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

[MH84]

Don’t accuse me, mate. If you think you are a true Catholic, good on you. I am just trying to be honest with myself.

What verses are you talking about?

 

[MH84]

I ALL the cases you quoted, these were part of greetings or closing of letters. They were verses that were intended to expound upon the character of and attributes of God in specific ways.

In what ways? Explain

To me it appears that YOU are the one who is ignoring or discounting parts of the Bible. Why do you not address the verses I gave you or the ones that you yourself mentioned. You list “Catholic” on your profile. Yet you are promoting views of Jesus that are more in keeping with Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Arian Heresy

(Edited) If you think you are a true Catholic, good on you. I am just trying to be honest with myself.

What verses are you talking about?

 

[rpp]

(Edited) If you think you are a true Catholic, good on you. I am just trying to be honest with myself.

(Edited) I merely made observations.

What verses are you talking about?

49 Jesus answered, "I am not possessed; I honor my Father, but you
dishonor me.

50 I do not seek my own glory; there is one who seeks it and he is the one who judges.

51 Amen, amen, I say to you, whoever keeps my word will never see death."

52 (So) the Jews said to him, "Now we are sure that you are possessed. Abraham died, as did the prophets, yet you say, ‘Whoever keeps my word will never taste death.’

53 Are you greater than our father Abraham, 21 who died? Or the prophets, who died? Who do you make yourself out to be?"

54 Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is worth nothing; but it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say, ‘He is our God.’

55 You do not know him, but I know him. And if I should say that I do not know him, I would be like you a liar. But I do know him and I keep his word.

56 Abraham your father rejoiced to see my day; he saw it 22 and was glad.

57 So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old and you have seen Abraham?” 23

58 24 Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, **before Abraham came to be, I AM.” **

John 8:49-58 NAB

Emphasis mine.

                                             18  [11](http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/matthew28.htm#foot11) Then Jesus approached and said to them, "All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.

19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,

20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Matthew 28: 18-20 NAB

You will hold for example John 1:1 and John 20:28 as being the context of your personal opinion on what is context. But the problem I see is that when I bring up other verses (like the ones above), people will continually just say “read in context” or to look at other passages, but the problem is those other verses are still there, like Romans 15:6, 2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3.

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.

 

[MH84]

I do not accuse. I merely made observations.

Emphasis mine.

Regarding Matthew 28:19 look at my second last post.

Regarding John 8:58, yes it does seem Jesus is claiming the divine name for Himself. However, this Gospel was written last, how come no other writer found this so important?

There are also other interpretations of 8:58 which Im not sure about or have even looked into.

 

[rpp]

Regarding Matthew 28:19 look at my second last post.

I already responded to that.

Regarding John 8:58, yes it does seem Jesus is claiming the divine name for Himself. However, this Gospel was written last, how come no other writer found this so important?

There are also other interpretations of 8:58 which Im not sure about or have even looked into.

So, what are you really saying. Is Jesus God or not?

 

[MH84]

rrp explain this please:

I ALL the cases you quoted, these were part of greetings or closing of letters. They were verses that were intended to expound upon the character of and attributes of God in specific ways.

 

[agangbern]

Addition:
Btw, where else besides Jesus commanding His disciples in Matthew 28:19 where the people baptised “in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”? I don’t think there is anywhere else in the bible where this formula was used. How come they early Christians didnt baptise using the Trinitarian formula?

Do you know how a Trinitarian formula is done? And what is your basis for saying that the early Christians didn’t use that formula?

 

[MH84]

I already responded to that.

No you didnt! You have been avoiding nearly every question Ive asked you. You are trying to be subtle with your responses.

(Edited)

 

[MH84]

Do you know how a Trinitarian formula is done? And what is your basis for saying that the early Christians didn’t use that formula?

Show me in the Bible when the early Christians were baptised. They were baptised in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Blessed Trinity.

 

[rpp]

rrp explain this please:
rpp;3401891:

I ALL the cases you quoted, these were part of greetings or closing of letters. They were verses that were intended to expound upon the character of and attributes of God in specific ways.

Okay, this was an effort on my part to help me to learn to be more humble via the prolific use of typos.

Here is how the statement should read.

-]I /-]ALL the cases [verses] you quoted were part of greetings or closings of letters. They were **not **verses [statements] -]that were/-] intended to expound upon the character -]of and/-] **or **attributes of God-] in specific ways/-].

And without the corrects for easier reading.

ALL the verses you quoted were part of greetings or closings of letters. They were notstatements intended to expound upon the character or attributes of God

 

[rpp]

(Not quoting insulting post as I am certain the moderators will delete it.)

Conversation over.

 

[MH84]

You list “Catholic” on your profile. Yet you are promoting views of Jesus that are more in keeping with Jehovah’s Witnesses or the Arian Heresy

Hypocritical?

 

[agangbern]

Show me in the Bible when the early Christians were baptised. They were baptised in the name of Jesus, not in the name of the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. But that does not say that it did not use what you called “Trinitarian formula”. What you have read is not sufficient to produce the conclusion that you made. In the first place, you have not witnessed how baptizing in the name of Jesus is done! The details of it are preserved as one of the traditions of the Catholic Church.

 

[MH84]

Yes, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. But that does not say that it did not use what you called “Trinitarian formula”. What you have read is not sufficient to produce the conclusion that you made. In the first place, you have not witnessed how baptizing in the name of Jesus is done! The details of it are preserved as one of the traditions of the Catholic Church.

Are you saying that the baptisms in the name of Jesus were the same baptism as outlined in Matthew 28:19?

What do you mean by witnessing btw?

 

[MH84]

Yes, they were baptized in the name of Jesus. But that does not say that it did not use what you called “Trinitarian formula”. What you have read is not sufficient to produce the conclusion that you made. In the first place, you have not witnessed how baptizing in the name of Jesus is done! The details of it are preserved as one of the traditions of the Catholic Church.

You are right in saying that being baptised in the name of Jesus could have been the same as being baptised in the name of the Trinity. But there is no certainty.

An example of what I mean:

Acts 2:38
Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

There is no mention of being baptised in the name of the Trinity here.

 

[agangbern]

Are you saying that the baptisms in the name of Jesus were the same baptism as outlined in Matthew 28:19?

What do you mean by witnessing btw?

“by witnessing”, you should have personally seen how it was done by them. Only then could your claim that what you called “trinitarian formula” was not used would be admissible testimony.

What I am saying is that the ONE GOD is manifested in three divine persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. This fact is the center of this thread, not baptism.

 

[VociMike]

MH84, can you please clarify your position? Are you rejecting some Catholic teaching regarding the nature of Christ and/or the Trinity? If so, what is it exactly that you are rejecting?

 

[John_Hiner]

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

Laudatur Iesus Christus.

There are two issues raised here. But, neither should give much difficulty.

First is the question is Christ’s relationship to the Most Holy Trinity. In this context, Christ is One of Three.

The human metaphor is a man employed by a corporation as a member of the board of directors. He is a member of the entity, which is his employer. The man can easily be said to be both a representative of the committee and answerable to it. This metaphor is not perfect, but it points firmly in the direction of understanding how someone who is as much a member of the board as any other member might also address the board as his employer and act as its delegate to the world outside.

In some senses, the language used by and about Christ arises from this reality.

The second issue is the relationship between Christ and God the Father. They love each other absolutely. The Father gives all that He is and all that He has to the Son. The Son is the Father’s God. In turn, the Son loves the Father absolutely; He gives all that He is and all that He has to the Father. The Father is the Son’s God.

This absolute love is difficult for human’s to conceive, because it takes what we can taste of Christian love and challenges us to conceive of it in the divine absolute. In some sense, the language used by and about Christ arises from this reality as well.

The combination of these relationships makes the phrases quoted perfectly correct. Further, it is in part the presence of such phrases in the Scripture that gives us a glimpse into the truth of these relationships within the Most Holy Trinity. These are truths to which we would have no access, but through the revelation given by Jesus Christ. It is not that the Apostles were struggling to come to understand. They were expressing something that mankind had not suspected and so their language challenges preconceptions.

Spiritus Sapientiae nobiscum.

John Hiner

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

MH84, I have a couple of questions for you:

Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God? Are you in doubts about this? If so, is there something or someone who has caused this?

What forms of proof are you looking for? Do you think that is must be explicit in the Bible for it to be true? What do you think of Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium? Have you read the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

What is your goal here? What do you hope to accomplish in these threads? Are you trying to convince others or have others convince you?

 

[JMJ_coder]

Hello,

In regards to the question of this thread, look at this section from the Athanasian Creed, which the Catholic Church holds to be authoritative:

…Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation that he also believe rightly the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ.
For the right faith is that we believe and confess that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man.
God of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of substance of His mother, born in the world.
Perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.
Equal to the Father as touching His Godhead, and inferior to the Father as touching His manhood.
Who, although He is God and man, yet He is not two, but one Christ.
One, not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but by taking of that manhood into God.
One altogether, not by confusion of substance, but by unity of person.
For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man, so God and man is one Christ…