Is your belief in God, entirely dependent upon

[Elijah John]

Is your belief in God entirely dependent upon your belief that Jesus himself is God, the 2nd person of the Trinity?

If the arguments of skeptics here on these boards, or the arguments of Historical Jesus Scholars such as Bart Ehrmann or John Dominic Crossan, or even the arguments of Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims or Jews suddenly clicked in your mind, with a light-bulb-"aha" realization that Jesus is not God, never claimed to be God, and none of his contemporaries every called him "God", what would you do?

Would you retain your general belief in God, as Father? Would you join another religion such as Islam or Judaism? Would you attempt to salvage what you can of Chrisitanity in a unitarian (small "u" not necessarily UU) fashion?

Or would that discovery cause you to become an atheist or an agnostic?

[RightReason]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

RightReason wrote:

He's omniscient (all-knowing):


Colossians 2:2-3 . . . Christ, [3] in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.


QUESTION Does Colossians 2 verse 3 prove Jesus is omniscient?

Aaaaaaaand were right back to Watchtower tracts. Who writes the Watchtower notes? By what authority do they act?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 47 by brianbbs67]

Should it? Perhaps you should put it in the Church's suggestion box.



2 Peter 1:17-19 should dispel your belief.

Sorry, like Marco indicated as well -- I don’t follow. What belief exactly is 2 Peter 1:17-19 supposed to dispel?

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 48 by marco]

I take it this means you think my translation of the simple Latin is incorrect.

You take it wrong. I'm sure your Latin is impeccable. However, Scripture was not originally written in Latin and there is a little more to it than proper translation. The thing is there is no such thing as perfect translation. Sometimes some things don't translate -- at least not perfectly.

Also, I have argued many times on this forum that based on history, knowledge of language and language usage some fail to see/understand what certain passages mean based on the sentence structure, placement of commas, language used, context, etc. And what happens when I point this out? Most ignore the information. Someone will turn around and translate or interpret the passage differently -- fair enough translation and interpretation aren't exact sciences. Like I’ve said, one change in word or word placement and an entire sentence can mean something else. So, what’s a sincere Christian to do? I know what I would do. I would listen to who was given the authority to speak for Christ. The one who was given the authority to safeguard and interpret Sacred Scripture. I would not rely on my personal take or even the personal interpretation of someone else if they do not have the authority, especially knowing how complex and tricky language can be. Well, anyway, that would be my approach because it is the only one that in my opinion makes sense.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 48 by marco]

. . . It knows there were many other Gospels besides the Four Gospels, and that the others were only eliminated by the authority of the Catholic Church. It knows there are many other evolutionary theories besides the Darwinian theory; and that the latter is quite likely to be eliminated by later science. It does not, in the conventional phrase, accept the conclusions of science, for the simple reason that science has not concluded. To conclude is to shut up; and the man of science is not at all likely to shut up. It does not, in the conventional phrase, believe what the Bible says, for the simple reason that the Bible does not say anything. You cannot put a book in the witness-box and ask it what it really means. The Fundamentalist controversy itself destroys Fundamentalism. The Bible by itself cannot be a basis of agreement when it is a cause of disagreement; it cannot be the common ground of Christians when some take it allegorically and some literally. The Catholic refers it to something that can say something, to the living, consistent, and continuous mind of which I have spoken; the highest mind of man guided by God. -G.K. Chesterton

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 48 by marco]

More from G.K. Chesterton on this belief that the Bible is our authority and we need only read the Bible . . .


I find it very difficult to take some of the Protestant propositions even seriously. What is any man who has been in the real outer world, for instance, to make of the everlasting cry that Catholic traditions are condemned by the Bible? It indicates a jumble of topsy-turvy tests and tail-foremost arguments, of which I never could at any time see the sense.

The ordinary sensible sceptic or pagan is standing in the street (in the supreme character of the man in the street) and he sees a procession go by of the priests of some strange cult, carrying their object of worship under a canopy, some of them wearing high head-dresses and carrying symbolical staffs, others carrying scrolls and sacred records, others carrying sacred images and lighted candles before them, others sacred relics in caskets or cases, and so on.

I can understand the spectator saying, “This is all hocus-pocus�; I can even understand him, in moments of irritation, breaking up the procession, throwing down the images, tearing up the scrolls, dancing on the priests and anything else that might express that general view. I can understand his saying, “Your croziers are bosh, your candles are bosh, your statues and scrolls and relics and all the rest of it are bosh.�

But in what conceivable frame of mind does he rush in to select one particular scroll of the scriptures of this one particular group (a scroll which had always belonged to them and been a part of their hocus-pocus, if it was hocus-pocus); why in the world should the man in the street say that one particular scroll was not bosh, but was the one and only truth by which all the other things were to be condemned? Why should it not be as superstitious to worship the scrolls as the statues, of that one particular procession? Why should it not be as reasonable to preserve the statues as the scrolls, by the tenets of that particular creed?

To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,� is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,� is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

https://mustfollowifican.wordpress.com/ ... scriptura/

[marco]

However, Scripture was not originally written in Latin and there is a little more to it than proper translation. The thing is there is no such thing as perfect translation.

We are dealing with the RC Vulgate rendering. The Latin sentence I quoted does not have an alternative meaning given the inserted Vulgate punctuation, which is not mine. It says: justice of our God and of our Saviour, Jesus Christ. When this is condensed to "of our God and Saviour" it CAN mean the same, but the incorrect meaning is introduced by the ambiguity in English.

Sometimes some things don't translate -- at least not perfectly.

This is not the case with a simple text. As for arguing about placement of commas, predicates and supines I'm happy to enter such discussion. I chose the Vulgate since we are dealing with the RC rendering. I am not usurping someone like Erasmus - I am simply dealing with a piece of Latin that is not hard to translate.

I would not rely on my personal take or even the personal interpretation of someone else if they do not have the authority, especially knowing how complex and tricky language can be.

Well that is wise. But I don't see what authority I'd require to do a simple translation. Does God supervise such trivia?


GK's meandering conversation on Protestants doesn't apply to me or interest me. I shudder to think how he might sound had he supported Luther since I find myself disagreeing even when I agree.

Perhaps dominus tecum is the proper parting wish here.

[Elijah John]

To say to the priests, “Your statues and scrolls are condemned by our common sense,� is sensible. To say, “Your statues are condemned by your scrolls, and we are going to worship one part of your procession and wreck the rest,� is not sensible from any standpoint, least of all that of the man in the street.

https://mustfollowifican.wordpress.com/ ... scriptura/

"All or nothing" catagorical thinking is just another form of Fundamentalism. What the RCC condemns in it's rival, it practices itself.

And by the way, the Church does not accept everything in it's Scrolls (the Bible). Or at least it does not emphsize every passage. Exodus 21.20-21, for example. Does the Church embrace slavery, or consider any human being "property"? And on that basis, allow one person to posses another, and beat them half-to-death on a whim?

Does the Lectionary even include that passage? If so, I wonder how the presiding Priest would handle that embarrasing passage in his homily.

[RightReason]

[Replying to marco]

Well that is wise. But I don't see what authority I'd require to do a simple translation. Does God supervise such trivia?

You misunderstand. Of course you may translate – translate away. It is however the conclusions you draw from said translation that you really ought to run by those in authority. Again, proper translation is one thing, but what something means can come down to much more than good translation.

As for God supervising such trivia . . . uh yeah . . I think He cares. It is often the little things that matter. If one wants to pick up the Bible and draw conclusions based on his existing set of beliefs and pre conceptions, he ought to be aware the influence that can have in forming conclusions. We have always been expected to receive the Bible under the guidance of Christ’s Church. A foundation and starting point is necessary.

In fact, I actually find your outlook – that God would not be concerned about such trivial things a most telling view. I personally think if all this we Christians profess to be true matters, it would most certainly come down to the very trivial things in life. It might make the difference between whether we are drinking a glass of wine or the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[RightReason]

[Replying to post 57 by Elijah John]

"All or nothing" catagorical thinking is just another form of Fundamentalism.

As usual, you miss it. The point was to point out the hypocrisy in accepting the Bible (that the Catholic Church compiled) and claiming some of it we can accept and some of it we don’t. Why accept any of it?

And by the way, the Church does not accept everything in it's Scrolls (the Bible). Or at least it does not emphsize every passage. Exodus 21.20-21, for example. Does the Church embrace slavery, or consider any human being "property"?

We do accept everything (we do not accept false and erroneous interpretations). The Catholic Church, unlike every other religion, skips none of Sacred Scripture. If you attend mass every day for 3 years you will have received every single thing in the Bible – from OT to proverbs and psalms to Revelation to NT. The Church has specific readings for every single day of the year and they run on a 3 year cycle to get every one in.

If I was a member of the cute little church on the corner, I’d likely attend mass for a year and hear repeatedly the story of the Good Samaritan, or the Sermon on the Mount, and of course Psalm 23 The Lord is my Shepherd . . .always house favorites. Or I would hear whatever the personality of the current pastor feels like emphasizing. I’d probably get very little Scripture and a whole lot of preach’n from the pulpit – with a whole lot of renditions of Amazing Grace thrown in for good measure.

Does the Lectionary even include that passage? If so, I wonder how the presiding Priest would handle that passage in his homily.

It’s included. And the priest would explain how much of the OT especially that which talks about Mosaic Law are stories about man’s journey and establishing man’s relationship with God. He would probably explain that of course man is not subject to Mosaic Law. The Moral Law yes – Mosaic Law no. These were laws basically demanded by man – similar to “Is it lawful for man to divorce his wife?� And as we hear, such is not God’s way, but due to man’s hardness of hearts He gave them what they wanted.

As usual, you simply show you know very little about my faith. You attempt to knock down a strawman. And congratulate yourself on how easy it is to do that. <sigh>

[JehovahsWitness]

COLOSSIANS 3:11

He's omnipresent (present everywhere):

Col 3:11

Code: Select all

COLOSSIANS 3:11


Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcision and uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all and in all. - NABRE 

Omnipresence is usually understood to mean being "simultaneously everywhere." Can Colossians 3:11 be used to argue that Jesus is omnipresent?

No there is nothing in scripture that supports this idea; Paul is obviously not suggesting that the resurrected Christ literally lives inside of belivers as he already stated that he (Christ) is seated at the right hand of God" (Col 1:1). The context of colossians 3:11 indicates that Paul is speaking of the Christ-like qualities that believers should display.

In verse 5 Paul tells those he was writing to "put to death" ungodliness and make "a new self" (verse 10), he instructs them to "let the peace of Christ control your hearts", "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly" (verse 16). It is reasonable then to conclude that Paul is not refering to Christ's omnipresence but rather that in allowing Christ's message to influence their thoughts and hearts they will better resemble and reflect in words and actions the godly qualities of Christ.



JW

All quotations from the Catholic NABRE translation




FURTHER READING Vatican Archives
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/a ... ndex/h.htm

SFBT Trinity "proof" texts
http://examiningthetrinity.blogspot.com ... texts.html