Jesus is God !

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
I am starting to wonder if perhaps there is a language issue here. Is English your first language?
Why so snarky?

Oh my God. I am honestly trying to understand what you are saying. This subject needs precise wording, and sometimes if English is someone's second language they might be choosing the wrong word. I was not trying to be rude. Your name sounds Italian and I thought maybe you are Italian and English is your second language.

As it stands, what you said does not make any sense: "The Son of God is ancestral to God the Father. He preexisted in heaven with God from the beginning."

None of that makes sense.

What is it that you don't understand about my post? "The Son of God is ancestral to God the Father. He preexisted in heaven with God from the beginning."

That is gibberish.
 
Last edited:

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Oh my God. What a jerk. I am honestly trying to understand what you are saying. This subject needs precise wording, and sometimes if English is someone's second language they might be choosing the wrong word. I was not trying to be rude. Your name sounds Italian and I thought maybe you are Italian and English is your second language.

As it stands, what you said does not make any sense: "The Son of God is ancestral to God the Father. He preexisted in heaven with God from the beginning."

None of that makes sense.



That is gibberish.
The Son of God= a Son, not the Father

is ancestral to God the Father= God the Father existed in theory before the Son

ancestral
adjective

: of, relating to, or inherited from an ancestor


He preexisted in heaven
= Jesus came down from heaven (incarnate), he was with the Father before this world exited.

with God from the beginning= Father and Son existed from eternity.
 

Lonster

Member
I've said the same thing repeatedly, do you not know what "necessitate" means? The blood does not 'necessarily' have to be referring to Gods blood when it states "purchased with His blood". Imagine someone saying "Man A was blue" with no further context to define the meaning, you could interpret that statement to mean that man A's appearance looked to be the colour blue, on the other hand, you could interpret the statement to mean the man felt down and sad emotionally. Neither of our interpretations is necessarily wrong as both interpretations are reflections in regards to what the writer could have meant.

In Acts 20:28 we have a statement "Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood", that statement from my, and many scholars opinion, has two possible interpretations:

1. The blood refers to Gods blood
2. The blood refers to God's 'bloodline' which is through Jesus; Jesus is God's literal Son and in that sense his 'blood'.

Lon, can we start being honest
Er, condescending. I've been nothing BUT honest, thus this is dishonest of you, as far as I'm concerned. It is literally "with His own blood." I don't care what a scholar says. I care what God says. Knock off the condescension. ἰδίου means 'own/self.'


, is point 2 a 'possible' interpretation? I'm not asking if it's the correct interpretation but simply a 'possible interpretation'. Let me again remind you, numerous scholars agree with me that it's a possible interpretation, hence why they reference Jesus in it over it being God's literal blood, so the understanding is scholarly and deserves a response. If you deny that it is a possible translation can you please give reasons as to why?


No, I am not. Both biblically and within old and modern literature, someone being referred to as the 'blood' (or other bodily characteristics of a person such as bone and flesh) can and does refer to someone who is a direct relative, having the same bloodline.

Neh 5:5
"..and now, as the flesh of our brethren is our flesh, as their sons are our sons.."

2 Samuel 19:12
"You are my relatives, my own flesh and blood. So why should you be the last to bring back the king?'"
"You are my brothers, you are my bones and my flesh: why then are you the last to bring back the king?"

Judges 9:2
"...Which is better for you: to have all seventy of Jerub-Baal's sons rule over you, or just one man?' Remember, I am your flesh and blood."
"...Whether is better for you, either that all the sons of Jerubbaal, which are three score and ten persons, reign over you, or that one reign over you? remember also that I am your bone and your flesh"

As you can see above, someone being the blood, bone, or flesh of someone else relates to them being the relative of that one; they go so far as to claim the flesh and bones of their relative IS THEIR OWN FLESH. It is perfectly acceptable to understand Acts 20:28 to be using the same idiom when talking about the 'blood'. Therefore, it is not special pleading for the above given evidence. Again, since many translations of the bible translate the 'blood' to be referring to Jesus in Acts 20:28 we know it's a scholarly interpretation of the text.

------------------------------------------------------
ALL special pleading: comparing apples to oranges, metaphors to literal. You are rationalizing your scriptures, NW.
Lon, you must understand that at present I'm not even trying to convince you that the 'blood' doesn't relate to God, all I'm trying to get to you to do is admit my interpretation is possible interpretation according to the bibles overall context and if you disagree to explain why. It's easy to say something is wrong but much harder to prove it, you are in the habit of asserting I'm incorrect without explaining how, please show me otherwise.
I don't 'have' to because it literally says 'His OWN blood.' You are so hung up on Arian/Unitarian thought, you no longer allow yourself to read and understand the text the way it is written but MUST take a twist. That man is you. You said "let's be honest." YOU try it first.
Also, you complained the accumulations of questions I had relating to our discussions was too much, despite it being your own doing, so reduced it to one; you still refuse to answer a single question, so I would like to know what excuse you have for not answering it this time despite me asking it and waiting patiently three (3) times now. Here is the question again:

My previous statement and question: Let's go back to basics, I will pick one of the many questions I have previously asked you and await your answer, hopefully, you'll answer and we can progress from there. The main topic of our discussion was if there are others who are called G-god who are not the 'one God' and who the originator of creation is. You've previously stated Jesus is the originator of creation and that because all things have been created through him he must be the originator because of the strong language used ("All things came into existence through him, and apart from him not even one thing came into existences" John 1:3). My question is this, in Hebrews 2:8 it states God subjected "all things" under man and "left nothing that is not subject to him", since God and the Angels would no doubt be included in the "all things", according to your own reasoning, does this mean God and the Angels were subject to Man, or is the "all things" and God "leaving nothing not subject to Man" not inclusive of God himself and the Angels?
As I've told you. I will pick and choose what is important and likely NOT get lost in the woods with your whims. Reason? I've given you 'enough' that you know 1) your own prowess and 2) where you depart from scripture with your supposed 'logical conclusions.' Who cares? If it isn't God and it becomes you or the Watchtower, I've lost God in the conversation and now am listening to men. Where else can I go? He alone has the words of life and He alone I will follow.
 

Lonster

Member
Catholicism believes that all who believe in Christ, that He is risen from the dead and the Son of God, are Christians. You're not Catholic, so you would not have any reason to know this.

@Caino you are generally welcome at any Catholic Mass (although Advent Masses and Christmas Mass might require a pre-sign-in, you'd need to check the parish's webpage), just don't receive Communion til you convert.
Er, the majority of my family is Catholic. I'm aware. I believe more than you on this point.
 

Lonster

Member
This site is still in darkness.
According to you, so is the rest of your family, but you simply think you are 'smarter' than the rest of us. Sorry, not true. Ignorance isn't 'the light' Keypurr. It amounts to you saying "While I'm not as intelligent as the rest of you, I disdain you for not coming down to my way of thinking." It is just this arrogant.
 

Right Divider

Body part
The Son of God= a Son, not the Father

is ancestral to God the Father= God the Father existed in theory before the Son
So you believe that there was a time when God was not Father and Son and Holy Spirit?

How was God the Father a "father" before He has a Son?

Father and Son describes their relationship and it is NOT biological.
 

Right Divider

Body part
According to you, so is the rest of your family, but you simply think you are 'smarter' than the rest of us. Sorry, not true. Ignorance isn't 'the light' Keypurr. It amounts to you saying "While I'm not as intelligent as the rest of you, I disdain you for not coming down to my way of thinking." It is just this arrogant.
keypurr is one of the looniest of the loonie-toons here on TOL.
 

Lonster

Member
What does that mean.
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm It means be informed. I appreciate a desire to 'include' like the Apostolic Church I saw that said "Muslims welcome here" but while one of these may attend any particular church, they may not be allowed to affect the orthodoxy of the local church else the local 'church' is no longer 'Christ-honoring' (Christian, orthodox). It means you extended the hand of fellowship to a man, whose heresy Urantia, completely undermines the Cross, Christ, and Salvation. He denies the very means of YOUR salvation, through the blood of Jesus Christ, in fact, he doesn't believe you need saved at all, but that you need to be rather "Urantia" informed. :plain:
 

Trump Gurl

Credo in Unum Deum
What does that mean.
It means be informed.

You two are making my head spin. One Catholic who screws things up and the other his family is Catholic and thinks he knows all about it.

First of all Lonster, from a Catholic perspective, only a Catholic can be charged with heresy because you have to be Catholic in the first place to even commit a heretical act:
2089 Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same

Second of all Idolator, your post, "Catholicism believes that all who believe in Christ, that He is risen from the dead and the Son of God, are Christians" is wrong. There are people who fit that bill who are surely not Christians.

Third of all Lonster, ANY person is welcome at Mass, Catholic protestant, other and atheist too. Jesus came for sinners not the righteous, and Jesus would eat with anyone who invited him. We would never deny any person the chance to see and hear the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now chill out Frik and Frak
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm It means be informed. I appreciate a desire to 'include' like the Apostolic Church I saw that said "Muslims welcome here" but while one of these may attend any particular church, they may not be allowed to affect the orthodoxy of the local church else the local 'church' is no longer 'Christ-honoring' (Christian, orthodox). It means you extended the hand of fellowship to a man, whose heresy Urantia, completely undermines the Cross, Christ, and Salvation. He denies the very means of YOUR salvation, through the blood of Jesus Christ, in fact, he doesn't believe you need saved at all, but that you need to be rather "Urantia" informed. :plain:
Uh huh.

Muslims are welcome at Mass, just as is everybody. Everybody can attend Mass. You can't receive Communion is all, until and unless you convert (or in your case, re-convert through the sacrament of Reconciliation), but you can witness the Mass, and participate, or not participate---Catholics generally don't judge someone who's not standing or kneeling at the appropriate times. You can make the sign of the cross or not. You can genuflect toward the tabernacle or not. You can bow before the altar or not. There's no real rules, and even Communion is distributed to the faithful on the honor system. We are responsible, just as St. Paul instructed the Corinthian diocese, to examine ourselves that we do not receive Communion unworthily, which means that we are not guilty of any un-absolved grave sin.

@Caino is more than welcome at Mass. As are you. And as for "affect the orthodoxy", that's impossible in Catholicism. The Church's magisterium, bolstered immeasurably by Pope St. John Paul II's catechism, is as firm a human footing as can be had w r t orthodoxy, which is the same as teaching on all moral and doctrinal matters that is divine, authoritative, infallible, inerrant and Apostolic. The bishops uniformly teach that which the Apostles uniformly taught, which is Christ's own teaching, which is the Father's own teaching.

I extend the hand of fellowship to Caino because he or she, or neither he nor she, has testified to believing that Jesus is risen from the dead, and the Son of God. According to the aforementioned Catechism, this justified me in seeing him or her, or neither him nor her, as my full and real sibling in Christ, and a fellow member of His Body. The differences in doctrine render us currently imperfectly united, a condition that will remain perhaps until glory, but it is but a temporary state of affairs. I encourage Caino, and you as well, to be received into the Church. Or at least to convert to one of the Orthodox churches, who also do have the sacraments in their fullness, along with the Catholic Church.

Regarding Urantia, or any other thoughts, published or otherwise, when converting to Catholicism, we are asked to confess the Niceno-Napolitano Creed and to renounce Satan. If we can do this with a clear conscience, that is all that is required. If Urantia or anything else that we believe conflicts with the Creed or with renouncing Satan, then we are encouraged to work out our salvation.
 

Idolater

"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Idolator, your post, "Catholicism believes that all who believe in Christ, that He is risen from the dead and the Son of God, are Christians" is wrong. There are people who fit that bill who are surely not Christians.
Demonstrate your assertion from the Catechism then. Because you appear to be contradicting its clear words.
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
So you believe that there was a time when God was not Father and Son and Holy Spirit?

How was God the Father a "father" before He has a Son?

Father and Son describes their relationship and it is NOT biological.
Only in a philosophical sense, but the Paradise Trinity is Eternal. Jesus the Son of God isn't the second person of a Trinity, he would be a creation of the Trinity at some point in the eternal past. Jesus never actually said that he could be the second person of the indivisible Trinity.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Only in a philosophical sense, but the Paradise Trinity is Eternal.
Where do you get these strange terms? Certainly NOT from the Word of God.
Jesus the Son of God isn't the second person of a Trinity, he would be a creation of the Trinity at some point in the eternal past.
Again, where does this "secret knowledge" come from? Certainly NOT from the Word of God.
Jesus never actually said that he could be the second person of the indivisible Trinity.
Of course He did. It's right there IN THE BIBLE that you despise.

Do you have some secret channel to Jesus? (Hint: that's a rhetorical question; you don't!)
 

Caino

BANNED
Banned
Where do you get these strange terms? Certainly NOT from the Word of God.

Again, where does this "secret knowledge" come from? Certainly NOT from the Word of God.

Of course He did. It's right there IN THE BIBLE that you despise.

Do you have some secret channel to Jesus? (Hint: that's a rhetorical question; you don't!)
Strange terms like "philosophical"?

Its in John 1, one of my favorite scriptures.

The Word Became Flesh​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.

John one makes a philosophical concession, it presents sequence when there wasn't any. God had no beginning yet he has always been the Father of the Son.

Show us where Jesus said that he was the second person of the Trinity.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Strange terms like "philosophical"?
Don't try to play naïve. The term that I was referring to was "Paradise Trinity".
Its in John 1, one of my favorite scriptures.

The Word Became Flesh​

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
One of your "favorites" 🤣
The WORD was GOD.... that totally disproves your "Jesus is not God" baloney.
John one makes a philosophical concession, it presents sequence when there wasn't any. God had no beginning yet he has always been the Father of the Son.
Again, the Father/Son with God is about a relationship and NOT a sequence in time.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Holy Spirit is God.
Show us where Jesus said that he was the second person of the Trinity.
Jesus claimed deity many time... if you cannot find them in the Bible, it's because you've covered your eyes with your lies.
 

Lonster

Member
You two are making my head spin. One Catholic who screws things up and the other his family is Catholic and thinks he knows all about it.
It was an A and B conversation and I know quite a bit, my uncle is a Priest. I've been to mass and have been through a good portion of the Catechism. You?
First of all Lonster, from a Catholic perspective, only a Catholic can be charged with heresy because you have to be Catholic in the first place to even commit a heretical act:
2089 Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same
Yes, however nonCatholics were also put to death for heresies. Any who 'considered' themselves Christian were also reckoned Catholic up until the Reformation. My point is where I agree with your correction below to Idolater.
Second of all Idolator, your post, "Catholicism believes that all who believe in Christ, that He is risen from the dead and the Son of God, are Christians" is wrong. There are people who fit that bill who are surely not Christians.
This was the point.
Third of all Lonster, ANY person is welcome at Mass, Catholic protestant, other and atheist too. Jesus came for sinners not the righteous, and Jesus would eat with anyone who invited him. We would never deny any person the chance to see and hear the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Now chill out Frik and Frak
Ignoring the obvious condescension (because it is beneath me even if not you), TRY to be gracious in your speech. Before you 'log/eye' me, Yeah, I'm aware and I'm working on it too. It is a 'join me in at least trying to be gracious' invite, especially in your first post to me, whether you wanted to be gracious and Christlike or not. Yes, people are welcome but Idolater's invite, i.e. your correction above, was what I was talking about. Idolater didn't just ask him to mass, he included him as a Christian. On that note, the Apostle Paul called for people who were harming the church to be ejected. The RC could take a few lessons again instead of letting, and worse hiding homosexual predators in their midst. So while I acknowledge that Satanists may attend mass, I'm formally against it, regardless. "Come out from among them" is God's call, not mine. Not your church's call (doesn't matter if we agree). In parting: Be gracious first, not last. -Lon (not frik nor frak nor any other derogatory).
 
Top