Home » Uncategorized » Therefore God exists and Christians go Bad

Therefore God exists and Christians go Bad

Sacerdotus

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,679 other followers

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 79,535 hits
April 2013
M T W T F S S
« Mar   May »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930  

No, this is not a post about refuting atheism.  It is about a fundamentalist Protestant named Richard Bushey who invited me a few months ago to his Facebook group entitled, “Therefore God exists.”  

 

He also has a blog with the same title.  The group is supposed to be about theological discussions; however, I found it to be extremely hostile to Catholicism and academically ignorant.  Nevertheless, I tried to give the Catholic Church’s view on particular ideas even if it rubbed these fundamentalists the wrong way.  

 

Some of the people who posted are extremely uneducated and so stubborn as to persist with ideas that are contrary to history and Scripture.  I understand each denomination has its ideas on Scripture, but there comes a point where Scripture speaks for itself and there is no need to add to it. 

 

It came to the point that Richard felt the need to attack me by calling me arrogant merely for countering his arguments that made no sense and distorted history.  He and others are under the false belief that Catholicism mysteriously appeared some time after the reformation and that no such Church existed in the 1st century.  Furthermore, the many attempts to deny the Catholic Church’s role in the formation of the Bible was just laughable.  These are obviously an uneducated bunch.  All historians are in agreement that the one and only original Church that can be traced to Christ is the Catholic Church.  Moreover, it is known in the academic world how the Bible came to be due to Pope Damasus I.  This is a fact that can be found in any history book and history course in any school around the world.  

 

Here is an exchange that took place a while ago:  http://www.sacerdotus.com/2013/02/anti-catholic-dialog.html  

 

The views that Bushey and others there share stems from the anti-Catholic rhetoric during the reformation.  When I tried to explain to them that their views are not reflective of history, they resorted to attacks against me and the Church.  I was eventually banned from the group.  

 

It is obvious that Bushey and his friends do not have the intellectual confidence to engage Catholic views and resort to tactics similar to that of Rubicondior who only wants to be heard and ignores other ideas.  I was a threat to them because Protestantism cannot be defended via Scripture.  The idea of Scripture alone stems from Luther, not Scripture itself.     

 

Moreover, most of them do not accept Evolution.  This is absurd!  God is about truth and we all must accept the fact that Evolution is happening.  There is no disputing this biological fact.  

 

It is sad to have these people misrepresent Christ and Scripture.  We must pray for Christian unity.  

 

The Bible is not open to private interpretation.  When this happens, Christians go bad and new.    

 

Advertisements

11 Comments

  1. marcusampe says:

    Sorry, but it is not true that “All historians are in agreement that the one and only original Church that can be traced to Christ is the Catholic Church. ” The most original churches are those who are non-trinitarian and believe the same things like the Jew Jeshua (Jesus Christ) and his disciples believed.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      You are incorrect. All historians in regards to academia are in agreement indeed. The groups you are referring to were sects that absorb some tenets of Christianity into its belief system. The Catholic Church spoke out against these groups. The disciples were trinitarian because Jesus taught them about the Trinity and even commanded them to baptized in the name of the 3 divine persons (see Matthew 28:19) It would be absurd to believe that they did not believe in the Trinity after Jesus commanded them to baptize in the name of those persons who compose the Trinity.

  2. marcusampe says:

    Where did Jesus teach about the Trinity. Nowhere in the Bible would you find this word. To be baptised in the name of the Father, son and Holy Ghost, does not say at all that those three elements would be three persons united in one person.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      The word “Trinity” is used to name a concept in the Bible. Similarly, where is the word “Bible” in the Bible? It is a word used to describe Scripture as a collection of books. Jesus is the Son of God. If He were a mere mortal, then why would He promote a baptism that presents a human being as part of God? Remember, Jesus said that He and the Father are ONE. (John 10:30) Similarly, In Luke 4:1, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are described as being ONE. This does not mean that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same person, but that each are part of the same Divine Substance. Each person in the Blessed Trinity is distinct but One God.

  3. marcusampe says:

    Because the word Bible is not in the Books of books you therefore also would be better to use the word Holy Scriptures or Set-Apart Scriptures like they are mentioned in those books.

    As you say Jesus is son of God which is not the same as god the son. Jehovah, God also say about this person that he is His beloved son, and God does not lie.

    Being one means being in unison of thoughts, like we still say the same of children or people working for a business. When we say about a girl she is her father nobody of us is going to think she really is exact that person and that they are one. The same for a CEO or an employee of which we say he is his business or when he talks in his name, in the name of the manager and in the name of the mother company, we never are going to consider them one and the same person and know that the company is not a person. We also know that they are not all of the same (divine or other) substance. The are not each a person nor one person. It is the same with the Holy Spirit which is the Force, the being, the speaking, the thinking of the Spirit who is God, because God is eternal Spirit. Jesus is a man of flesh and blood who had a beginning (been born) and an end (died). (God can not die)

    • Sacerdotus says:

      My point is that certain words that we use are meant to define a concept already found in Scripture. Jesus as Son of God does not take away from He being God. Jesus says that “He and the Father are ONE.” (John 10:30) Now, if I say that you and I are one, then that means that we are united by something. We are one in the same, but you have your name and I have mine. Similarly, Jesus and the Father are of ONE Divine substance but 2 distinct persons. Unfortunately translations take away a lot of the meaning from the original texts. For example, “Elohim” which is used to describe God is plural “US”. The Holy Spirit cannot be a force because in John 14:26, He is described as a counselor or teacher. This Spirit is assigned a personal quality. Jesus says that “HE” will teach you. A force cannot be self aware and teach, nor can a force be a “HE.” Moreover, Scripture mentions the phrase, “the power of the Holy Spirit.” If the Holy Spirit were a mere force, then it would say, “The Holy Spirit Force will…” However, it states that the power comes from the Holy Spirit, meaning that one (unconscious impersonal agent) comes from the other who is conscious personal being.

      • marcusampe says:

        The Oneness Jesus talks about is the ‘being one’ any family can have with the other or even a member of a company with his firm. When the CEO is one with his company nobody is going to take the company to be a person or having that CEO the same person as the company.

        Jesus being placed by God in the womb of Mary (Miriam/Maria/Mariam) has elements of God in him like any child has DNA strings from its parents. When people say he or she is his/her mother, nobody is going to think he/she is exactly the same person.

        The speaking in the plural form was the Majestic Pluralis in which every king or important person of a country or company still speaks. Nobody is going to consider that king, minister, governor, boss as being more than one person.

        God Himself is Spirit, so it is not wrong to say that the Power of the Spirit would do something. We have the Spirit or the thinking and handling of the Spirit God, like we have the Voice and the Hand of God, for action that Spirit undertakes.

        You shall also be able to find that the Power comes from the Hand of God or from the Voice, or from the Eyes of God.

      • Sacerdotus says:

        No, the Oneness Jesus speaks of is exactly that. He and the Father are one. In John 1:1 we see this where it states that the Word was with God and the Word WAS God. Jesus is the Word. There is no other interpretation for this because the text is clear. This is why the Watchtower sect altered the text by added, “a” in order to make Jesus into a demigod of sorts.

        In light of this, God took on flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Only God can save mankind. God had to come Himself in order to redeem all peoples in every time and place.

        The world “Elohim” was specifically used to refer to God. The word is plural and appears over 2,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. It is used in a Majestic plural when mentioned among other gods.

        You are correct and agreed with me, “God Himself is Spirit.” The three Divine persons are God.

  4. […] Therefore God exists and Christians go Bad […]

    • marcusampe says:

      You yourself agree that there is written “the Word WAS God.”. There is not written “Jesus was God” nor “Jesus is God”. It was the speaking of God which brought forward the son of God. God had promised with His Words, a person who would save the world. By the birth of Christ Jesus this Word became flesh or reality. Jesus is the personification of God His wish and His Speaking.

      The added ‘a’ is the same as others added the ‘the’. In the original text is written that the Word was ‘god’ meaning an important or highly placed person like the Pharaoh was also ‘god’. And I do hope you would not take the Pharaoh or the other kings and people described as god in the Bible to be the same person as The God, Jehovah the Creator of all things?!

      God speaking in the plural is like any high person would and still speaks in the plural form. (But I can assure you our king is only one person and not a trinity nor fiftity or plus)

      Also when we do have to become like Christ we shall not become like God or become God, though we should become one with Jesus and one with God. We just shall stay our changed self but not becoming God.

      God is an eternal spirit who can not die, but Jesus really died. What for use would his faking of death be, and what could God proof if He would come down into a human form? Why did He wait than such a long time before He took action and saved the world?
      When Jesus would be God than God could have straight ahead solved the matter in the Garden of Eden and should have not let the people suffer so much. That would not sound like a loving and caring God, would it? Why such a charade or circus?

      • Sacerdotus says:

        John is writing on Christ who is the “word” or Logos. He is making the statement that Christ is God and always existed. Christ took on flesh becoming one of us. This is John’s opening. The Gospels are clear on the Divinity of Christ. He is God.

        The added “a” is an attempt to distort the text in order for it to fit Watchtower doctrine. No scholar accepts this tampering.
        Many sects twist passages of the Bible in order for it to fit their views. This is why the Catholic Church tried hard to keep Scripture from being manipulated when the printing press was invented. The Church knew that this would happen. The text simply states that the word was God – the same God of the Hebrews. What you’re describing is Modalism which is an ancient heresy that taught that God has different manifestations of Himself.

        Like I stated before, the majestic plural sense is not sued in those instances.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: