Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
The Barrd said:
When it comes to us trying to nail down the nature of God...we are pre-schoolers.
You, me, Brakelite...yep, even ol' Stan up there on his pedestal.
Still barely out of our nappies...

It occurs to me that we have one heck of a lot of gall, thinking that we can teach others all about the unknowable nature of the Creator of the Universe, when we don't even know all there is to know about the universe. Heck, we don't know all there is to know even about this bit of rock we silly humans call "home"....we've got a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng way to go before we are anywhere near being able to plumb the incredible depths of knowing God.

We know what He has revealed to us.
Let us be happy with that.
I've been out of nappies for some time Barrd, just as Luke admonished us to be, so please don't include me in your infantile group.
We are admonished to teach those that don't know, which is why Jesus gave the office of teacher to the church. Of course just like in your kindergarden class, if you refuse to learn or don't recognize the teacher, you never will.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
StanJ said:
I've been out of nappies for some time Barrd, just as Luke admonished us to be, so please don't include me in your infantile group.
We are admonished to teach those that don't know, which is why Jesus gave the office of teacher to the church. Of course just like in your kindergarden class, if you refuse to learn or don't recognize the teacher, you never will.
I recognize the Teacher, alright, Stan.
He just isn't you...
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
But I do not believe in the catholic faith, whether small "c" or capital "C".
Guess I'm doomed, then.
So are you, unfortunately. Whether I think you're an idiot or not has nothing at all to do with it...
The Barrd,

I urge you not to be afraid of the word 'catholic' in catholic church because catholic means universal. I am a member of the catholic church, the universal church of Jesus Christ. You seem to be afraid of identifying with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Church does not equal Roman Catholic Church.

Even though its an older term, the catholic church really refers to the genuine body of Christ, the universal church.

I don't choose to use the term, catholic church, because some quickly make the wrong association with the Roman Catholic Church, but there is nothing to fear from being identified with the catholic church. If you are a born-again Christian, you are in the body of Christ, which is the universal church, i.e. the catholic church. It doesn't matter whether a capical C or lower case c is used, it refers to the same universal church.

See, What is the meaning/definition of the word Catholic?

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
When it comes to us trying to nail down the nature of God...we are pre-schoolers.
You, me, Brakelite...yep, even ol' Stan up there on his pedestal.
Still barely out of our nappies...

It occurs to me that we have one heck of a lot of gall, thinking that we can teach others all about the unknowable nature of the Creator of the Universe, when we don't even know all there is to know about the universe. Heck, we don't know all there is to know even about this bit of rock we silly humans call "home"....we've got a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng way to go before we are anywhere near being able to plumb the incredible depths of knowing God.

We know what He has revealed to us.
Let us be happy with that.
The Barrd,

I do not find this 'nappies' language helpful in adult conversation about the faith.

Oz
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
StanJ said:
I've been out of nappies for some time Barrd, just as Luke admonished us to be, so please don't include me in your infantile group.
We are admonished to teach those that don't know, which is why Jesus gave the office of teacher to the church. Of course just like in your kindergarden class, if you refuse to learn or don't recognize the teacher, you never will.
Stan,

Continuing the use of the 'nappies' language and extending that to 'kindergarten class' and 'your infantile group' are ways of flaming on CyB. I urge you and The Barrd to move away from using this pejorative language towards each other.

It does not help in developing adult conversation of the faith.

Oz
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

I urge you not to be afraid of the word 'catholic' in catholic church because catholic means universal. I am a member of the catholic church, the universal church of Jesus Christ. You seem to be afraid of identifying with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Church does not equal Roman Catholic Church.

Even though its an older term, the catholic church really refers to the genuine body of Christ, the universal church.

I don't choose to use the term, catholic church, because some quickly make the wrong association with the Roman Catholic Church, but there is nothing to fear from being identified with the catholic church. If you are a born-again Christian, you are in the body of Christ, which is the universal church, i.e. the catholic church. It doesn't matter whether a capical C or lower case c is used, it refers to the same universal church.

See, What is the meaning/definition of the word Catholic?

Oz
Yes, Oz.
I've repeated the Apostle's Creed often enough, and I do know that "one catholic and Apostolic church" doesn't have a thing to do with the Vatican. I am aware that the term "catholic" means "universal".

OTOH, the only church I knew growing up was the Episcopal church. Now, don't get me wrong, I have no problem with the Church of England...or, for that matter, the Church of Rome. I have a dear friend in Pennsylvania who is a sweet little Catholic school teacher. She tells me that the Episcopal faith is "Catholic Lite".

However, I do not wish to be associated with the Catholic church, either heavy or lite.
And there are a few folks here I would not trust to know the difference.

The Barrd
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
Stan,

Continuing the use of the 'nappies' language and extending that to 'kindergarten class' and 'your infantile group' are ways of flaming on CyB. I urge you and The Barrd to move away from using this pejorative language towards each other.

It does not help in developing adult conversation of the faith.

Oz
Oz,

If you look, you will see that my post was not directed at Stan, exactly, but included everyone who was involved in the conversation at the time...myself as well.

I was saying that we are children when it comes to understanding the nature of God. You've heard me say before, it is rather like trying to teach my little dog quantum physics. He's smart, but he's a dog, after all. Besides, I couldn't teach him something I do not know myself. Nobody thought I was comparing them to dogs.

I've also compared trying to explain the nature of God to trying to teach frogs about Friday. And nobody got insulted, thinking I was comparing them to frogs.

This is the same thing. Stan is the only one who took offense. Which speaks for itself.

Just so that everyone knows..."nappies" is not an insult, fevvisakes...unless you think there is something insulting about being compared with a little child?

Here is one of the most beautiful passages in the Bible:

Isa 11:6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them.
Isa 11:7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.
Isa 11:8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den.
Isa 11:9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea.

Hear the Lord:
Mat 18:2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
Mat 18:3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
Mat 18:5 And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me.
Mat 18:6 But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.

Again:

Luk 18:15 And they brought unto him also infants, that he would touch them: but when his disciples saw it, they rebuked them.
Luk 18:16 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Suffer little children to come unto me, and forbid them not: for of such is the kingdom of God.
Luk 18:17 Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no wise enter therein.
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
However, I do not wish to be associated with the Catholic church, either heavy or lite.
And there are a few folks here I would not trust to know the difference.

The Barrd
The Barrd,

Like it or not, you are associated with the Catholic Church if you are a member of the church universal, which you are if you are a genuine Christian and a member of the body of Christ.

Oz
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

I urge you not to be afraid of the word 'catholic' in catholic church because catholic means universal. I am a member of the catholic church, the universal church of Jesus Christ. You seem to be afraid of identifying with the Roman Catholic Church. Catholic Church does not equal Roman Catholic Church.

Even though its an older term, the catholic church really refers to the genuine body of Christ, the universal church.

I don't choose to use the term, catholic church, because some quickly make the wrong association with the Roman Catholic Church, but there is nothing to fear from being identified with the catholic church. If you are a born-again Christian, you are in the body of Christ, which is the universal church, i.e. the catholic church. It doesn't matter whether a capical C or lower case c is used, it refers to the same universal church.

See, What is the meaning/definition of the word Catholic?

Oz
I always hope people won't misidentified the term catholic, but sadly some prejudices are highly engrained.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
OzSpen said:
Stan,

Continuing the use of the 'nappies' language and extending that to 'kindergarten class' and 'your infantile group' are ways of flaming on CyB. I urge you and The Barrd to move away from using this pejorative language towards each other.

It does not help in developing adult conversation of the faith.

Oz
I leave that up to the mods Oz. I've already told Barrd she reaps what she sows, yet she insists on continuing. Quite frankly some people only learn the hard way, but I appreciate your desire to be a peacemaker.
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
OzSpen said:
The Barrd,

Like it or not, you are associated with the Catholic Church if you are a member of the church universal, which you are if you are a genuine Christian and a member of the body of Christ.

Oz
Oz,

Your point is well taken.

However, I maintain that Peter was never a pope, nor will I ever worship a man as "Christ's vicar on earth". There have been some really, really wicked popes in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then, too, the point has been made (by a member of the Roman Catholic Church), that there have been plenty of abused of power in other denominations, as well. Unfortunately, that is so.

Sometimes I wonder how the Lord can even bear to look at us...let alone die for us.

The Barrd
 

OzSpen

Well-Known Member
Mar 30, 2015
3,728
795
113
Brisbane, Qld., Australia
spencer.gear.dyndns.org
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
The Barrd said:
Oz,

Your point is well taken.

However, I maintain that Peter was never a pope, nor will I ever worship a man as "Christ's vicar on earth". There have been some really, really wicked popes in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.

Then, too, the point has been made (by a member of the Roman Catholic Church), that there have been plenty of abused of power in other denominations, as well. Unfortunately, that is so.

Sometimes I wonder how the Lord can even bear to look at us...let alone die for us.

The Barrd
The Barrd,

Guilt by association (to justify those who have abused power) is not a way to deal with false teaching. For many reasons, I am not a member of and will not be associated with the RCC, including teachings on:
  • The perpetual virginity of Mary,
  • What happens in the Communion Service,
  • Their view of the atonement,
  • Peter, the Vicar of Christ,
  • The authority of the Pope and tradition,
  • The Gospel content,
  • etc.
Oz
 

iakov

Member
Jan 17, 2016
117
12
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The Barrd said:
However, I maintain that Peter was never a pope, nor will I ever worship a man as "Christ's vicar on earth".
It seems to me that Peter's calling was to be an apostle, not a bishop. (A "Pope" is a Bishop.)

His primacy among the band of apostles is, IMO, indisputable based on the Gospels and Acts. (As is his fallibility)

I know of no one who worships the pope "as Christ's vicar on earth" or for any other reason. Your implication that the RCC teaches such a practice is completely false. The Catechism of the RCC is available on line if you care to consult it. If you take the time to do so, you will find that their teaching is that no being other than God the Holy Trinity is to be worshiped.

iakov
 

Barrd

His Humble Servant
Jul 27, 2015
2,992
54
0
73
...following a Jewish carpenter...
iakov said:
It seems to me that Peter's calling was to be an apostle, not a bishop. (A "Pope" is a Bishop.)

His primacy among the band of apostles is, IMO, indisputable based on the Gospels and Acts. (As is his fallibility)

I know of no one who worships the pope "as Christ's vicar on earth" or for any other reason. Your implication that the RCC teaches such a practice is completely false. The Catechism of the RCC is available on line if you care to consult it. If you take the time to do so, you will find that their teaching is that no being other than God the Holy Trinity is to be worshiped.

iakov
Catholics do kneel before the pope, and kiss his ring. And the pope not only allows this, he expects it.

But what would Peter think of this behavior? Did he expect, or encourage anyone to kneel in front of him?

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Evidently not.

Even the very angels in heaven objected to a man kneeling to them.

Rev 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
Rev 19:10 And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.

Rev 22:8 And I John saw these things, and heard them. And when I had heard and seen, I fell down to worship before the feet of the angel which shewed me these things.
Rev 22:9 Then saith he unto me, See thou do it not: for I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them which keep the sayings of this book: worship God.

And yet this man...not an angel, just a man, like other men...not only accepts, but actually encourages this behavior.

However, this has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this thread, which is a look at beliefs about the trinity.
If you want to discuss the papacy, you should probably start another thread. <_<
 
B

brakelite

Guest
Actually, yes, the topic is the trinity, however there is a close relationship between the trinity and the current discussion re the RCC. Not many Protestants are aware of the extremely subtle teachings of the RCC regards the Bible and how it is to be understood. Most Protestants just accept that Rome sees a few things differently, and that they can win Catholics over by simply telling them what the Bible actually says. This however is not very often fruitful, for the following reasons.
In 2009, Benedict XVI affirmed the importance of the Word of God as the soul of theology and the inspiration of Christian life, emphasizing a correct study of Scripture enlightened by faith.
The Pope said this in an audience with representatives from the Pontifical Biblical Commission during their annual plenary assembly.
The Pope explained: "In the first place, great attention must be given to the content and unity of the whole of Scripture. Indeed, however different the books it contains may be, sacred Scripture is one by virtue of the unity of God's plan, of which Jesus Christ is the center and the heart." Okay, so far so good. But here is where it gets a touch dicey. He went on to remind his listeners how the Second Vatican Council identified "three perennially valid criteria for interpreting sacred Scripture in accordance with the Spirit that inspired it." I worry when Rome starts talking about things 'perennial'...doesn't leave much wiggle room, as you will see...he went on...
"In the second place," he continued, "Scripture must be read in the context of the living tradition of the entire Church."
Benedict XVI noted that the Church, in its tradition, "carries the living memory of the Word of God, and it is the Holy Spirit who provides her with the interpretation thereof in accordance with its spiritual meaning."
The Pontiff affirmed that the task of scholars is to "contribute, following the above-mentioned principles, to a more profound interpretation and exposition of the meaning of sacred Scripture."
He added: "The academic study of the sacred texts is not by itself sufficient. In order to respect the coherence of the Church's faith, Catholic exegetes must be careful to perceive the Word of God in these texts, within the faith of the Church."

"The interpretation of sacred Scriptures cannot be merely an individual academic undertaking," the Holy Father said, "but must always be compared with, inserted into, and authenticated by the living tradition of the Church." Now most Protestants understood at least that much. That tradition and scripture are seen as inspirational and they together guide the church. However...
It may be worth while to explain, one for all, that if Catholics do not read the Bible in the same way as Protestants do, it is not, as Protestants assert, because the teaching of their Church is such as to fear being confronted face to face with Scripture, nor because they less fully believe than any Protestant can do in the inspiration of Scripture; but simply because they do not believe in their own individual inspiration as interpreters of Scripture. Scripture they well know can make no mistake; but they are in no way sure that they themselves can make no mistake as to what Scripture means. They believe that there is one authorized interpreter of Scripture, and one alone,― the Holy Catholic Church, which is divinely guarded from all possibility of error, being informed by the same Holy Spirit by whom Scripture was inspired, and therefore alone able to penetrate its real meaning. Her interpretation of it he trusts with unhesitating certainty; while to trust any crude theories he might himself be tempted to form respecting it, would seem to him simply ridiculous
Thus he [the Catholic] never dreams of reading Holy Scripture with the view of gathering from it the articles of his belief; indeed, to do so would be to cease at once from being a Catholic in heart; and any one reading Scripture in this spirit, or in danger of doing so, would certainly be forbidden to read it at all, if he desired to continue in the communion of the faithful; for he would be virtually denying that the Church is the sole infallible interpreter of Scripture, whereas the acknowledgment of her as such is the very fundamental principle of Catholicism. Catholics, then, do not study the Scripture to learn their faith, but to grow in holiness….
While Catholics acknowledge but one authoritative interpreter, Protestants hold that every man is his own interpreter; that from "the Bible and the Bible only" every man is bound to learn all that he must believe in order to be saved; that if he prays for the help of God's Holy Spirit, this alone, without human aid, will guard him from all material error; that no church, no body of men, no teacher whatever has any Divine authority to interpret Scripture for him; he must do it for himself, and he can.
Quote:…Traditions, it will be seen, are placed before the Bible in this [Roman Catholic] epitome of faith. Indeed, the Word of God, as a rule of belief and conduct is, in effect, done away; and the interpretations of the church are put in its place. So that in every case, the inquiry of the faithful Catholic must be — not what saith the scripture — but, what saith "Mother Church?" Not to follow the church, however opposed she may be to the Bible, would be a violation of his oath.
The celebrated Council of Trent, which was called by a Bull of Pope Paul III, in the year 1542, decreed that the Roman Catholic church received and venerated with equal affection of piety and reverence, the Bible and traditions.
When, however, tradition was not in accordance with the Word of God, it would be manifestly impossible to conform to this decree, unless a man could conscientiously receive and reverence a truth and its opposite error at the same time. And therefore, to relieve the conscience of the Catholic, it was necessary that the right of interpreting the Bible should be given exclusively to Mother Church, who is also the keeper of Tradition. Hence the Catholic has, in fact and strictly speaking, only one standard of faith, and that is neither the Bible nor Tradition, but the Church. He professes, indeed, to acknowledge both the scripture and tradition; but he is really bound to receive and obey whatever Mother Church declares to be the truth as contained in the Bible and Tradition. She must decide for him in every case, and from her judgment there can be no appeal.
Tradition is one of the most essential subjects of dispute between Protestants and Catholics. The Catholics declare that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient for Salvation; but that there is the word of God, by hearsay, which is superior to the word of God in writing. By this hearsay, for tradition is nothing else, they assure the world that the Scripture must be explained; so that if the Scripture says white, and tradition says black, a Roman Catholic is bound to say, that white means black in God's written word.
Now to the trinity. The trinity was decided by a Roman Catholic council in Nice. The RCC claims the trinity as the foundational doctrine to every other doctrine she has. For all the reasons mentioned above, should we not take the scriptures in our hands and cleave to what the scriptures say regarding the trinity rather than the Roman Church's man-made declarations? The same surely could be said for many doctrines that Protestantism has not yet shed since the reformation...doctrines which have found their way into church books and creeds, but which have no more foundation than the imaginations of men seeking to exert power and authority over their members. Sunday sacredness would be one, eternal torment another. And many others referred to above. In fact, I would seriously question if anything the Catholic church teaches can be taken as truth?
 

iakov

Member
Jan 17, 2016
117
12
18
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
brakelite said:
The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son.

So the question is...Is John the apostle admonishing us to believe in a literal Son of God, or a metaphorical Son of God?
The teaching of the Holy Trinity does not in any way suggest or hint at the possibility of the Father and the Son "playing roles." Scripture refers to the Son as the "only begotten" (John 1:14, 18; 3:16,18...) and uses the word to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. The Son is "Begotten" of the Father and the Spirit "Proceeds" from the Father.

John uses the term to describe the very real Sonship of the Logos, not in a biological sense but in an ontological sense.

iakov
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
brakelite said:
Now to the trinity. The trinity was decided by a Roman Catholic council in Nice. The RCC claims the trinity as the foundational doctrine to every other doctrine she has. For all the reasons mentioned above, should we not take the scriptures in our hands and cleave to what the scriptures say regarding the trinity rather than the Roman Church's man-made declarations? The same surely could be said for many doctrines that Protestantism has not yet shed since the reformation...doctrines which have found their way into church books and creeds, but which have no more foundation than the imaginations of men seeking to exert power and authority over their members. Sunday sacredness would be one, eternal torment another. And many others referred to above. In fact, I would seriously question if anything the Catholic church teaches can be taken as truth?
The concept of the Triune nature of God is IN scripture, so it was obvious to those that wrote the NT. It was NOT discovered or decided by the RCC. It may have been confirmed by the ECFs, but that is NOT the same thing. You don't believe that Jesus is our personal saviour? The RCC does, and teaches such.
 

StanJ

Lifelong student of God's Word.
May 13, 2014
4,798
111
63
70
Calgary, Alberta, Canada
brakelite said:
Due to the trinity teaching, it is believed by the majority of churches that Jesus Christ is not the literal begotten Son of God, but instead an equal, co-eternal God alongside the Father. The trinity teaching says that Jesus had no beginning and the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three co-equal, co-eternal beings that are playing a 'family role'. In other words, they are just play acting these roles of Father and Son. The Bible states that there is assuredly a Father and a Son, but are they a literal Father and Son, or are they just playing the roles?
Where does the Bible teach Jesus had no beginning? For that matter where is that in any so-called doctrine of the Trinity?
The Bible teaches MUCH MORE than the one dimension you recognize brakelite, so either you can't see it, or refuse to?
Why do you ignore the scriptures I have supplied that say God and Jesus are one and the same, as well as Father and Son in the physical realm?
Did Jesus not speak with parables that defined roles in order to teach truths? Seems your bias is very selective in its perception?