Jump to content
Islamic Forum
gracie

Is Jesus God?

Recommended Posts

Maybe the cow did.

 

The existance was there from day one as they are one.

 

Technicaly God does not. Other than the messiah coming though a prophesied line.

 

The "God head" is not a easy consept. That is why it is called faith. One word Omnipotent or omnipresence.

 

You side stepped everything i said mate , so let me rub salt back in the wound :sl: .

 

First of All there was no existence of the SON Period ! , we dont see Abraham calling out Father son and holy ghost anywhere do we ? Where did moses do it ? :sl:

 

Why Would God Beget a Son who never existed in the universe ? and then make Him part of Being God ?

 

Why does god need to go through and evolution process ? ??????

 

Now since You believe he is God and one with God , Who was he praying to when he walked the earth ? Himself ?

 

HE was one hec of a good actor in that case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
name='tom' date='Jan 19 2011, 02:43 AM' post='1230440']

 

as you can see we're gonna quote and elaborate, illustrate, inteprete as we please (not as god pleases) depending on who we are - trinity, twoness or unitary. hence we gotta use logic, there's no such thing as blind faith.

 

So logic ruels over faith? Seems like a oxymoron to me.

 

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (psalm 119:105 KJV)

 

if we gonna tell mr GRACIE that jesus is god then we gotta explain why god wanne be man to save his creation mankind, right? it's not a matter the bible said so or that god wanna have fun on earth among his creation mankind, how it feels to be flogged and murdered by his creation jews. you can imagine the absurdness of learning our one and only almighty god teaching torah to peter, paul and john etc when he can easily create prophets, apostles etc to do his bidding on earth. :sl:

 

Hello, Well why don't you enlighten me then since I have not seen your opinion of is Jesus God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
name='al faqeer' date='Jan 19 2011, 12:00 PM' post='1230449']

You side stepped everything i said mate , so let me rub salt back in the wound :sl: .

 

Alright salt in the wound :no: I love mortification :D :sl:

 

First of All there was no existence of the SON Period ! , we dont see Abraham calling out Father son and holy ghost anywhere do we ? Where did moses do it ? :j:

 

No we don't see Abraham or Moses calling out in the name of Father, Son, and Holy ghost. That does not mean that the Son did not exist.

 

Why Would God Beget a Son who never existed in the universe ? and then make Him part of Being God ?

 

Matthew 3:17 And lo avoice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (KJV). This happened durring the baptism of Jesus.

 

Why does god need to go through and evolution process ? ??????

 

The messiah was prophesied to come from the line of Jesse.

 

Now since You believe he is God and one with God , Who was he praying to when he walked the earth ? Himself ?

 

HE was one hec of a good actor in that case

 

I think first you need to understand the Trinity. I do not know if you have a right concept of it. I could copy and paste I don't like that. I can not think of a better sight to refer you to than this at this time. Please take the time to read it.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So logic ruels over faith? Seems like a oxymoron to me.

 

Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path. (psalm 119:105 KJV)

 

Hello, Well why don't you enlighten me then since I have not seen your opinion of is Jesus God.

 

god creates man with brain right? inother word god wanna us think right? hence god wanna us read the bible dilligently, intelligently rather than reading it like parrots and swallow line hook sinker right?

 

if you read the article from the site that you paste studiously you gonna find it's more oxymoron than my post. take for eg. -

 

"In the the Gospel according to John we read:

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. He was with God in the beginning... The Word became flesh (in Jesus) and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1,14)

 

The context shows clearly that Jesus is God in the flesh: He was in the beginning, that means he is not created, he is eternal as God is eternal. Verse three states that through Jesus, the Word, all things were made, that means that he is God the Creator."

 

how do you know "the word that became flesh" is jesus? did god ever say any where in the bible that he wanna become man jesus and as well holy spirit? did god ever say jesus and holy spirit is he himself? well?

 

this is what i call making assumption putting 2 and 2 to make 3 gods in 1 god and calling it trinity. i'm no bible scholar neither are you. we can quote and requote till our face turn blue but i bet my bottom dollar no where in the bible that one and only almighty god ever say he, jesus and holy spirit is one and same guy.

 

o yes jesus did say he and the father is one. that dont make jesus almighty god as trinitiarians would dearly wanna quote him. you know why coz he did also say the father is greater than him. there you are.

 

John 10:30 (Jesus speaking) I and my Father are one. (KJV)

 

John 14:28 (Jesus speaking) Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I. (KJV)

 

no way almighty god gonna wanna be trinity. if he does he would have spelt it out loud and clear in the bible. btw I'M UNITARIAN CHRISTIAN. as such i'm with lady SAM telling you loud and clear jesus is no god.

 

mark you jesus is a jew. and you're being racist to think almighty god wanna be jewish god. yahweh is not a jew. anyhow what's so great being jews the socalled chosen people when they slaughter their brethren the palestinians? they abide by yahweh teaching - luv thy neighbour as thyself yet they did plunder and murder the palestinians. anyhow that's beside the point. this is not the thread to talk about israeli palestinian conflict. BEG YOUR PARDON MR MOD.

 

i believe mr GRACIE is still awaiting your reply as WHY GOD WANNA BE MAN TO SAVE HIS CREATION MANKIND. i'm equally waiting. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that I am not interpreting as I please, but I have come to this conclusion from studying the gospels and learning the true meaning of the scriptures.

 

i believe you've come to the right conclusion that god wanna us reach.

 

The scriptures DO NOT say Jesus was God. Jesus said he was human as I explained.

 

yes jesus is no god. peace. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I believe that I am not interpreting as I please, but I have come to this conclusion from studying the gospels and learning the true meaning of the scriptures.

 

i believe you've come to the right conclusion that god wanna us reach.

 

The scriptures DO NOT say Jesus was God. Jesus said he was human as I explained.

 

yes jesus is no god. peace. :sl:

 

OOPS DOUBLE POSTING. SORRY

Edited by tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:sl:

Here's an interesting test for all Christians, wiritten by Sh.Yusuf Estes, a former Christian, called Jesus Test. Give it a try..IA, knidly post your feedback if you have any. :sl:

[iframe]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetthedeenshow(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/articles.php?id=655[i'm not allowed to use this tag yet]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is quite a test Rahimi. Even though the Romans did a great job inventing their new religion, enough of Jesus true intent got through. You may just have convinced me. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That is quite a test Rahimi. Even though the Romans did a great job inventing their new religion, enough of Jesus true intent got through. You may just have convinced me. XD

If you are coming from a Christian background, I would recommend searching for Sh. Yusuf Estes lectures and articles, there is a section of him at you are not allowed to post links yetthedeenshow(contact admin if its a beneficial link). He was from the same background so perhaps you could relate more to what he said and went through.

I have great respect from Sh. Yusuf, he became a Muslim very late in life, yet look at him now, his current knowledge on Islam would put many Muslims, myself included, to shame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents are atheistic but my grandpa instilled in me some pretty fundamentalist christian beliefs. I'll definitely check that out though. Thanks much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"In the the Gospel according to John we read:

 

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word (Logos) was God. He was with God in the beginning... The Word became flesh (in Jesus) and made his dwelling among us. (John 1:1,14)

 

The context shows clearly that Jesus is God in the flesh: He was in the beginning, that means he is not created, he is eternal as God is eternal. Verse three states that through Jesus, the Word, all things were made, that means that he is God the Creator."

 

Let me break it down for you.

 

The Word in Aramaic or Hebrew is the Miltha/Memra - the way in which God issues his commands or promulgates his will. The Memra/Miltha can be a messenger, an angel, a manifestation (like the burning bush), a vision, etc. It is an esoteric word with various meanings, and it has been translated into Greek as 'logos' which simply means word, but the Greek does not convey the true quality of the Word.

 

In the beginning there was only God, and he created everything through His Word, which is why Genesis says He said, "Let there be light!" and there was light. In Aramaic [the language spoken by Jesus] is not uncommon to refer to nouns as if they were human:

 

James 1:4 "But let patience have her perfect work, that ye may be perfect and entire, wanting nothing."

 

Proverbs 1:23 "Wisdom crieth without; she uttereth her voice in the streets."

 

The Word is in this case being referred to in the same manner, which is why it says, "God created everything through him [the Miltha]."

 

Then there is the section about John the Baptist a.k.a. Yahya ibn Zakariyya.

 

Then comes, "The Word was made flesh" meaning that the miltha [the way in which God issues his commands or his will, or his representative like a messenger] would this time be a human. Like Jesus said, everything he said and did was God's will, not his. It does not mean that God became human. Can God fit into one person?

 

Whatever workingman throws I can refute because Jesus is not God! We are like him and he is like us!!!! God loves us as he loved Jesus as Jesus himself said, so if Jesus was the 'only begotten' then we would not be loved the same. If people read the scriptures objectively and tossed aside the man-made doctrine they would see the truth.

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Word in Aramaic or Hebrew is the Miltha/Memra - the way in which God issues his commands or promulgates his will. The Memra/Miltha can be a messenger, an angel, a manifestation (like the burning bush), a vision, etc. It is an esoteric word with various meanings, and it has been translated into Greek as 'logos' which simply means word, but the Greek does not convey the true quality of the Word.

 

Seems like the Bible deals with a lot of the problems that the Qur'an faces. They both lose a lot of the meaning in translation.

 

Personally, I'm astonished that there are Christians who do not believe that Jesus was neither God nor the son of God. Do you attend a Church that believes the way you do? What is the name attributed to your division of Christianity? Also, if Jesus was not God or the son of God, what role does he have, based on your beliefs?

 

Salam.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's an interesting test for all Christians, wiritten by Sh.Yusuf Estes, a former Christian, called Jesus Test. Give it a try..IA,

 

He has taken some of the scriptures out of context. For instance in Question 5 he quotes Matthew 15:19, but in the passage, Jesus was quoting a verse from Isaiah to admonish some of the Jewish leaders!

 

"And so you cancel the word of God for the sake of your own traditions. You hypocrites! Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you, for he wrote, 'These people honour me with their lips but their hearts are far away from me. Their worship is a farce, for they teach man-made ideas (rules taught by men in some translations) as commands from God."

 

See Isaiah 29:13

 

Question 9 quotes a verse from Jeremiah and claims that Jesus made this command. Jesus is not Jeremiah, the Book of Jeremiah is in the Old Testament and so he basically claims that Jesus is God when he says that Jesus said the words! Same with Q 11, which is in the Torah, so he implies that Moses received commands from Jesus. This is ridiculous!

 

Q 13 claims the 'Comforter' is Muhammad but that is impossible. I explained in "Jesus did not foretell the coming of Muhamad".

 

 

Some Islamic scholars are deceptive because they like to take verses out of context. "Thou shalt not lie." Is it necessary to do this?

 

Some of the other point were correct, though.

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seems like the Bible deals with a lot of the problems that the Qur'an faces. They both lose a lot of the meaning in translation.

 

Personally, I'm astonished that there are Christians who do not believe that Jesus was neither God nor the son of God. Do you attend a Church that believes the way you do? What is the name attributed to your division of Christianity? Also, if Jesus was not God or the son of God, what role does he have, based on your beliefs?

 

Salam.

 

Hello Sister Redeem,

 

Well, people who do not believe Jesus was the 'Son of God' or God Almighty are known as Non-Trinitarians. Some non-trinitarians are Binitarians meaning they believe in God the Father and God the Son but reject the Holy Spirit. However, the 'strictest' monotheistic non-trinitarians are Unitarian Christians. You could call me and Tom Unitarian Christians. There are millions of us, search the web. I am a non-demoniminational Christian because I don't believe in sects. Jesus had one message and I believe I am following it. The Trinity is a man-made doctrine. It is in 325 AD that a Roman-lead council voted on the status of Jesus as a deity!

 

Refer to page 1 of this post for quotes from the Bible which support my views.

 

Why are you so shocked? Aren't you based in the U.S.? There are many like us there.

 

At least Muslims are encouraged to learn Arabic whereas many Christians do not learn Aramaic. It's a shame, because this is how churches lie to them with doctrine.

 

I do not go to church every Sunday because there are no Unitarian churches in my area. I just go for praise and worship songs sometimes then I bounce because many preachers don't get it. There are also a lot of corrupt churches, often run by Nigerians who just want to extract money from congregants. I worship at home daily and read Jesus teachings daily. I haven't been to church in a while.

 

Jesus is a messenger and an example which we emulate. True Christians trust in and love God, they are devoted to Him, they are disciplined and stand for justice. Jesus teaches that all are equal (believer or not) so we have to treat all people with the same level of love and respect. Jesus was only interested in doing God's will and he teaches us to do the same which also results in the destruction of one's ego, and reduces, but should eventually, eliminate the tendency to sin. He teaches us how to do the 'miracles' he did by having unwavering faith in God.

 

Unitarians also reject the atonement doctrine, which teaches that Jesus blood was a sacrifice to God for the sins of Man. Salvation comes only to those who apply Jesus' teachings. So many think they are saved, yet they are not. They have been mislead. God is the true saviour because he sent Jesus to help us.

 

I don't celebrate Christmas because Dec 25 is not even the day he was born. He was born around September/October (I think) but even so, I do not celebrate his birthday. I love Jesus, but I don't worship him. Dec 25 is a pagan holiday which the Romans adopted to win converts fromt he pagan community. Christmas tree is also a pagan tradition. Crosses and statues are idols and are explicitly forbidden in the Old Testament. Jesus even foretold in the NT the coming of idols to churches, and some of the other Orthodox/Catholic practices and beliefs. I do not supplicate his mother or other saints for intercession nor do I pray to them because Jesus said we must worship God and serve him only!

 

Many Trinitarians follow the Bible as well as man-made doctrines and traditions, although some of them are clearly out of the fold of what Jesus taught. Jesus words are clear enough so I see no need for all of these extras.

 

Peace! :sl:

Edited by samantha-g

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some Islamic scholars are deceptive because they like to take verses out of context. "Thou shalt not lie." Is it necessary to do this?

Well, Sh. Yusuf Estes was formally a Christian minister and studied the Bible for most of his life, so he would know the Bible pretty well, don't you think? There are quite of a number of 'high ranking' Christians, some can be considered as scholars of the Bible who are now Muslims. Here's another one, Dr. Jerald Dirks, a minister, doctorate from Harvard and a Bible scholar. surely what he says would mean something? Just look at his credentials, I'm sure most average Christians are not even close as far knowledge on the Bible compare to this brother..

Here's a short snippet of him talking about the Bible and why he left Christianity..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Rahimi,

 

Well, Sh. Yusuf Estes was formally a Christian minister and studied the Bible for most of his life, so he would know the Bible pretty well, don't you think?

So why does he claim that Old Testament commands came from Jesus when they came from God? Maybe he thinks Jesus is God. I don't know. No one needs to be an expert to understand the chronology of the Bible.

 

There are quite of a number of 'high ranking' Christians, some can be considered as scholars of the Bible who are now Muslims. Here's another one, Dr. Jerald Dirks, a minister, doctorate from Harvard and a Bible scholar. surely what he says would mean something? Just look at his credentials, I'm sure most average Christians are not even close as far knowledge on the Bible compare to this brother..

Here's a short snippet of him talking about the Bible and why he left Christianity..

 

There are also a number of notable Muslims who have left Islam and become Atheists or have become Christians, including Imams and scholars such as Dr. Muhammed Rahoumy (now Dr. Samuel Paul) and Dr. Mustafa (now Dr. Mark Gabriel) who obtained a Master's degree in Islamic studies from a prestigious university in Cairo and was an Imam and lecturer. Dr. Nassir Siddiki says, "Although I worshipped Allah, Allah was not a healing god..So there I was at 35, a dying Muslim..so all that I coud do is cry out to God...Allah never answered...then I cried out to the God of the Christians and asked Him "If you are real, please help me, and heal me!" then Jesus miraculously healed me!"

 

We could go on and on about Christians who have become Muslims and Muslims who have converted to Christianity but what would be the point of that?

 

All I was saying is that there are some scholars who take verses out of context to suit them and others who push forgeries. If Muhammad was really the Paraclete then there would be no need to do that. Why has Estes put words in Jesus' mouth?

 

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Workingman says,

John 10:30 (Jesus speaking) I and my Father are one. (KJV)

He also said the following in prayer to God,

 

“I have given them the glory you gave me so that they may be one as we are one.†John 17:21

 

“They may be one as we are one.†John 17:11

 

This proves that the oneness Jesus had with God is NOT unique.

 

To be one with God means that what you do, think, say and feel that which is compatible with God. You have diminished your ego and live in a state of higher consciousness and are totally dedicated to serving God. God's will is your will. Jesus mastered this and he taught us how to follow in his footsteps.

 

The messiah was prophesied to come from the line of Jesse.

The Messiah was NOT prophesied to have been God on earth in human form.

 

Matthew 3:17 And lo avoice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. (KJV). This happened durring the baptism of Jesus.

God did not say Jesus is the ONLY son, and God referred to us as his sons even in the Old Testament.

 

So logic ruels over faith? Seems like a oxymoron to me.

If the belief is spiritually illogical then it is false. There are things which don't make sense because they are beyond human intellectual capacity - for instance, none of us can even begin to fathom the greatness or the love of God. There are things which do not make sense because they are devoid of logic and reasoning or are mythological (like Adam & Eve). Does God want us to stop thinking so we can believe in him? What kind of God is that?

 

No we don't see Abraham or Moses calling out in the name of Father, Son, and Holy ghost. That does not mean that the Son did not exist.

If he existed then why did we not hear of him from Moses or Isaiah, etc.? If Jesus was the deity who created the universe, why is there no mention of him in Genesis (Book of Creation)? Why do we only hear of a trinity long after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension?

 

Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, God are different words for the same Glorious Creator.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Rahimi,

So why does he claim that Old Testament commands came from Jesus when they came from God? Maybe he thinks Jesus is God. I don't know. No one needs to be an expert to understand the chronology of the Bible.

There are also a number of notable Muslims who have left Islam and become Atheists or have become Christians, including Imams and scholars such as Dr. Muhammed Rahoumy (now Dr. Samuel Paul) and Dr. Mustafa (now Dr. Mark Gabriel) who obtained a Master's degree in Islamic studies from a prestigious university in Cairo and was an Imam and lecturer. Dr. Nassir Siddiki says, "Although I worshipped Allah, Allah was not a healing god..So there I was at 35, a dying Muslim..so all that I coud do is cry out to God...Allah never answered...then I cried out to the God of the Christians and asked Him "If you are real, please help me, and heal me!" then Jesus miraculously healed me!"

 

We could go on and on about Christians who have become Muslims and Muslims who have converted to Christianity but what would be the point of that?

 

All I was saying is that there are some scholars who take verses out of context to suit them and others who push forgeries. If Muhammad was really the Paraclete then there would be no need to do that. Why has Estes put words in Jesus' mouth?

Peace.

 

Hi Samantha, I could not stress enough on the important of checking and verifying the evidence. You can search Sh. Yusuf Estes and Dr. Jerald Dirks and check out their credentials and current status, they are Bible scholars and ministers with recognized qualifications. Needless to say, I pick one name from your list above and look what I found, the guy is a fake..watch below, the guy is a clear fake and a very bad actor to boot.

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Workingman says,

 

He also said the following in prayer to God,

 

“I have given them the glory you gave me so that they may be one as we are one.†John 17:21

 

“They may be one as we are one.†John 17:11

 

This proves that the oneness Jesus had with God is NOT unique.

 

To be one with God means that what you do, think, say and feel that which is compatible with God. You have diminished your ego and live in a state of higher consciousness and are totally dedicated to serving God. God's will is your will. Jesus mastered this and he taught us how to follow in his footsteps.

The Messiah was NOT prophesied to have been God on earth in human form.

God did not say Jesus is the ONLY son, and God referred to us as his sons even in the Old Testament.

If the belief is spiritually illogical then it is false. There are things which don't make sense because they are beyond human intellectual capacity - for instance, none of us can even begin to fathom the greatness or the love of God. There are things which do not make sense because they are devoid of logic and reasoning or are mythological (like Adam & Eve). Does God want us to stop thinking so we can believe in him? What kind of God is that?

If he existed then why did we not hear of him from Moses or Isaiah, etc.? If Jesus was the deity who created the universe, why is there no mention of him in Genesis (Book of Creation)? Why do we only hear of a trinity long after Jesus’ death, resurrection and ascension?

 

Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, God are different words for the same Glorious Creator.

 

Peace.

 

I am going to ask you one simple question. What makes your interpretation of Holy Sacred Scripture corret? I have The Church history started at the foundation of it at penticost founded by Christ upon Peter the rock upon which He (Christ) was beginning his Church. O by the way Adam and Eve are not mythological period. I know this because the scriptures say so. Just like I know the earth was created in seven days. Why the Scriptures say so. Do know what a day is to God? NO. But that is how it was recorded. Why would God reveal himself?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am going to ask you one simple question. What makes your interpretation of Holy Sacred Scripture corret? I have The Church history started at the foundation of it at penticost founded by Christ upon Peter the rock upon which He (Christ) was beginning his Church. O by the way Adam and Eve are not mythological period. I know this because the scriptures say so. Just like I know the earth was created in seven days. Why the Scriptures say so. Do know what a day is to God? NO. But that is how it was recorded. Why would God reveal himself?

 

Hi Workingman,

 

My interpretation is simply based upon the Scripture itself sans doctrinal impressions and additions. History shows us that the deification of Jesus and the trinity doctrine as well as other practices and beliefs came after Peter was around. Therefore, we cannot say that Catholicism is truly representative of the earliest form of Christianity practiced in the first Century.

 

Protestants and non-trinitarians only exist BECAUSE of the Scriptures. The Pope remains in his position because of tradition, as do other beliefs and practices which have no Biblical sanction.

 

A day to God does not necessarily have to be a day in human terms. So far, geneological and archeaological evidence indicates that humans originated in Africa long before Adam and Eve, who existed around 6000 years ago according to the Bible so they are not the first man and woman. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the tale. It does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve is useless and devoid of spiritual significance because it is definitely significant.

 

I am going to ask you this: How do you reconcile practices and beliefs such as bowing down to statues and praying to Mary with the commands from God which explicitly denounce them as well as other things which go against the commands from Jesus, like calling a priest 'Father'?

 

I have a Catholic background by the way, my Friend.

 

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it accurate to claim that Roman Catholicism is the original Church established by Peter? We know that Rome persecuted Christians and it is even said that they crucified Peter upside down, so are we saying that Peter's own church killed him? Rome adopted Christianity because it was a matter of survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Samantha-g

 

name='samantha-g' date='Jan 27 2011, 03:20 AM' post='1230790']

Hi Workingman,

 

My interpretation is simply based upon the Scripture itself sans doctrinal impressions and additions. History shows us that the deification of Jesus and the trinity doctrine as well as other practices and beliefs came after Peter was around. Therefore, we cannot say that Catholicism is truly representative of the earliest form of Christianity practiced in the first Century.

 

Protestants and non-trinitarians only exist BECAUSE of the Scriptures. The Pope remains in his position because of tradition, as do other beliefs and practices which have no Biblical sanction.

 

Ok. You know that I as a Catholic do not subscribe to sola sripture that is another topic and one that you I am sure have a consept of since you have a Roman Catholic back ground and understanding. So if the deification of Jesus came later why did Jesus not rebuke Peter when he called him Christ the Son of the living God in for example St. Matthew 16:16?

 

Now has Catholicism evolved over the centuries? Yes. The Church started by Christ and his Apostels has grown from a small faction to a world dominating religion.

 

Protestants exist because of the refermation in the 1500's. Then there were splitters from the splitters (I don't mean that in a durogitory way). There is pointing to the hierarchy of the Church. Look at Acts 20:28, 1Cor. 12:28, Ephesians 4:11. Those are a few identies of structure in the early Church. I know you don't hold a lot of stock in Epistels we could also revisit then where Christ him self apoints Peter as the Head of the Church.

 

 

A day to God does not necessarily have to be a day in human terms. So far, geneological and archeaological evidence indicates that humans originated in Africa long before Adam and Eve, who existed around 6000 years ago according to the Bible so they are not the first man and woman. Furthermore, there are inconsistencies in the tale. It does not mean that the story of Adam and Eve is useless and devoid of spiritual significance because it is definitely significant.

 

You are right in we do not know what a day to God is. It does not have to equal 24 hours. In that we are in agreement. I don't even nec. believe in young earth creation either. I do not believe in evolution as we evolved from primortial ooze either though. What dating method were they using to come up with that date. Catholics are free to interpret it litteraly or as a aligory. I personal interpret it litteraly.

 

I am going to ask you this: How do you reconcile practices and beliefs such as bowing down to statues and praying to Mary with the commands from God which explicitly denounce them as well as other things which go against the commands from Jesus, like calling a priest 'Father'?

 

Ok now on to misconceptions in RC pratices. (This could be a thread in and of it self.) First off we don't bow to statues. What gives you this impression? We don't "pray to Mary" It is called intercessory prayer. Also it is called Veneration. We do not worship Saints or Mary. For Intercessory prayer I will refer to this section of the CCC

PRAYER OF INTERCESSION

 

2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners.112 He is "able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."113 The Holy Spirit "himself intercedes for us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."114

 

For veneration I will defer to this out of the CCC

 

"YOU SHALL NOT MAKE FOR YOURSELF A GRAVEN IMAGE . . .">

 

2129 The divine injunction included the prohibition of every representation of God by the hand of man. Deuteronomy explains: "Since you saw no form on the day that the Lord spoke to you at Horeb out of the midst of the fire, beware lest you act corruptly by making a graven image for yourselves, in the form of any figure. . . . "66 It is the absolutely transcendent God who revealed himself to israel. "He is the all," but at the same time "he is greater than all his works."67 He is "the author of beauty."68

 

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

 

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecumenical council at Nicaea (787) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new "economy" of images.

 

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone:

 

 

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.71

 

 

2635 Since Abraham, intercession - asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God's mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ's, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks "not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others," even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.115

 

2636 The first Christian communities lived this form of fellowship intensely.116 Thus the Apostle Paul gives them a share in his ministry of preaching the Gospel117 but also intercedes for them.118 The intercession of Christians recognizes no boundaries: "for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions," for persecutors, for the salvation of those who reject the Gospel.119

 

I say this to the passage you refer to. Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers†and “rabbis†because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

 

Matt. 23:8 – in this teaching, Jesus also says not to call anyone teacher or rabbi as well. But don’t Protestants call their teachers “teacher?†What about this commandment of Jesus? When Protestants say “call no man father,†they must also argue that we cannot call any man teacher either.

What about this from the verse before that.

 

I have a Catholic background by the way, my Friend.

 

I will pray for you my friend. May you evetualy journy home.

 

 

God's Peace to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Is it accurate to claim that Roman Catholicism is the original Church established by Peter? We know that Rome persecuted Christians and it is even said that they crucified Peter upside down, so are we saying that Peter's own church killed him? Rome adopted Christianity because it was a matter of survival.

 

Do not try and confuse the RCC with the secular city or Roman empire. Remember durring the Roman Empire in pagan Rome Ceasar was god. Yes Peter was crucified upside down. If I recall correctly Peter asked to be crucified in that manner because he did not feel worthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

How do you back up your last statement. Do you say this because a Ceasar converted then made it a national religion? It couldn't be as simple as he believed it to be the truth. The Gospel truth. If it was to save his empire it failed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are right in we do not know what a day to God is. It does not have to equal 24 hours. In that we are in agreement. I don't even nec. believe in young earth creation either. I do not believe in evolution as we evolved from primortial ooze either though. What dating method were they using to come up with that date. Catholics are free to interpret it litteraly or as a aligory. I personal interpret it litteraly.

 

It is our prerogative to select whether we take things literally or not. I do believe Adam and Eve existed but I do not believe they were the first humans when we calculate using the Bible [it is calculated using the genealogy in the Bible]. I do believe that the first humans ‘fell’.

 

2634 Intercession is a prayer of petition which leads us to pray as Jesus did. He is the one intercessor with the Father on behalf of all men, especially sinners.112 He is "able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them."113 The Holy Spirit "himself intercedes for us . . . and intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."114

I am speaking precisely of intercession and veneration. Do you know the 'Queen of Heaven' is in the Bible (see Jeremiah 7:18 and 44:17-25) but is denouned as a false deity. 'Mother of God' is the Egyptian goddess Isis and she and the 'Queen of Heaven' were both turned into Mary.

 

Please tell me where in the Jesus said we must ask his mother or anyone else to intercede for us, especially since Jesus himself said he would not intercede for us:

 

“I am not saying that I will ask the Father (God) on your behalf.” John 16:26 (New International Version)

 

2132 The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it."70 The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.71

The icons and idols are NOT necessary to reach God. I don't really see how this is different from Hinduism because they believe the idols and icons represent their deities.

 

Ok now on to misconceptions in RC pratices. (This could be a thread in and of it self.) First off we don't bow to statues. What gives you this impression?

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetlovethetruth(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/jis_images/pope_worship.jpg[/img]

 

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_hebrewchristian.files.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/01/fatima_statue1.jpg[/img]

This is Pope John Paul II.

 

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_ivarfjeld.files.wordpress(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/2010/01/catholic_idolaters.jpg[/img]

 

 

2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or permitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.69

They were never made in order to represent God as the icons and statues are said to represent saints as you stated. The ark contained the Tablets of Stone upon which the Ten Commandments were written, Aaron’s Rod and a golden Jar filled with manna and was a symbol of God’s covenant. The snake also did not represent God.

 

Protestants exist because of the refermation in the 1500's. Then there were splitters from the splitters (I don't mean that in a durogitory way). There is pointing to the hierarchy of the Church. Look at Acts 20:28, 1Cor. 12:28, Ephesians 4:11. Those are a few identies of structure in the early Church. I know you don't hold a lot of stock in Epistels we could also revisit then where Christ him self apoints Peter as the Head of the Church.

Yes, of course I know Peter was chosen to establish Jesus' church. However, we cannot say that Roman Catholic Church has been around from the beginning as you claimed. You said: “The Church history started at the foundation of it at penticost founded by Christ upon Peter the rock upon which He (Christ) was beginning his Church.” The first Pope was really Leo I (440-461) as he was the first to claim ultimate authority over all of Christendom and also claimed that he succeeded Peter. There are Popes among the other Orthodox traditions, and each leads his flock.

 

Peter had nothing to do with the formation of the RCC and the position Jesus gave him [although there is debate about the true meaning of Mt 16:16-19] does not apply to all Popes who claim it.

 

The Roman Empire adopted Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church incorporated it with various pagan practices and beliefs which were rife in the Mediterranean. It was an “Adapt or Die” scenario.

 

“But with the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 318 AD, the church began to adopt a governmental structure mirroring that of the Empire, in which geographical provinces were ruled by bishops based in the major city of the area.” Roman Catholic Church is a remnant/relic of the Roman Empire.

 

Protestants exist because of the reformist movement in the 1500’s, yes, but we exist because of what the scriptures say. Protestants questioned the Church hierarchy and certain beliefs and practices.

 

I say this to the passage you refer to. Matt. 23:9 - Jesus says, "call no man father." But Protestants use this verse in an attempt to prove that it is wrong for Catholics to call priests "father." This is an example of "eisegesis" (imposing one's views upon a passage) as opposed to "exegesis" (drawing out the meaning of the passage from its context). In this verse, Jesus was discouraging His followers from elevating the scribes and Pharisees to the titles of “fathers” and “rabbis” because they were hypocrites. Jesus warns us not to elevate anyone to the level of our heavenly Father.

The context in which one refers to a man as ‘father’ or ‘teacher’ is significant. Does one sin when they address their teacher or parent in that way? No. It is the veneration that is a problem. Protestants do not venerate religious leaders and scholars the way you venerate the pope. We do not sit in booths next to priests and say, “Father, forgive me, for I have sinned,” and proceed to confess our sins to them. “Father, forgive me, for I have sinned,” is what one should say only to God.

 

Within the very passage, Jesus stresses that we have one Master, one Teacher and one Father and says we are all equal (See Matthew 25:8-10). If in our hearts and minds, we give a rabbi/priest/pastor an elevated status or superiority in terms of spirituality then it contradicts what Jesus taught. Addressing the Pope as “His Holiness” or “Holy Father” is an example. I only know God to be my Holy Father.

 

Ok. You know that I as a Catholic do not subscribe to sola sripture that is another topic and one that you I am sure have a consept of since you have a Roman Catholic back ground and understanding. So if the deification of Jesus came later why did Jesus not rebuke Peter when he called him Christ the Son of the living God in for example St. Matthew 16:16?

 

I have already explained that Jesus said we are all God's children and God in the OT referred to us as his sons. Again, historical evidence shows that Jesus' status as a deity came from around the second century and grew steadily until it was made official by vote in 325 A.D.

 

I will pray for you my friend. May you evetualy journy home.

 

I am home. The Roman Catholic Church is neither the home of Christianity nor is it true to Jesus’ message.

 

 

God's peace to you too! :sl:

Edited by samantha-g

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


×