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

[VociMike]

The Church is the servant of the scriptures.

This is a meaningless statement.

 

[VociMike]

Originally Posted by VociMike
Then read more Early Church Fathers, early Councils, history, ect. And keep in mind “the dog that didn’t bark”.If a belief is never attacked by the Church as a heresy, then that belief must have been held since the beginning.

Arius, Ebionites (probably more).

What point are you trying to make here?

To claim that in the past the Church suddenly and entirely adopted some heresy or other without leaving any historical evidence of this enormous fact is to make a claim which goes against reason.

Who says suddently? How do you know what the apostles taught? You yourself said that you don’t know what the apostles believed about the nature of Christ.

If not suddenly, then all the more reason that the Church would have attacked the error before it engulfed the Church. How can you not see that?

And I didn’t say (or didn’t mean to say) that we don’t know what the apostles believed about the nature of Christ. We know they had the entire revelation of God. What we don’t know is how well they understood that revelation.

You are suggesting that the Church at some point elevated a mere human prophet to Godhood itself, and that nobody in the Church made so much as a peep of protest. Think about that claim long and hard.

The book of Acts records the first steps of the early church right? Where in it does it say that the converts believed Jesus was their Co-creator Incarnate? No where. They believed in Jesus, and they believed in God. Not that the two were the same. Whether they did or not is another story, but the bible doesnt say that.

Protestant mindset. You must break free of this error that all of God’s revelation is found explicitly in the bible. The bible is not a catechism.

Vocimike, honestly please, do you think the first Jewish converts believed that Jesus was the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob? Please tell me.

Absolutely yes.

Also, tell me were St. Peter, even once, calls Jesus God? St. Peter never wrote this. In fact, he said that Jesus had a God in First Peter.

Peter called Jesus “Lord”. Show me in the OT when any prophet was called “Lord”.

 

[MH84]

Not all of what the Apostles taught is in the Scriptures. There is much that was passed on orally. For example, in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 - Saint Paul tells us to adhere to all the apostolic teachings, whether in written form (Scriptures) or by word of mouth (Sacred Tradition).

Why did they not include two of the most important doctrines in the scriptures, the Blessed Trinity and the full divinity of Christ?

 

[MH84]

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.
2. 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?
3. 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%?

Thanks again.

 

[MH84]

VociMike: And I didn’t say (or didn’t mean to say) that we don’t know what the apostles believed about the nature of Christ. We know they had the entire revelation of God. What we don’t know is how well they understood that revelation.

I think you did. Youve just changed your mind now after looking at some other posts.

 

[MH84]

Okay, I have been given some food for thought.

It still leaves this question open though:

Why did the writers write certain verses down like what was written in the OP? I mean a modern Catholic wouldnt say such things about Jesus.

Say that the Scriptures didnt record all that was necessary (because of Tradition), why did the apostles/evangelists still believe that Jesus had a God, and that He “was made both Lord and Christ” (by God), and that He “did good because God was with Him”? Why did they include these?

Thanks for your perseverance.

 

[MH84]

Peter called Jesus “Lord”. Show me in the OT when any prophet was called “Lord”.

Well since you brought it up, Sarah called Abraham “lord”.

Anyway,“Lord” doesn’t necessarily mean “God”. In Acts 2:36 St. Peter said that Jesus “was made both Lord and Christ.”

 

[natsclem]

This is part of the problem I have been thinking about. We claim that the Church teaches what the apotles taught, but as you say, we don’t really know (based on Scripture mainly) that the apostles thought of Jesus as their Creator. I find it difficult to believe that they believed Jesus was their Creator. What a step in faith that would have taken for the apostles, and its not recorded in the bible.

Having said that, there are times (like Ive mentioned earlier) where the Gospels and epistles seem to elude to the divine nature of Jesus, several times in John and in some of the Epistles and Revelations. Other times I find it hard to believe they thought their Master was God Himself; the Creator.

Jesus calls His Father “My God” in a few times in the bible.
In John 17:3, Jesus calls His Father “the only true God”.
St. Peter says Jesus was made Lord and Christ by God Acts 2:36).
St. Paul says that Jesus will be subject to God, not the Father, but God:
27For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

There are others scriptures I could quote.

Why are their mixed messages in the bible? At this stage I really feel there are more verses which point to the subordination of Jesus to God, than Jesus being God.

Also, what does one do when he sees these mixed messages about Jesus? How can one be seemingly referred to as God in some parts of scripture, but in other parts seemingly less.

Jesus calls himself “man”, “Son of man”, “prophet”, “Son of God” mainly, but then He says “I Am” in another part which gives us the impression he was claiming the divine name for Himself. Im confused. In Acts there doesnt seem to be any real evidence that the Apostles were preaching God Incarnate, only Jesus “whom God raised from the dead.”

Then, you have to make a choice. If a passage subordinates Jesus to God, accept it as that it shows His human nature which, of course, is subordinate to divine nature. If a passage asserts His being Son of God, accept it as an assertion of His equality in divine nature with the Father–in fact, for this He was condemned to death (John 5:18 & 19:7 ). Always keep in mind that Jesus has two natures–100% divine and 100% human.

There were instances in which Jesus was worshiped by His disciples but none were rebuked by Him.

John 1 says that everything was created thru the Word who became flesh. Jesus is the Word who became flesh–In effect, He is Creator. He is among the Creator Elohim (Let us create man in our image <Genesis 1:26>). Elohim was translated as God but Elohim is the plural form of Eloa. Though it is in plural form, its renditions in various parts of Geneis was as if it is singular–I think this is the seed of belief in Trinity–Three Persons in one Divine Nature.

Ask Jesus to send Him the Holy Spirit to guide you into all truth by abiding in His Church–the Pillar and Foundation of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15).

 

[VociMike]

I think you did. Youve just changed your mind now after looking at some other posts.

Your second statement is simply false. And why would you accuse me of something when you have no basis for such an accusation?

 

[VociMike]

Well since you brought it up, Sarah called Abraham “lord”.

So do you claim that Christ and Abraham are the same? Do you claim that the context of Sarah calling her husband Abraham “lord” (not “Lord” or “LORD” BTW - curious) is the same as Peter calling Jesus “Lord”? You are so far outside the Christian world at this point that I can’t believe you’re still using the bible as your authority. 99.9999% of those who use the bible as their authority would totally reject such a claim. Can you see how far astray your attempts at private interpretation have led you? You are privately interpreting yourself right out of the Christian faith.

 

[natsclem]

Why are their mixed messages in the bible? At this stage I really feel there are more verses which point to the subordination of Jesus to God, than Jesus being God.

Also, what does one do when he sees these mixed messages about Jesus? How can one be seemingly referred to as God in some parts of scripture, but in other parts seemingly less.

The disciple/apostles certainly believed Jesus to be God of the same nature with His Father; otherwise, they could not have worshiped Him. There were instances in which Jesus was worshiped by His disciples but none were rebuked by Him (Matthew 14:33, 28:9 & 17, Luke 24:51-53, etc.).

Truth is not about competition of two seemingly opposed statements. Is Jesus God or man? The biblical answer is…He is both God and man.

 

[natsclem]

In Acts there doesnt seem to be any real evidence that the Apostles were preaching God Incarnate, only Jesus “whom God raised from the dead.”

In Acts 2:39, it says “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Who is this Lord that Peter was referring to as our God?

If you read the preceding text in Acts 2:36, you will read “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

To harmonize the two passages, we can have:

“The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, whom you crucified, will call.”

In all the Gospels, who calls? It is Jesus who calls the disciples to Him for no one can come to the Father except thru Him. Certainly Peter was referring to Jesus when he said that “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Even today, it is same Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, who is calling you and me to fully accept Him as He is for our own salvation.

My brother, for your own sake, do good to yourself. Just accept that Jesus Christ, is both God and Man. Amen.

 

[MH84]

So do you claim that Christ and Abraham are the same? Do you claim that the context of Sarah calling her husband Abraham “lord” (not “Lord” or “LORD” BTW - curious) is the same as Peter calling Jesus “Lord”? You are so far outside the Christian world at this point that I can’t believe you’re still using the bible as your authority. 99.9999% of those who use the bible as their authority would totally reject such a claim. Can you see how far astray your attempts at private interpretation have led you? You are privately interpreting yourself right out of the Christian faith.

I thank you for your efforts in this thread. I think you have done all you can. You seem to losing control of your emotions, and you are no longer able to contribute charitably.

You are not helping me with comments like the above, you are just saying things without any meaning, just abuse. You complain that Im completelly wrong with everything Im saying, but you offer nothing constructive points, just put downs and criticisms. You better take a look at your last few posts. They simply arent helpful at all, because you just want to make me see your way without explaining why or offering at least some scriptural support.

You simply can’t rebutt my points, only dismiss them. Just remember you were out of the Church once, but now you are back you have forgotten that you were. Anyway, thanks for your insights, especially your initial support.

 

[MH84]

In Acts 2:39, it says “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Who is this Lord that Peter was referring to as our God?

If you read the preceding text in Acts 2:36, you will read “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

To harmonize the two passages, we can have:

“The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, whom you crucified, will call.”

In all the Gospels, who calls? It is Jesus who calls the disciples to Him for no one can come to the Father except thru Him. Certainly Peter was referring to Jesus when he said that “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Even today, it is same Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, who is calling you and me to fully accept Him as He is for our own salvation.

**I like this angle you are coming from because it is in contect with the scripture around it.

You know, Im not sure what to make of this. The only objection I could suggest is that it seems God the Father is called “Lord” in Acts 2:34. But this by no means authomatically dismisses your point here. I will have a look at this in Acts, because I think there may be other times when “Lord” is used almost interchangebly with God. I’ll have a look. **

My brother, for your own sake, do good to yourself. Just accept that Jesus Christ, is both God and Man. Amen.

**Yes, if its God’s will I will be at peace with the Scriptures finally. It’s been a while. I just wish I could be there to ask the apostles why they said what they did. Like I said earlier, I am at a stage where I can’t just put my thoughts behind me, they are always there, Im often doubting. **

 

[MH84]

In Acts 2:39, it says “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Who is this Lord that Peter was referring to as our God?

If you read the preceding text in Acts 2:36, you will read “Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

To harmonize the two passages, we can have:

“The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, whom you crucified, will call.”

In all the Gospels, who calls? It is Jesus who calls the disciples to Him for no one can come to the Father except thru Him. Certainly Peter was referring to Jesus when he said that “The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Even today, it is same Jesus Christ, the Lord our God, who is calling you and me to fully accept Him as He is for our own salvation.

I don’t know how much in context this is, but here in the next chapter “Lord” clearly refers to God the Father.

Acts 3 18"But the things which (AB)God announced beforehand by the mouth of all the prophets, (AC)that His Christ would suffer, He has thus fulfilled.

19"Therefore (AD)repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that (AE)times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord;

20and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you,

21(AF)whom heaven must receive until the period of (AG)restoration of all things about which (AH)God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time.

 

[VociMike]

I thank you for your efforts in this thread. I think you have done all you can. You seem to losing control of your emotions, and you are no longer able to contribute charitably.

You are not helping me with comments like the above, you are just saying things without any meaning, just abuse. You complain that Im completelly wrong with everything Im saying, but you offer nothing constructive points, just put downs and criticisms. You better take a look at your last few posts. They simply arent helpful at all, because you just want to make me see your way without explaining why or offering at least some scriptural support.

You simply can’t rebutt my points, only dismiss them. Just remember you were out of the Church once, but now you are back you have forgotten that you were. Anyway, thanks for your insights, especially your initial support.

You need to step back and ask yourself why you give any credence to the bible. The bible didn’t just fall out of the sky with a note pinned on it from God saying “all of you, figure out what this means on your own”, but that seems to be how you’re treating it.

I’m not interested in rebutting your points, but rather in demonstrating that your entire approach is invalid, and a classic example of the Protestant error. As I asked you earlier, why in the world do you trust the bible if you don’t trust the Church which gave you the bible? I didn’t see any answer to that question, but it is the fundamental question you must face at this point. Why are you using the Catholic (and Christian) bible to reject the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism and Christianity, the divinity of Christ? How can you justify that intellectually, never mind theologically?

 

[MH84]

You need to step back and ask yourself why you give any credence to the bible. The bible didn’t just fall out of the sky with a note pinned on it from God saying “all of you, figure out what this means on your own”, but that seems to be how you’re treating it.

I’m not interested in rebutting your points, but rather in demonstrating that your entire approach is invalid, and a classic example of the Protestant error. As I asked you earlier, why in the world do you trust the bible if you don’t trust the Church which gave you the bible? I didn’t see any answer to that question, but it is the fundamental question you must face at this point. Why are you using the Catholic (and Christian) bible to reject the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism and Christianity, the divinity of Christ? How can you justify that intellectually, never mind theologically?

This is a ridiculous statement. Sorry, but I may have said some things which seem strange, but this tops them.

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.

There are people who seem to interpret that Jesus is God the Son; others who believe Jesus, the Father and the Holy Spirit are the same Person; others who believe Jesus is St. Michael the Archangel; others who claim Jesus is a prophet; others who claim Jesus is the Messiah, others that He was an amalgamation of legends etc etc.

In a way the individuals of the world are left to interpret the bible by themselves, the Catholic Church or in other churches or societies. Many Catholics don’t even know the basics about the bible. Many do, more so than you. They just don’t have the same beliefs as you.

Why are you using the Catholic (and Christian) bible to reject the most fundamental tenets of Catholicism and Christianity, the divinity of Christ? How can you justify that intellectually, never mind theologically?

Millions of people do. Have you checked out the Iglesia Ni Cristo numbers lately? There are more of them than JW’s. These churches and many others don’t believe in the Nicene creed.

You are saying that the proof that the apostles believed Jesus is God and their creator is because that is what the Catholic Church teaches. That’s a very narrow minded thought process. Arians and orthodox Catholics debated and fought each other over the divinity of Jesus, and you think that 1600 years later you have all the answers without trying to look for the proof when someone (me) asks you for it?

I may be flawed in my beliefs, but you are simply in denial of the wider world out there. You are saying that everything the Church teaches must be right simply because it is here. That is not right. Muslims have been here for nearly the same period. Are they right too?

Listen, I have never left the Church in my life. You have. So why are you judging me so harshly? If you can’t answer my questions don’t post here. You have been avoiding the original qusetion right from the start without even attempting to try. And you think I need to open my eyes. Why don’t you answer my question if they are so easy then? This is ridiculous!

“all of you, figure out what this means on your own”

Finally, whether they are wrong or not, do you think that JW’s, Mormons, Christadelphians etc are “figuring out their beliefs on their own”? No they are not. But they havent reached the same conclusions as you have, have they? Maybe they are not as smart as you.

 

[MH84]

I’m not interested in rebutting your points, but rather in demonstrating that your entire approach is invalid, and a classic example of the Protestant error.

You keep on saying that I am making “Protestant errors”. If I am, how come I am asking questions about the beliefs Catholics and Protestants alike believe? How come the Protestants believe in the full divinity of Jesus, then? Are you saying they are in error?

 

[VociMike]

You keep on saying that I am making “Protestant errors”. If I am, how come I am asking questions about the beliefs Catholics and Protestants alike believe? How come the Protestants believe in the full divinity of Jesus, then? Are you saying they are in error?

Some believe in the divinity of Christ, some don’t. But it is their approach to knowing the truth contained in (but not limited to) the bible that is their error. They assume (as you seem to) that they can open the bible and, through a combination of intellectual prowess (“the original Greek means…”) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, they can know God’s revelation to mankind. But if that worked there’d only be one Protestant set of beliefs, not the thousands we actually see. Every heresy supports itself with Scripture. That much is historically undeniable.

You have just been brushing off the critical question, which is, why do you accept the authority of the bible while rejecting the authority of the Church which ? Just because all the other Protestants (who are all in error) make such an unfounded leap (and cannot explain why they do so) doesn’t justify that leap. So answer the question for yourself. Why do you believe the bible is what you believe it is? There must be some anchor you can point to to justify your view of what the bible is.

There’s no point in discussing the texts of the bible until we can all agree that those texts have authority. As soon as you reject the Church you reject that authority. I’m just trying to get you to see this.

 

[VociMike]

This is a ridiculous statement. Sorry, but I may have said some things which seem strange, but this tops them.

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.

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.