Why are YOU not a catholic?

[Pat2]

There are a GREAT many Christian sects/ communions/ churches.

BUT Only one is founded by Christ Himself. The Catholic Church.

So my friend, why are you NOT a Catholic?

God Bless,

Pat

[Moses Yoder]

From Post 44:

...

I 'preciate the explanation. Maybe my particular circumstances have just made me too sensitive to such.

Really though, I'd like to see you address the second part of my referenced post...

How does a Bible quote, and then folks getting married show the god in question has emotions, much less one of 'em being love?

I was married once, the whole while being an atheist. Does my getting married (or subsequently divorced) show a god doesn't have emotions?

I assume this line of questioning is in line with the OP, where it would seem (only?) Catholics have some means of determining this god has emotions.

So far as the use of heathen is concerned, it was not meant to be derogatory in any way. I was just thinking about alternative terms as I was reading the moderator intervention, and think the term "unbeleivers" would work.

And Joey, so far as answering your question, I would be happy to do so if you started a thread with the title "Does Your God Love People?" and posed a question to that effect. It would require some defining, such as who your god is, etc.

[Goat]

From Post 44:

...

I 'preciate the explanation. Maybe my particular circumstances have just made me too sensitive to such.

Really though, I'd like to see you address the second part of my referenced post...

How does a Bible quote, and then folks getting married show the god in question has emotions, much less one of 'em being love?

I was married once, the whole while being an atheist. Does my getting married (or subsequently divorced) show a god doesn't have emotions?

I assume this line of questioning is in line with the OP, where it would seem (only?) Catholics have some means of determining this god has emotions.

So far as the use of heathen is concerned, it was not meant to be derogatory in any way. I was just thinking about alternative terms as I was reading the moderator intervention, and think the term "unbeleivers" would work.

And Joey, so far as answering your question, I would be happy to do so if you started a thread with the title "Does Your God Love People?" and posed a question to that effect. It would require some defining, such as who your god is, etc.

Unbeliever doesn't work either. Hindu's and Muslims, and most Jews would not beleive in Jesus, but they would hardly consider themselves 'unbelievers'

How about 'Non-Christian'.?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 51:

So far as the use of heathen is concerned, it was not meant to be derogatory in any way. I was just thinking about alternative terms as I was reading the moderator intervention, and think the term "unbeleivers" would work.

Again, I 'preciate it, and I 'pologize if I was being overly sensitive. It's just that in my neck of the woods that word is so often used in a derogatory fashion. I consider the case closed myself, having now two instances of you explaining that you were using a "cold, analytical definition". I must fess up to using some derogatory language myself, thus that whole "plank in your eye" deal may be applicable to me.

Noting Goat's post on "unbeliever", I can only conclude you seek a term that is not offensive in the least. I 'preciate your willingness to find such a term, rather than seeking to defend the use of a controversial term. Again, I sure ain't the one to be preaching about offensive language.

And Joey, so far as answering your question, I would be happy to do so if you started a thread with the title "Does Your God Love People?" and posed a question to that effect. It would require some defining, such as who your god is, etc.

Notice, the claim was made within this thread. Moderator rulings / clarifications have indicated that a claim presented within a thread is liable to support (or retraction) within that thread. Beyond that, I didn't challenge the "people" part. I challenged the following:

1- God has emotions.
2- One of these emotions is love.

God could have 1, while not having 2. He could have 1 and 2, while it not involving people. If you seek to extend the claim, then we could include, 3- God loves people.

On the definition of God, I'd leave that to those who propose this god has the challenged attributes.

That said, I'll create the OP in order to show that I'm serious about my challenge.

Here's a link.

[Pat2]

="Shermana"]

My dear Jewish friend,



Your denial of the FACTS can not, and do not alter what was then true and remains true today.

What FACTS do I deny?

John.10: 37-38 "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Ummm, this is actually a verse I use when I am DISPELLING the Trinity, perhaps you may not see why, so here it is: Jesus is plainly saying he's doing the will of His Father, who is a separate Entity. The "Father in me" and "I am in the Father" further cements the idea that the author intended to convey that they were two separate beings. Now the fact that Jesus called his body a Temple may illustrate some concept that an ultimate vessel of Holiness can allow the Father to reside in Him and accomplish great works, like how the Father dwelt in the Temple.

Matt.24:1-2 "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Ummm, okay, and the Temple was in fact destroyed except for the Outer wall which wasn't really part of the 2nd Temple originally. So....what's your point? This part came true, I don't deny.

And this came to be is 70 A.D. as a direct result of folks like you, who refused to believe that OT prophesy HAD been fullfilled in there time.

Folks like me? Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I clearly said I'm a Messianic Jew, that would mean that I actually believe Jesus WAS the prophecied Moshiach according to the "Old Testament" as you call it, including Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53:10. I think you're assuming that because I reject the Trinity, that must somehow mean that I reject that Yashua Ben Yusuf was the Moshiach. Logic error. And it's "Their" time. I do agree however, that the destruction of the Temple may have had something to do with the widespread rejection of the Moshiach, but that's for another debate.

God Bless my friend,
Pat

Thank you, may G-d put you on the track to objective reasoning and seeing the Scriptures correctly.

The problem your having my friend is mixing the TWO natures of Christ. He is at one and and the SAME TIME. Both Fully God [Divine Nature] and fully man[humannature]

Here's a verse I use in explicitly showing the TRINITY

Mt. 3:13-17 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [Holy Spirit of God] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [God The Father] =TRINITY

God Bless,
Pat

[dianaiad]

Here's a verse I use in explicitly showing the TRINITY

Mt. 3:13-17 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [Holy Spirit of God] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [God The Father] =TRINITY

God Bless,
Pat

Pat, I noticed the :

Does that mean you weren't being serious with the prooftext which follows? (I hope..)?

[Shermana]

I have to say I love when Trinitarians use that verse as a proof text, as if the presence of all three being there somehow demonstrates them being 3-in-1 rather than 3 completely separate entities. If anything, this is another verse I also use AGAINST the Trinity, demonstrating that they are 3 separate entities. As for Christ having "two natures", what exactly is a "nature"? Even the Greek Nicean fathers had a hard time wordsmithing something to fit the "2 natures" concept.

[Autodidact]

="Shermana"]

My dear Jewish friend,



Your denial of the FACTS can not, and do not alter what was then true and remains true today.

What FACTS do I deny?

John.10: 37-38 "If I am not doing the works of my Father, then do not believe me; but if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me and I am in the Father."

Ummm, this is actually a verse I use when I am DISPELLING the Trinity, perhaps you may not see why, so here it is: Jesus is plainly saying he's doing the will of His Father, who is a separate Entity. The "Father in me" and "I am in the Father" further cements the idea that the author intended to convey that they were two separate beings. Now the fact that Jesus called his body a Temple may illustrate some concept that an ultimate vessel of Holiness can allow the Father to reside in Him and accomplish great works, like how the Father dwelt in the Temple.

Matt.24:1-2 "Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, "You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down."

Ummm, okay, and the Temple was in fact destroyed except for the Outer wall which wasn't really part of the 2nd Temple originally. So....what's your point? This part came true, I don't deny.

And this came to be is 70 A.D. as a direct result of folks like you, who refused to believe that OT prophesy HAD been fullfilled in there time.

Folks like me? Perhaps you missed my earlier post where I clearly said I'm a Messianic Jew, that would mean that I actually believe Jesus WAS the prophecied Moshiach according to the "Old Testament" as you call it, including Zechariah 12:10 and Isaiah 53:10. I think you're assuming that because I reject the Trinity, that must somehow mean that I reject that Yashua Ben Yusuf was the Moshiach. Logic error. And it's "Their" time. I do agree however, that the destruction of the Temple may have had something to do with the widespread rejection of the Moshiach, but that's for another debate.

God Bless my friend,
Pat

Thank you, may G-d put you on the track to objective reasoning and seeing the Scriptures correctly.

The problem your having my friend is mixing the TWO natures of Christ. He is at one and and the SAME TIME. Both Fully God [Divine Nature] and fully man[humannature]

Here's a verse I use in explicitly showing the TRINITY

Mt. 3:13-17 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [Holy Spirit of God] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [God The Father] =TRINITY

God Bless,
Pat

Until you make your case that the Bible is a reliable source for anything, you're wasting your time citing Bible verses.

[Pat2]

="dianaiad"]

Here's a verse I use in explicitly showing the TRINITY

Mt. 3:13-17 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [Holy Spirit of God] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [God The Father] =TRINITY

God Bless,
Pat

Pat, I noticed the :

Does that mean you weren't being serious with the prooftext which follows? (I hope..)?

No, I am completely serious. This is the only passage I'm aware of that shows the 'Trinity" in action; however each of the three persons are frequently mentioned through out the NT.

God Bless,
Pat

[dianaiad]

="dianaiad"]

Here's a verse I use in explicitly showing the TRINITY

Mt. 3:13-17 “Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now; for thus it is fitting for us to fulfil all righteousness." Then he consented. And when Jesus [Son of God] was baptized, he went up immediately from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, [Holy Spirit of God] and alighting on him; and lo, a voice from heaven, saying, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased." [God The Father] =TRINITY

God Bless,
Pat

Pat, I noticed the :

Does that mean you weren't being serious with the prooftext which follows? (I hope..)?

No, I am completely serious. This is the only passage I'm aware of that shows the 'Trinity" in action; however each of the three persons are frequently mentioned through out the NT.

God Bless,
Pat

Well, darn.

You realize that many people use that verse (certainly I do) as an argument AGAINST the Trinity?

[AquinasD]

Even the Greek Nicean fathers had a hard time wordsmithing something to fit the "2 natures" concept.

Diophysitism? It seems to make a lot of sense to me. It means "two-natured."