Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Orthodox

Christianity Simplified

Recommended Posts

We all have a great excuse for not understanding the things of God.

Please note ...

 

“For My thoughts are not your thoughts,

nor are your ways My waysâ€, says the Lord.

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth,

so are My ways higher than your ways,

and My thoughts (higher) than your thoughts.†(Isaiah 55:8-9)

 

This is why we cannot understand spiritual things using our intellect, education, logic, reasoning, etc.

Spiritual understanding (of God’s Truth) only comes through spiritual revelation by God’s Spirit.

It does not come from reading someone's black words written on white paper.

 

dont think there's anything spiritual in understanding the meaning of 'god' and omnipotent' using our grey matter. the dict says god means 'A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions' and omnipotent means 'Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful'. hence when jesus is proven hes no god (since he doesnt know when's day of judgement), then trinitarians gotta think hard whether to continue upholding trinity or drop it like hot brick.

 

Please notice God’s warning to everyone …

“There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.â€

(Proverbs 14:12 and repeated in 16:25)

 

Good Luck to everyone in receiving God’s Truth.

 

me interpretation of the proverb is simple. if god is TRULY trinity, me gonna commit blasphemy and gonna go to hell. on the other hand if god is NOT trinity, trinitarians gonna commit blasphemy and gonna go to hell. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
I think the below teaches very well on Jesus Christ. His dual nature ect....

 

Catechism of the Catholic Church

 

IV. The Mystery of the Word Made Flesh

 

if jesus has dual nature, then god the father and holy spirit should also have dual nature. right? the church (as you've posted) says god the father = god the son jesus = god the holy spirit. right? but god the father and holy spirit dont have dual nature. right? hence whither goest coequal, trinity? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is nachmanides a plurality of some sort, such as the Triune God?

I believe I have already several times given the O.T. references of what God said about the Jews:

-- they were spiritually blind and spiritually deaf

-- He would NOT heal them of this critical problem (and you know the reasons why)

So, why would anyone listen to anything the Jews have to say?

 

why not? jesus is a jew right? jesus did say he didnt intend to drop torah, right? torah dont content trinity neither the bible. its the church which talks about trinity. so who you wanna believe? jesus or church?

 

But, the bigger problem is ... most people (esp. the Jews) refuse to believe what God said about them.

And then we have people like you. I refer you to post #123.

You know, like in kindergarten ... 1, 2, 3.

 

you're cool dude. me wanna use grey matter to look for truth, me dont wanna lead by the nose.

 

A favorite P.S. repeated: The Trinity is NOT included in the Gospel (Good News) of Jesus Christ.

 

there you go. jesus dont teach trinity. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PEACE[using large font size is not allowed]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings, Tom ...

 

Here are some x-planations concerning the Triune God:

1) Since God is admittedly incomprehensible, things like the Trinity are beyond man’s comprehension.

2) Both OT and NT say that Jesus emptied Himself of His divine attributes, became totally humble, etc.

3) Jesus relied totally on Father God and the Holy Spirit ... as an example for us (i.e. how we should live).

4) Jesus had 2 natures:

One nature was GOD … He was the Son of God ... He was “fully GODâ€.

One nature was MAN … He was the son of Mary ... He was “fully MANâ€.

His MAN nature would naturally be subordinate to the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Note: "Son of God" is obviously a name/title ... God never mated and had any offspring.

Hope this helps.

 

A related topic ... (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=736285.html&"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetgawaher(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/index.php?showtopic=736285.html&[/url]

 

Please provide reference for Jesus not knowing the day of judgment.

Edited by Ameer7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mr AMEER7

 

you're not playing dodging game are you?

 

my questions remain unanswered while you're gamely stressing on trinity . . . . seemingly wanna convince yourself?? :sl:

 

QUESTION 1 - if jesus is fully god and fully man, god the father and god the holy spirit should equally be fully god and fully man right? remember trinity supposedly means EXACTLY same nature (quoting wiki) right?

 

butt god the father is never fully god and fully man. hes fully god. so which trinity version is the truth?

 

 

QUESTION 2 - dont matter whethere god the father is ceo, god the son jesus - administrator and holy spirit - workhorse. the church preaches that the three are ONE god, coequal and omnipotent. hence when god the son jesus couldnt say when's day of judgement, thats gonna mean he's not omnipotent. right? and that makes trinity sound somewhat hollow. right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Senior Member Tom,

Methinks you should be promoted to Highly Exalted Senior Member, or some such title.

But, please explain. How'd that go again? ... I think it was 1, 2, 3. Does 4 come next?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Senior Member Tom,

Methinks you should be promoted to Highly Exalted Senior Member, or some such title.

But, please explain. How'd that go again? ... I think it was 1, 2, 3. Does 4 come next?

 

huh?? very funny.

 

you can call me prince charming or frog prince or prince william. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No – trinity literally means “threefold†e.g. if I fold a blanket three times I get three folds yet the blanket remains one.

 

The Son the second person of the Triune God assumed a human nature. The Father and the Holy Spirit did not. How? In His omnipotent power for nothing is impossible for God.

 

God the Son in His human nature was not infinite as a human being, he is infinite in His divine nature. His human nature was empowered by the Holy Spirit with limits.

 

Hope this helps...

 

God bless,

 

nope it dont help.

 

lets backtrack.

 

wiki said trinity is - (POST 103) "God exists as three persons but is one God, meaning that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have EXACTLY the same nature or being as God the Father in every way.[4] Whatever attributes and power God the Father has, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit have as well.[4] "Thus, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are also eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, infinitely wise, infinitely holy, infinitely loving, omniscient."[4]"

 

mr AMEER7 agreed with wiki - (POST 105) "Yes, The 3 have exactly the same nature ... in that ...

They are all spirit beings ... and ... They are all God (part of the "Godhead").

 

mr WORKINGMAN said trinity is - (POST 115) "Thus, in the words of the Athanasian Creed: "the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, and yet there are not three Gods but one God." . . . . . the Persons are co-eternal and co-equal: all alike are uncreated and omnipotent. This, the Church teaches, is the revelation regarding God's nature which Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came upon earth to deliver to the world: and which she proposes to man as the foundation of her whole dogmatic system."

 

the dict says NATURE means "the fundamental qualities of a person or thing; identity or essential character" while EXACTLY means "accurately, correctly, definitely, truly, precisely, strictly, literally, faithfully, explicitly, rigorously, unequivocally, scrupulously, truthfully, methodically, unerringly, faultlessly, veraciously".

 

but jesus and father despite being socalled ONE god dont exactly have same nature. right? jesus is man on earth and socalled god in heaven while father is never man. likewise holy spirit, hes never man. hence you cant 'equate' trinity with a blanket.

 

there's a hitch in trinity which you may not wanna see. jesus supposedly equals to father but hes not. he's supposedly omnipotent but hes not. he can be man, but father and holy spirit couldnt. 3 folds in a blanket have exactly same texture etc. but 3 persons in ONE god is not exactly same nature. nonetheless trinitarians wanna believe jesus, father and holyspirit is/are EQUAL, EXACTLY SAME NATURE, OMNIPOTENT etc to make trinity sticks. dont you think you gotta reevaluate trinity, triune god etc and accept ONE GOD per se? :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They are equal and inseparable in the divine nature so yes the blanket example does make sense in this context.

 

inother words jesus and god the father are not EXACTLY of the same nature as stated by wiki right? that they're not coequal as the church claimed right? that trinitarians are mistaken when they said jesus claimed he's god when he said father and him are equal right? he should have added they're only equal when he takes his divine form right? does the church ever claim jesus and god the father are coequal only when he's in heaven? does jesus ever make such a declaration in the bible? i may have missed it . . . you know.

 

The second person of the holy Trinity assumed a human nature.

 

is this stated anywhere by jesus himself or the church etc? . . . . something to the effect that jesus declared he's man on earth and god in heaven . . . you know.

 

 

If this still does not make sense to you I suggest you look into the catechism of the catholic church which does a lot better in explaining it than I do…

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetscborromeo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ccc/ccc_toc.htm"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetscborromeo(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/ccc/ccc_toc.htm[/url]

 

why dont you read up and copy and paste that part which stated jesus is man on earth and god in heaven? :sl:

Edited by tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Let me ask you a question can Allah appear as a man? If you believe the answer is yes then our belief is no different."

 

Sometimes I wish I had one of those "Whose Line Is It Anyway?"-style buzzers so I could spend about seventeen minutes buzzing something so wrongheaded, right over the net.

 

Sure God (praise Him) is *capable* of becoming incarnate. He's capable of sending people to hell for virtue instead of sin as well, but that's no excuse for attributing them to Him, is it? With all the lies and ludicrously overelaborate machinations of Christian apologetics out there, no one yet in two thousand years has ever come up with a single reason that holds one *drop* of water why God should ever have any reason to come as a human in the first place. Jack Chick's cliched analogy with the human becoming the ant so that the ants can understand him better just betrays how limiting of God the doctrine's implications are, and the ubiquitous substitution doctrine has holes big enough to drive seven hundred cathedrals through:

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamicboard(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/comparative-religion/134303456-central-flaw-christianity-another-article.html#post1402459"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetislamicboard(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/comparative-re...tml#post1402459[/url]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I can't post links, eh? Do the following Google search then:

 

islamicboard "central flaw"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm reading a book by a catholic theologian Hans Kung. He is a Swiss catholic priest (used to be). He was ordained after his studies of theology and philosophy at the Pontifical Gregorian University of Rome. In 1962 he was appointed by the Pope John XXIII, to serve as an expert theologian advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council.

 

So basically this guy is no joke. If your going to understand the bible and its history - then this is the guy. You can search up his bio in wiki.

 

Anyways, I'm reading his book, "Islam, Past, Present, & Future." In it he praises Islam for many aspects but is also critical in some other aspects. In this book he talks about Christianity to compare the religions. Here is what he says:

 

 

Any Christian theologian who does not just speculate uncritically on the basis of the Hellenistic development and of doctrine in the fourth and fifth centuries but who follows Protestant and Catholic theologians in thinking in the light of the New Testament will notice that, while there are many triadic formulae in the New Testament, there is not a word about the 'unity' of these three extremely different entities, that is, a unity on the same divine level. At one point in the First Letter of John there was a clause which was in the context of saying about the Spirit, the water and the blood, and went on to speak of the Father, the word and the spirit as being one. However, historical criticism has shown this statement to be a forgery which arose in North Africa or Spain in the third or fourth century and it did not help the Roman Inquisition at all by trying to defend the authenticity of the sentence at the beginning of the twentieth century, it would have done better to adopt the results of historical criticism. However, out of fear that it would have to correct much more, it has not been able to bring itself to do this, even now. (pg 509. Also see Born before All Time. The Dispute over Christ's Origin, London and New York 1992 by K.-J. Kuschel.)

 

In the Bible they will quickly find that in Jewish Christianity, indeed throughout the New Testament, whereas there is belief in God the Father, Jesus the Son and in God's Holy spirit, there is no doctrine of a one God in three persons (modes of being), no doctrine of a 'tri-une God', a trinity. (pg509) (also quoted in, Hans Kung - Christianity: Essence, History, Future - Continuum, 2001 - Page 97).

 

As a pious Jew, Jesus himself preached a strict monotheism. He never called himself God, on the contrary: 'Why do you call me good? No one is good save God alone.' According to the same Gospel, Jesus answers a scribe's question about what is the highest commandment with israel's confession of faith, the 'shema israel': The greatest commandment is: 'Hear, israel, the Lord your God is one God.' There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus understood himself as a second person in God and was present at the creation of the world. In the New Testament, God himself ('ho theos', 'the God', 'God') is always the one God and Father - not the Son. ( pg 492. Also check out Born before All Time. The Dispute over Christ's Origin, London and New York 1992 by K.-J. Kuschel.)

 

In Psalm 2:7, an accession ritual, the Messiah king is explicitly addressed as 'son': 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' In this verse, 'begotten' is a synonym for enthronement, exaltation. Neither in the Hebrew Bible nor in the New Testament is there any trace of a physical - sexual begetting as in the case of the Egyptian God-king and the Hellenistic sons of god, nor of a metaphysical begetting along the lines of the later Hellenistic ontological christology. (pg 493)

 

What did first Judaism and then the New Testament mean by 'son of God'? Regardless of how this was later defined by Hellenistic councils with Hellenistic terms, in the New Testament what is unquestionably meant is not the descent but an appointment to a position of justice and power in the Hebrew Old Testament sense. This is not a physical divine sonship, of the kind that occurs in Greek myths, which is often supposed and rightly rejected by Jews and Muslims, but and election and authentication of Jesus by God, completely in keeping with the Hebrew Bible, in which sometimes the people of israel can collectively be called 'son of God'. (pg 493)

 

So there is no such thing as a Trinity. It is not authentic. There is no such thing as 'Son of God', but only 'son of God'. All these concepts were forged from Hellenistic Roman pagans ideals with their Greek mythology. It does not teach what is found from the Hebrew Bible. People have been told falsehood since the beginning of the Church. Jesus is NOT God nor is he the Son of God. Hey dont take my word for it. You can ask Hans Kung - who was appointed by the Pope John XXIII, to serve as an expert theologian advisor to members of the Second Vatican Council. I'm sure he can dig a little deeper for you if you need any more info.

 

That's Christianity simplified. (For the Trinitarians. Unitarians are all good :sl: )

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tonnyj,

I was raised in T.O. and went to Mt. A. for 4 years.

Sorry, that's about all I know these days.

Edited by Ameer7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ameer7

 

Why are you apologizing to me?

Is this a trick?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

tonnyj, you say the Holy Trinity is false. It is right in front of you in St. Matthew 3:16-17. No it does not use the word trinity but it is plainly right there. So here it is

 

St. Matthew 3:16-17 [16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

This passage clearly depicts God calling Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit in decent from the Father to Jesus. I don't think it can be much more clear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
St. Matthew 3:16-17 [16] And Jesus being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon him. [17] And behold a voice from heaven, saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.

 

This passage clearly depicts God calling Jesus His Son and the Holy Spirit in decent from the Father to Jesus. I don't think it can be much more clear.

 

I think you skipped over what I wrote.

 

In Psalm 2:7, an accession ritual, the Messiah king is explicitly addressed as 'son': 'You are my son; today I have begotten you.' In this verse, 'begotten' is a synonym for enthronement, exaltation. Neither in the Hebrew Bible nor[using large font size is not allowed] in the New Testament is there any[using large font size is not allowed] trace of a physical - sexual begetting as in the case of the Egyptian God-king and the Hellenistic sons of god, nor of a metaphysical begetting along the lines of the later Hellenistic ontological christology

 

Neither in the Hebrew Bible nor[using large font size is not allowed] in the New Testament is there any[using large font size is not allowed] trace of a physical - sexual begetting

nor of a metaphysical begetting

 

There is no indication in the New Testament that Jesus understood himself as a second person in God and was present at the creation of the world. In the New Testament, God himself ('ho theos', 'the God', 'God') is always the one God and Father - not the Son.

 

*sigh* I dont know how many times I have to put in the facts. You seem to just read my quotes like it means nothing. Okay sure, then; facts mean nothing. If I put in the facts and it means nothing and your theology is still what matters, so be it. You can avoid the facts all you want. Everyone else who has a mind can decide for his/herself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not correct because Mr “Hans Kung†says so. Why should I follow the teachings of man who has been revoked by the Vatican?

 

I would rather following the teachings of the Magisterium and the Church Fathers.

 

Might I add your mighty patriarch Protestant leader Martin Luther was also revoked of his teachings in Catholicism? Not only that wasn't he also excommunicated? Isn't it because of Martin Luther - trinitarians were born? If your a trinitarian, and your theology developed due to the Protestant movement against the Catholic church, aren't you in agreement with Hans Kung then? Like you said, 'why should I follow the teachings of a man who has been revoked by the Vatican?'

 

Then I ask, why do you follow the teachings of the Protestant leader who was revoked by the Vatican?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Secondly Martin Luther did not develop trinitarianism. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity has always been taught since the time of Christ. Martin taught Heaven is earned by faith without works which is dead wrong.

 

Funny, thats what I was told by a pastor in order to have salvation. Only faith and not work

 

but since your Catholic, that is a different story

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*sigh* I wish there wasn't so much grief over all this stuff.

 

Okay so what does Catholicism teach? Dont they believe the Virgin Mary is the Mother of God?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How does the Catholic view of the trinity differ from that of the Protestants?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*ahh

 

I dont wanna go over the same thing again.

 

Whats you take on the Church? Do you think it has always kept its same beliefs as it has since the beginning? Has the idea of salvation altered for believers (Catholics) and unbelievers, or has it stayed the same? Has the Church ever gave in due to pressure to reform their ideal beliefs of salvation?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The traditional Catholic position up to the twentieth century - prepared for in the early Christian centuries by Origin, Cyprian and Augustine - is generally known: extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no salvation outside the church. Extra ecclesiam nullus propheta, no prophet outside the church.The ecumenical council of Florence in 1442 issued an unequivocal definition. 'The Holy Roman Church... firmly believes, confesses and proclaims that no one outside the Catholic Church, whether pagan or Jew or unbelievers or one separated from the church, will participate in eternal life; rather he will fall into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and all his angels, unless he joins it (the Catholic Church) before his death. (H. Denzinger, Enchiridion, no. 1351 (the collection of documents by H. Denzinger, Enchiridion Symbolorum, which has appeared in a series of new editions, is quoted in this book from the 31st edition, Freilburg im Breisgau 1960))

 

Okay so you say the beliefs of Catholicism has stayed the same ever since its foundations - it seems to be in agreement here.

 

However, in the twentieth century Catholic theology attempted to 'understand anew' that uncompromising 'extra' dogma, which usually meant reinterpreting it, indeed turning it into its opposite. It was never corrected openly, because it was 'infallible'. Rome had already had to condemn the statement extra ecclesiam nulla gratia (outside the church no grace) when faced with the rigorist Jansenists in seventeenth-century France. ("Islam, Past, Present, & Future pg 55. Hans Kung)

 

Okay so we have all heard of Papal Infallibility yes? Don't we all know scribes makes mistakes - even the Church? Anyways, now this quote is talking about the pressure being put on the Church because its dogma.

 

The traditional Catholic position is now no longer the official Cathoic position. In its Constituion on the Church (1964) The Second Vatican Council quite unequivocally declared: 'Those who through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church , but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. (Second Vatican Council, Constitution, Lumen gentium, Rome 1965, Art. 16. For the discussion over this constrituion at the council cf. H. Kung, My Struggle for Freedom, Memoirs, London 2004, ch. IX.)

 

So the traditional view in Catholicism was that no one can attain salvation unless they convert to Catholicism. Now after 1964, they switch their stance on the position and believe all are saved whether Catholic or not. What are your thoughts on this?

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My thoughts on this is:

 

1) Please scrape away Hans Kung

 

I cant undermine his credit - which is worth due. Facts are facts.

 

2) The teaching remains the same. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. This was firmly stated by the current Pope Benedict 16th.

 

3) Non-Catholics could get to Heaven provided they live a life of good conscience and charity and have had experienced perfect ignorance i.e. certain circumstances prevented them from accepting Jesus which only God could be the judge of. These people could only get to heaven through the merits of Christ who has paid the debt owed for sins on their behalf. That is why there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church she holds the treasury of grace earned by Christ for all sinners. The Church and Christ are one. The Church prays for Christians and Non-Christians alike so that we could all get to heaven.

 

God bless,

 

Why does #2 contradict with #3? Which is it? It seems like #2 says its a one way to salvation while #3 says there are other ways to attain salvation. So which is it? #2 or #3? There cant be both. You cant say one way is the only way and yet there are other differing ways to salvation. So now I become confused why you even bother saying there is only one way to salvation. Might as well scrap that idea and just say there are other ways to salvation. Or just say there are no other ways to salvation but one way to salvation. I feel like I'm going in circles trying to grasp this.

Edited by tonnyj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×