JOHN 1:1 who is the WORD?

[NickHassan]

Hi CA,
And whom do you think the Catholic Church serves?
Cut off from God and His son she is of the world and her god.

[Catholic Apologist]

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:13)

Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 02 2009,13:37) Marty said: Quote These verses of scripture are speaking of the mystery of godliness and they are speaking of Jesus who is the Son of God and not God. Marty, By your logic we must conclude that verses which state that  Jesus was the Son of Man must mean that He was not Man.   thinker Hi thethinker: No, I don't see how what I have said about 1 Ti 3:15 has anything to do with the scriptures that Jesus is the son of Man. He is the Son of God and the son of man.  He is not just any man, but nevertheless, he is a man, and as a man, he was justified in the Spirit having obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross. If I have said something that is not the truth, show me by the scriptures that what I have said is not true so that I can be corrected. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty,

He's not talking specifically about the issue of Jesus as “Son of Man.” He's applying your logic to another related issue and showing that your statement was illogical.

That's all.

[Not3in1]

Hey CA,

Quote

What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical. Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”? Seek to understand what I say. Don't assume you already know.

Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already. You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching…. I DO know how you come to some of these answers. And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!

Quote

3. Jesus created His mother.

I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable. The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them. I'm bored with it all to be quite frank.

I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here. It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things. God must have known this would happen.

Love,
Mandy

[Catholic Apologist]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:12)

Hey CA, Quote What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical.  Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”?  Seek to understand what I say.  Don't assume you already know. Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already.  You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching….  I DO know how you come to some of these answers.  And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!   Quote 3. Jesus created His mother. I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable.  The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them.  I'm bored with it all to be quite frank. I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here.  It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things.  God must have known this would happen. Love, Mandy

Why would that be illogical. Assuming the Trinity (which given you don't believe in), but just assuming so we can move on to the statement beyond the premise for the sake of sheer logic…

Jesus is God – Not illogical

Jesus created all beings – Not illogical

Jesus assumed our humanity and took it to himself – Not illogical

The method Jesus used to assume our humanity was to be born of a virgin that He created – Not illogical

Since the following two premises are assumed true, the statement is not illogical:

1. He was conceived in and born from the womb of a human woman making her His real mother by definition.

2. He is the uncreated God by whom all things were made. Without Him was nothing made that was made.

So you can disagree with my premise. Fine. But don't call it illogical. Just say you don't agree…which is something entirely different.

[Not3in1]

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,17:27)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:12) Hey CA, Quote What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical.  Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”?  Seek to understand what I say.  Don't assume you already know. Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already.  You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching….  I DO know how you come to some of these answers.  And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!   Quote 3. Jesus created His mother. I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable.  The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them.  I'm bored with it all to be quite frank. I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here.  It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things.  God must have known this would happen. Love, Mandy Why would that be illogical.  Assuming the Trinity (which given you don't believe in), but just assuming so we can move on to the statement beyond the premise for the sake of sheer logic… Jesus is God – Not illogical Jesus created all beings – Not illogical Jesus assumed our humanity and took it to himself – Not illogical The method Jesus used to assume our humanity was to be born of a virgin that He created – Not illogical Since the following two premises are assumed true, the statement is not illogical: 1. He was conceived in and born from the womb of a human woman making her His real mother by definition. 2. He is the uncreated God by whom all things were made.  Without Him was nothing made that was made. So you can disagree with my premise.  Fine.  But don't call it illogical.  Just say you don't agree…which is something entirely different.

I'm sorry but I think the interpretation (of scripture) whereby you get your premise is illogical.

But I'm too tired to tackle it tonight. I'll be back in the a.m.

I'm still so happy that you're here.

Sweet dreams!
Mandy

[Catholic Apologist]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:53)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,17:27) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:12) Hey CA, Quote What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical.  Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”?  Seek to understand what I say.  Don't assume you already know. Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already.  You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching….  I DO know how you come to some of these answers.  And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!   Quote 3. Jesus created His mother. I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable.  The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them.  I'm bored with it all to be quite frank. I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here.  It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things.  God must have known this would happen. Love, Mandy Why would that be illogical.  Assuming the Trinity (which given you don't believe in), but just assuming so we can move on to the statement beyond the premise for the sake of sheer logic… Jesus is God – Not illogical Jesus created all beings – Not illogical Jesus assumed our humanity and took it to himself – Not illogical The method Jesus used to assume our humanity was to be born of a virgin that He created – Not illogical Since the following two premises are assumed true, the statement is not illogical: 1. He was conceived in and born from the womb of a human woman making her His real mother by definition. 2. He is the uncreated God by whom all things were made.  Without Him was nothing made that was made. So you can disagree with my premise.  Fine.  But don't call it illogical.  Just say you don't agree…which is something entirely different. I'm sorry but I think the interpretation (of scripture) whereby you get your premise is illogical.   But I'm too tired to tackle it tonight.  I'll be back in the a.m. I'm still so happy that you're here. Sweet dreams! Mandy

Alright, then you'll have to be more specific with me in the AM and set me straight. I don't do well with vague generalities. You'll have to show me where I'm illogical.

I'll look forward to it.

Night.

[NickHassan]

Hi CA,
Is it logical to abandon your personal responsibilities and place your future in the hands of the deceived?

[Not3in1]

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,18:14)

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:53) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,17:27) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:12) Hey CA, Quote What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical.  Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”?  Seek to understand what I say.  Don't assume you already know. Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already.  You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching….  I DO know how you come to some of these answers.  And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!   Quote 3. Jesus created His mother. I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable.  The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them.  I'm bored with it all to be quite frank. I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here.  It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things.  God must have known this would happen. Love, Mandy Why would that be illogical.  Assuming the Trinity (which given you don't believe in), but just assuming so we can move on to the statement beyond the premise for the sake of sheer logic… Jesus is God – Not illogical Jesus created all beings – Not illogical Jesus assumed our humanity and took it to himself – Not illogical The method Jesus used to assume our humanity was to be born of a virgin that He created – Not illogical Since the following two premises are assumed true, the statement is not illogical: 1. He was conceived in and born from the womb of a human woman making her His real mother by definition. 2. He is the uncreated God by whom all things were made.  Without Him was nothing made that was made. So you can disagree with my premise.  Fine.  But don't call it illogical.  Just say you don't agree…which is something entirely different. I'm sorry but I think the interpretation (of scripture) whereby you get your premise is illogical.   But I'm too tired to tackle it tonight.  I'll be back in the a.m. I'm still so happy that you're here. Sweet dreams! Mandy Alright, then you'll have to be more specific with me in the AM and set me straight.  I don't do well with vague generalities.  You'll have to show me where I'm illogical.   I'll look forward to it. Night.

Good morning!

I have a boy home sick today so I confess to being a bit distracted here….

Um, I believe that logic follows order. I believe there are things that “make sense” to our minds because 2 follows 1, and the moon governs the night while the sun governs the day.

Therefore it makes logical sense that a son does not create his mother! But if you would rather rely on a certain set of interpretational teachings of set scriptures, that is your prerogative. It doesn't make it logical, however.

Love,
Mandy

[Catholic Apologist]

Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 03 2009,04:50)

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,18:14) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:53) Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,17:27) Quote (Not3in1 @ Oct. 02 2009,17:12) Hey CA, Quote What I wrote was perfectly reasonable and logical.  Want to try and ask me something like, “When you say X, do you mean A or B”?  Seek to understand what I say.  Don't assume you already know. Sorry, but I've been here long enough to know some of the answers you'll give already.  You may recall we grew up under the same roof of teaching….  I DO know how you come to some of these answers.  And I know that some of them require faith to believe because they do not, in and of themselves, make logical sense!   Quote 3. Jesus created His mother. I would have to say that this one grips me as being the most unreasonable.  The other….eh….I've heard all the old arguments for them.  I'm bored with it all to be quite frank. I've heard strong arguments for both sides of nearly every issue here.  It tells me one thing – there is more than one way to look at things.  God must have known this would happen. Love, Mandy Why would that be illogical.  Assuming the Trinity (which given you don't believe in), but just assuming so we can move on to the statement beyond the premise for the sake of sheer logic… Jesus is God – Not illogical Jesus created all beings – Not illogical Jesus assumed our humanity and took it to himself – Not illogical The method Jesus used to assume our humanity was to be born of a virgin that He created – Not illogical Since the following two premises are assumed true, the statement is not illogical: 1. He was conceived in and born from the womb of a human woman making her His real mother by definition. 2. He is the uncreated God by whom all things were made.  Without Him was nothing made that was made. So you can disagree with my premise.  Fine.  But don't call it illogical.  Just say you don't agree…which is something entirely different. I'm sorry but I think the interpretation (of scripture) whereby you get your premise is illogical.   But I'm too tired to tackle it tonight.  I'll be back in the a.m. I'm still so happy that you're here. Sweet dreams! Mandy Alright, then you'll have to be more specific with me in the AM and set me straight.  I don't do well with vague generalities.  You'll have to show me where I'm illogical.   I'll look forward to it. Night. Good morning! I have a boy home sick today so I confess to being a bit distracted here…. Um, I believe that logic follows order.  I believe there are things that “make sense” to our minds because 2 follows 1, and the moon governs the night while the sun governs the day. Therefore it makes logical sense that a son does not create his mother!  But if you would rather rely on a certain set of interpretational teachings of set scriptures, that is your prerogative.  It doesn't make it logical, however. Love, Mandy

If we are going to assume that the natural laws and experiences we normally have and can test are unbreakable even by God, the one who created them then I can see how this would be illogical.

1. It is natural to assume that just because every other child that was born since the creation of man did not exist prior to it's mother's existence that this is some unbreakable law. But it is God who made these things so. It is not illogical to say that God came to dwell in time space and matter (continuum) that He created. We may not understand how or why He would do something. But we have to logically allow that He could do it. I'm not seeing the problem there logically.

2. I need to know if you believe that supernatural occurrences are illogical. This will be important to helping us understand one another. Let me define terms so you know what I am asking.

Natural: I am speaking of things happening according to things we can both test using the scientific method. I am ALSO speaking of things we cannot test because we are uncapable of doing so due to human limitations. These latter untestable things would follow a predictable course so they are a constant part of our experience of life. (i.e. what is light? Science doesn't know. We can test it's effects but don't know WHAT it is scientifically speaking. We could also mention the wind, fire, what makes a blade of grass grow? We can observe but don't know why or how.) You can add to this realities such as life and death. Emotions. Thoughts. Things we regularly experience yet cannot claim to fully test or understand.

Supernatural: These are things that are not a part of the normal human experience, but yet have been recorded to happen even though they are thought to be impossible. I'm using the strict sense of the term. Super meaning – over and above; more than.

Is the concept of the supernatural illogical to you?

[Catholic Apologist]

BTW, I prayed for your boy. Hope he feels better soon.

[NickHassan]

Hi CA,
If you knew God and His son you would not need to rely so much on weak greek logic and flawed theological theory.

[Not3in1]

CA,

Thanks for praying for my son. He's been in bed and will miss a very important football game tonight. The kid has to be ill to miss football.

Quote

If we are going to assume that the natural laws and experiences we normally have and can test are unbreakable even by God, the one who created them then I can see how this would be illogical.

But see I believe God does follow the “natural” laws given us. After all, he had some say in those laws, he's creation – did he not? Back to what I said earlier, I believe God is a God of order – of law and consequences. Why would he want to go against those things that we understand? To confuse us?

Quote

1. It is natural to assume that just because every other child that was born since the creation of man did not exist prior to it's mother's existence that this is some unbreakable law. But it is God who made these things so.

This is your interpretational ideas speaking. I do not think God “made these things so”. Unfortunately scripture supports both of our views and so we'll never know for sure.

Quote

We may not understand how or why He would do something. But we have to logically allow that He could do it.

Again, you have to ask yourself WHY would he do it? To say that God can do anything he wishes is a no brainer. We are the clay. However, it doesn't seem in his very nature to want to go against what he has set up. Again, why would he? Purely for the 'mystery' factor? I dunno….

Quote

We may not understand how or why He would do something. But we have to logically allow that He could do it.

Your not seeing a problem with the illogical idea of Jesus preexistence because you believe you have interpreted scripture correctly. But I daresay a preexisting human being…..no one has ever known! I certainly did not preexist my human birth, nor did you my brother. Could God have done this thing? Of course, but why would he? It doesn't make sense to us? It is filed under “mystery” and must be accepted by faith. Hmmm.

Quote

Is the concept of the supernatural illogical to you?

Supernatural is just that….beyond natural….beyond human experience. Logic is something the human mind can process even if the answer is not a 'yes' or a 'no'. It makes sense. The steps go in order. The outcome is expected even though it cannot be explained, perhaps.

But to go outside of what is called order – what is called logic – then you have passed onto faith.

I do not have faith that God would go against his holy order of things. I think he had a master plan that called for order and processing accordingly.

We reproduce. A child is born (for the first time). I believe this is why God chose the virgin and your basic-everyday-birthing-process to show us that Jesus was indeed God's Son. A son like any other would be to a father (a literal son). This is logical. The whole conception seems to have some supernatural conditions surrounding it, but it doesn't make it illogical. There are steps that are followed and an outcome is the result. Anyway, that's how I see it.

I'm inbetween posting and making a late lunch for the boy, so again, distracted. Sorry!

Love,
Mandy

[KangarooJack]

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:13)

Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 02 2009,13:37) Marty said: Quote These verses of scripture are speaking of the mystery of godliness and they are speaking of Jesus who is the Son of God and not God. Marty, By your logic we must conclude that verses which state that  Jesus was the Son of Man must mean that He was not Man.   thinker Hi thethinker: No, I don't see how what I have said about 1 Ti 3:15 has anything to do with the scriptures that Jesus is the son of Man. He is the Son of God and the son of man.  He is not just any man, but nevertheless, he is a man, and as a man, he was justified in the Spirit having obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross. If I have said something that is not the truth, show me by the scriptures that what I have said is not true so that I can be corrected. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty,
You infer that the terms “Son of God” and “God” are dictotomous. If this is true, then the terms “Son of Man” and “Man” may also be dichotomous which we know they are not. Since the Son of Man is indeed man qualitatively then the Son of God is indeed God qualitatively.

The point is that the term “Son of God” does not exclude Christ's being God anymore than the term “Son of Man” excludes His being man.

So your explanation of the “mystery of godliness” does not pass the test because you make an inference from a false dichotomy.

thinker

[942767]

Quote (CatholicApologist @ Oct. 02 2009,17:03)

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:13) Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 02 2009,13:37) Marty said: Quote These verses of scripture are speaking of the mystery of godliness and they are speaking of Jesus who is the Son of God and not God. Marty, By your logic we must conclude that verses which state that  Jesus was the Son of Man must mean that He was not Man.   thinker Hi thethinker: No, I don't see how what I have said about 1 Ti 3:15 has anything to do with the scriptures that Jesus is the son of Man. He is the Son of God and the son of man.  He is not just any man, but nevertheless, he is a man, and as a man, he was justified in the Spirit having obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross. If I have said something that is not the truth, show me by the scriptures that what I have said is not true so that I can be corrected. Love in Christ, Marty Marty, He's not talking specifically about the issue of Jesus as “Son of Man.”  He's applying your logic to another related issue and showing that your statement was illogical. That's all.

Hi CA:

Then the thing to do is to show me specifically why what I have stated is illogical.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[KangarooJack]

CA said:

Quote

You cannot separate Jesus' humanity from His divinity like the gnostics and later the Arians.

Exactly!  

Don't forget Nestorius who was like a semi-Gnostic/Arian

thinker

[KangarooJack]

Marty said:

Quote

Hi CA: Then the thing to do is to show me specifically why what I have stated is illogical. Love in Christ, Marty

Marty,
See my post immediately above yours on this page.

thinker

[Is 1:18]

Quote (thethinker @ Sep. 30 2009,14:00)

t8 said: Quote Please tell WJ what you just said, that all instances of theos or elohim are not always in reference to the Most High God. And that sometimes they are in reference to being rulers or magistrates. WJ says that they are only in reference to false gods or the true God and this reasoning leads him to believe that Jesus is God as he couldn't be a false god. He is wrong about that and you obviously agree. t8, You have been saying that there are lesser “deities” (or gods) in addition to God. I was refuting YOU. WJ is correct that there are no other deities of any kind lesser or greater. Jesus is God because “in Him dwells all the fulness of the THEOTOKOS bodily” (Colossians 2:9) You have said also that because men partake of the divine nature this makes them deities and that they will become gods. But the divine nature has to do with God's communicable attributes such as love, mercy, kindness, patience, longsuffering, etc., etc. Had you taken just one Systematic Theology course you would know this. Men may partake of the divine nature but they cannot partake of the divine form. Paul explicitly said that Jesus existed in the form of God. Therefore, He was God. Jesus told the Jews that they had not seen God's form (John 5:37). But they had seen the divine nature. So your idea that men become deities or gods because they partake of the divine nature is fallacious. WJ and all can see that you have twisted what I said. thinker

Excellent post. A+

[Catholic Apologist]

Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 03 2009,11:36)

CA said: Quote You cannot separate Jesus' humanity from His divinity like the gnostics and later the Arians. Exactly!   Don't forget Nestorius who was like a semi-Gnostic/Arian thinker

I did mention Nestorius in that same post.

“A person does not give birth to a nature only, but a whole person. You cannot separate Jesus' humanity from His divinity like the gnostics and later the Arians. This is what we were fighting all of those years ago in the first centuries of the Church. Theotokos (God-bearer) was a statement primarily about the divinity of Christ and secondarily about Mary. Nestorius was accused of wanting to make the distinction you are claiming here. But the two natures of Christ (human and divine) are perfectly united in one Person. Jesus is fully man and fully God. You cannot separate the two in Him.”

[Not3in1]

Hi Paul!
Good to see you again. Hope the family is doing well.

I've been doing quite a bit of back reading of your debates and posts. I've been making notes of my questions – I was going to PM you at some point.

Take care,
Mandy

[942767]

Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 03 2009,11:29)

Quote (942767 @ Oct. 02 2009,15:13) Quote (thethinker @ Oct. 02 2009,13:37) Marty said: Quote These verses of scripture are speaking of the mystery of godliness and they are speaking of Jesus who is the Son of God and not God. Marty, By your logic we must conclude that verses which state that  Jesus was the Son of Man must mean that He was not Man.   thinker Hi thethinker: No, I don't see how what I have said about 1 Ti 3:15 has anything to do with the scriptures that Jesus is the son of Man. He is the Son of God and the son of man.  He is not just any man, but nevertheless, he is a man, and as a man, he was justified in the Spirit having obeyed God without sin even unto death on the cross. If I have said something that is not the truth, show me by the scriptures that what I have said is not true so that I can be corrected. Love in Christ, Marty Marty, You infer that the terms “Son of God” and “God” are dictotomous. If this is true, then the terms “Son of Man” and “Man” may also be dichotomous which we know they are not. Since the Son of Man is indeed man qualitatively then the Son of God is indeed God qualitatively. The point is that the term “Son of God” does not exclude Christ's being God anymore than the term “Son of Man” excludes His being man. So your explanation of the “mystery of godliness” does not pass the test because you make an inference from a false dichotomy. thinker

Hi Thethinker:

What you are saying as it relates to man is true, but since the scriptures state that there is “only one God”, then Jesus cannot be God in the sense that you seem to indicate.

Does God have to be justified in the Spirit?

The scriptures also state that Jesus is the “express image of God's person”.

Love in Christ,
Marty

[Author]

Posts