catholic) for future Christians.

Technically speaking, the church could have changed direction after the apostles had all died (Restorationists claim this I think), as well as those influencing her. Because decisions were made after they had already died.

Anyway this is all I want ot say on this matter because it is not really the topic of discussion.

 

[MH84]

Why should they not have the same weight? The passage, “Thy throne, Oh God…”, is quoted by St. Paul in his letter to the Hebrews. And there it is clear that God Himself addressed the Son as God. The divinity of Christ, the Son, is not different from the divinity of the Father. The divinity that is in the Father is the same divinity that is in the Son. There is only ONE GOD, and this ONE GOD is manifested in three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father did address the Son as God; and the Son did address the Father as God; each of the three persons did address each other as God. But that did not make God three gods. Only the persons manifesting the ONE GOD is three.

Sorry I didnt pay attention to this post earlier. Its more constructive than I previously thought. Its a good point you bring up.

In relation to your post:
But did the Father ever say that the the Son was His God?

Calling the Father “God” is one thing, calling the Father “My God” is different isnt it? It sounds strange that Paul and Peter (other people) were saying that Jesus has a God (who is His Father as well of course). I sense that Peter and Paul thought there was subordination between the Father and Son when their epistles were written.

 

[VociMike]

I guess because I believe God is the primary author of the Scriptures, and that I believe that the events recorded about Jesus are true.

But you don’t believe that God is the primary author of the Koran or the Book of Mormon. Why the difference? What do you point to to justify your different beliefs regarding these three books?

I want to put forward something that I am not saying I believe (since Im still a practicing Catholic), but could make sense to me:

Who says God had to inspire scriptures for the Catholic Church only? The scriptures could have been written by Christians (not necessary those who were Catholic) for future Christians.

I think it’s safe to say that the scriptures are for everybody. But how one learns the truths contained in scripture is the question.

Consider this. If the sola Scripturists are right, and God intended the bible to be the final Christian authority, and therefore the Church is wrong in its claims, then we have the odd situation that the false approach (that of the Catholic Church) works much better at teaching a single, unified faith than the true approach (sola Scriptura). That’s rather awkward, wouldn’t you say?

 

[planter654]

Ahh, but this has nothing to do with being smart. As Christ told Peter, it is not flesh and blood (human ability) that has revealed the truth, but God. No amount of Greek or Hebrew study, logical analysis, or any other human endeavor can “decipher” the bible. The bible can only be deciphered correctly in the divinely guided light of the Church.

And again, provide us (and more importantly, yourself) a coherent justification for believing the bible while rejecting the authority of the Church which confirmed the bible. You seem determined to skip over that critical step (as do most Protestants), but you are on shifting sands until you can provide such a justification. To me, the very resistance you are showing to this question is evidence that you fear where the question will lead you.

I agree with you and what you said in your first paragraph…till the last sentence. Please read again the two first sentences. You are right when you say “No” amount of Greek or Hebrew study, logical analyysis, or any other HUMAN endeavor can decipher the bible. The Holy Spirit blows upon whom it WILLS. God is all Holy “divine”, Jesus is all Holy “divine”.

Thank You God Bless…only God can make us HOLY. But we are all mere mortals upon the earth.