Discussions on Jesus (combining Was Jesus God & Jesus in the Bread)

Loutzenhiser's picture

Both these threads are covering about the same territory now and getting long again. Continue both threads here.

michael_legna's picture

Sorry your proof does not even address the equating

duu1der said -
Yes, the Catholic church welcomes open dialogue, as long as you say what the "Church" approves of. That is exactly the same situation that existed during the Great Councils, and was so much more intensely used during the Great Inguistion" when the "Church" abused its authority to such a wide decree.

ML said: "Kung was allowed a long period in which he taught and was highly regarded in the Church until he began to express idea contrary to established dogmas of the Church - so yes then he was ex communicated by the Church just as he would have been from any other Church if he had taught contrary to their doctrines."

"Luther did, in the beginning, only rebel against abuses, but once the political forces of the day got their hooks into him and offered him a way to avoid defending his doctrines before a tribunal (just so they could break free of the Church's control over their intended abuse of their subjects) then Luther went on to express more doctrinal concerns and beliefs. That is why Luther was ex communicated."

duu1der said -
Interesting how your response confirms my statement. When anyone questioned the "dogma's" or "doctrines" of the "RCC" they faced the threat of excommunication.

Isn't that how it should be? If you disagree with a Church you should not be a member. If you disagree with the teachings of Jesus you should not be a follower.

duu1der said -
Now...since you hold your "list of proofs" in such high value, I will answer some of them. I will not attempt to do an exegesis on ALL of your supposed "proof" but, as you said, if one side is proven wrong, then the whole falls apart. So I will look at a few of your "conclusions" in regards to Jesus.

Excuse me - where did I say "if one side is proven wrong, then the whole falls apart"? You really don't seem to listen to my point very closely. What I said had nothing to do with sides but points of interpreting scripture such that if a system could not provide an interpretation of even one verse of scripture that could be reconciled to that system then it could not stand. So it is your system of doctrine which needs to be concerned with addressing all of them (not part as you claim to do) because my system already does interpret all of them consistently.
But you are not addressing the point of the equality. The verse at 1 Cor. 6:14 says God the Father will raise the true believer, the verse at Rom. 8:11 says The Holy Spirit will raise the true believe and since both of these are God then it is clear that God raises the true believer, then we have the verses at John 5:25-29, 6:40, 44, Phil. 3:20-21 which say that Jesus Christ will raise the true believer so by equating the actions and the actors we have that Jesus (even as He is empowered by God - if that is your claim) is the same actor producing the same act so He too is God. See your admission that he is empowered doesn't get around the fact that the actors in each rendition are equated and so are the same and if one of them is God then they are all God.

duu1der said -
I have to get back to work now... and I will show you more later. My point is, as I stated before, you have taken things out of context and misapplied them. You have altered the meaning of scripture to fit your needs without allowing the scripture to speak on its full authority.

You cannot have it both ways - to claim Jesus is empowered to raise the true believer and then at the same time claim the verses do not say He is raising the true believer.

Until you show how there can be three actors all performing the exact same act and they are somehow different actors you cannot assign Jesus anything but being part of the Godhead.




Advertisements