|
Post by Stephen Hancock on Apr 8, 2021 19:46:34 GMT
The Foregoing is not an atempt to contradict the teaching of Christianity or the Catholic faith but stems from my studies of the bible and my need to understand its deeper meaning which emanates from the heart. I present this for disscussion by the faithful and greater scholars than myself of theology and the bible. I have no desire to be arrogant in what I propose. Consider the Nicene creed and the words " and rose again on the third day ". In reading this it suggests that in the word "again" That it has happened before. How can this apparent Anomaly be explained. Refer to John's Gospel chapter 3 - Jesus and Nicodemus. 3;3 In answer to a question from Nicodemus Jesus answered " I am telling you the truth no one can see the Kingdom of God without being born again. 3:4 Nicodemus responded " How can a grown man be born again. He certainly cannot enter his mother's womb and be born again a second time. 3:5 Jesus replied " I am telling you the truth no one can enter the Kingdom of God without being born of water and the spirit. 3:6 "A person is born physically of human parents, but is born spiritually of the spirit". 3:7 " Do not be surprised when I tell you that you must all be born again". 3:12 "You do not believe me when I tell you about the things of this world; how will you believe me then when I tell you about the things of Heaven". 3;13 " And no one has ever gone up to Heaven except the Son of Man who came down from Heaven.
Therefore the faithful and the Son of Man were born of human parents,were baptised with water,died and are born again of the Holy Spirit. Therefore Nicene Creed would be more in accordance with the scriptures if it had the alternative words " He suffered death and was buried, was born again on the third day of the holy spirit and ascended into Heaven.
|
|
|
Post by stjosephprayforus on Apr 8, 2021 21:35:39 GMT
Jesus Christ is the Son of God, not exclusively the Son of man. I am aware He alludes to Himself as such at certain points of the Bible (something Jehovas Witnesses, SDA and Mormon apologists bring up all the time to deny the divinity of Jesus Christ). Jesus was born of Mary and the Holy Spirit. There was no human father for Jesus. As for the word "again", I chalk it up to translation. "And rose again on the third day" could just as easily mean that he came back to life. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was a previous resurrection from the dead. If anything, I find that to be a greater stretch of the imagination. But I'm no scholar. Just a keyboard warrior with an knack for google searches. This speaks on the word again, used in the same context, within the apostles creed. www.catholic.com/qa/what-does-the-word-again-mean-in-the-apostles-creed-phrase-he-rose-again
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Apr 17, 2021 23:28:07 GMT
In the Apostles creed, Jesus was crucified died and was buried.
He decended into hell.
To collect souls who had the gates of heaven closed to them who were worhy.He opened the gates by His sacrifice.
Then he rose on the 3rd day.
Born again means baptized in the one true church. Baptism means an indelible mark of Catholicism.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on May 12, 2021 19:20:15 GMT
There are 2 creeds Apostles And Nicene The Nicene Creed was established after. Jesus was alive when he decended into hell to open the gates of heaven.
Now could an inanimate corpse do that? I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by po18guy on Jul 5, 2021 21:38:22 GMT
Blame the builders of the tower of Babel. Linguistics, semantics. When someone became prominent in ancient Israel, they "arose" , i.e. above/ahead the others as a leader. The ancient Hebrew language was quite primitive. Therefore, a given sense of expression was highly contextual, as very few words had to cover every possible human experience. Look at the many uses of "arose" in scripture: www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=arose&version=RSVCE
When you see "rose" or "arose", think "to rise up" as in an uprising. Only very specific uses indicate the resurrection. All others refer to an uprising or appearance among their fellow citizens.
Consider: Acts 5:35-37Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition Clearly, this context was of an uprising. A rebellion.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 6, 2021 0:57:02 GMT
FWIW, the same Tradition led the selection of the books that would become part of the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by po18guy on Jul 6, 2021 2:42:36 GMT
FWIW, the same Tradition led the selection of the books that would become part of the Bible. Kindly explain just a bit.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 7, 2021 2:39:39 GMT
FWIW, the same Tradition led the selection of the books that would become part of the Bible. Kindly explain just a bit. The Bible did not suddenly appear. Rather, for hundreds of years leading members of the Church (or "Tradition") selected which books would become part of it and gave reasons for their choices.
It's the same Tradition that led to the composition of the Creed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 23, 2021 1:02:07 GMT
Kindly explain just a bit. The Bible did not suddenly appear. Rather, for hundreds of years leading members of the Church (or "Tradition") selected which books would become part of it and gave reasons for their choices.
It's the same Tradition that led to the composition of the Creed.
There's a wonderful book on that very subject called, "Where we got the Bible: Our debt to the Catholic Church" www.amazon.com/Where-Bible-Debt-Catholic-Church/dp/0895557967It's cheap and worth picking up and having in the arsenal. It's heavily cited and sourced by leading protestant theologians and biblical scholars from throughout protestant history. And they all affirm that the Bible is a direct product of the Catholic Church (agreeing with our teaching that the many authors of the Bible were Divinely Inspired and provided the grace to be free from error in setting down the words of the Sacred text). I like to ask protestants who use the Bible to try and disprove the Catholic Church, how they justify their faith in the Catholic Church to make the Bible. They readily accept that the men who wrote the various books of the Bible were infallible in the sense that the Holy Spirit prevented them from writing down any error. So why is it so hard to believe that the Church in charge of discerning the books that would make the canon of Sacred Scriptures, out of a mess of hundreds of books (possibly more than that) was able to safely and correctly discern which books were inspired and which were not, and thus discarded? Protestant Bibles still accept the New Testament canon, despite the changes they made to the Old Testament and the books they threw out. And if they "do" accept that God used the Church to create the Bible and that they acted infallibility, why then is papal infallibility such a stretch for them? There's a lot of cognitive dissonance to address in the protestant world. But much of it is genuine ignorance (and I don't mean that in an insulting way to our protestant brethren). I think once you start laying the foundation for them to see that the Bible is a Catholic book, it opens up far more possibilities for Catholicism than they would have previously considered.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 23, 2021 3:44:06 GMT
Those are very good points. Thanks for sharing them and details about the book.
|
|
|
Post by po18guy on Jul 29, 2021 6:14:16 GMT
Kindly explain just a bit. The Bible did not suddenly appear. Rather, for hundreds of years leading members of the Church (or "Tradition") selected which books would become part of it and gave reasons for their choices.
It's the same Tradition that led to the composition of the Creed.
Very good. The Lord intended the faith to be handed on. The very definition of tradition. That Jewish tradition preserved some incidents of the OT that are not in the OT! Additionally, there is not a single jot in the Gospels suggesting that anything be written! Jesus did not command the Apostles to write. He told them to "teach." This reliance on written religious text was Hebrew in origin, but writing had no link to Christ's teaching other than to quote the Septuagint (91% or so) in the Gospels. In the first two centuries A.D., only the content of some - not all- writing was germane to Christianity. The rest were spurious manuscripts, second century fakes or gnostic nonsense.
Ah, but in Germany! 15 centuries later: Gutenberg! Now everything can be printed. And there you have the enabling of bible alone. It was the fuel. Luther added the spark and Christianity has been sharply divided ever since.
|
|
|
Post by ralfy on Jul 30, 2021 2:23:53 GMT
The Bible did not suddenly appear. Rather, for hundreds of years leading members of the Church (or "Tradition") selected which books would become part of it and gave reasons for their choices.
It's the same Tradition that led to the composition of the Creed.
Very good. The Lord intended the faith to be handed on. The very definition of tradition. That Jewish tradition preserved some incidents of the OT that are not in the OT! Additionally, there is not a single jot in the Gospels suggesting that anything be written! Jesus did not command the Apostles to write. He told them to "teach." This reliance on written religious text was Hebrew in origin, but writing had no link to Christ's teaching other than to quote the Septuagint (91% or so) in the Gospels. In the first two centuries A.D., only the content of some - not all- writing was germane to Christianity. The rest were spurious manuscripts, second century fakes or gnostic nonsense.
Ah, but in Germany! 15 centuries later: Gutenberg! Now everything can be printed. And there you have the enabling of bible alone. It was the fuel. Luther added the spark and Christianity has been sharply divided ever since. That's why the topic thread doesn't make sense.
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Aug 26, 2021 13:24:31 GMT
There are three creeds: the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (often just called the Nicene Creed) and, the one many people forget about, the Athanasian Creed, which also known by its incipit Quicunque Vult. It is easy to forget the latter as it is not used in the Ordinary Form liturgy of the Church.
|
|
|
Post by katy777 on Aug 27, 2021 0:27:31 GMT
There are three creeds: the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (often just called the Nicene Creed) and, the one many people forget about, the Athanasian Creed, which also known by its incipit Quicunque Vult. It is easy to forget the latter as it is not used in the Ordinary Form liturgy of the Church. Can you post it?
|
|
|
Post by tth1 on Aug 27, 2021 13:36:21 GMT
There are three creeds: the Apostles' Creed, the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed (often just called the Nicene Creed) and, the one many people forget about, the Athanasian Creed, which also known by its incipit Quicunque Vult. It is easy to forget the latter as it is not used in the Ordinary Form liturgy of the Church. Can you post it? Here is the Latin text: Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat. Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis]. Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis; Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit. Here is the English text: Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith unless everyone do keep whole and undefiled, without doubt he shall perish everlastingly. And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the Persons, nor dividing the Essence. For there is one Person of the Father; another of the Son; and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the Glory equal, the Majesty coeternal. Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost. The Father uncreated; the Son uncreated; and the Holy Ghost uncreated. The Father unlimited; the Son unlimited; and the Holy Ghost unlimited. The Father eternal; the Son eternal; and the Holy Ghost eternal. And yet they are not three eternals; but one eternal. As also there are not three uncreated; nor three infinites, but one uncreated; and one infinite. So likewise the Father is Almighty; the Son Almighty; and the Holy Ghost Almighty. And yet they are not three Almighties; but one Almighty. So the Father is God; the Son is God; and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods; but one God. So likewise the Father is Lord; the Son Lord; and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords; but one Lord. For like as we are compelled by the Christian verity; to acknowledge every Person by himself to be God and Lord; So are we forbidden by the catholic religion; to say, There are three Gods, or three Lords. The Father is made of none; neither created, nor begotten. The Son is of the Father alone; not made, nor created; but begotten. The Holy Ghost is of the Father and of the Son; neither made, nor created, nor begotten; but proceeding. So there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy Ghost, not three Holy Ghosts. And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons are coeternal, and coequal. So that in all things, as aforesaid; the Unity in Trinity, and the Trinity in Unity, is to be worshipped. He therefore that will be saved, let him thus think of the Trinity. Furthermore, it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Substance [Essence] of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Substance [Essence] of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood into God. One altogether; not by confusion of Substance [Essence]; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ; Who suffered for our salvation; descended into hell; rose again the third day from the dead. He ascended into heaven, he sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty, from whence he will come to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men will rise again with their bodies; And shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life everlasting; and they that have done evil, into everlasting fire. This is the catholic faith; which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.
|
|