A Roman Catholic on the Trinity

[rrobs]

The Timothy citation was in reference to Torah and possible some other books in the Tanakh, not the NT as the latter had not been composed during his time. Also, the statement itself does not claim inerrancy, nor does it say exactly what the "inspiration of God" actually is since that could take different forms.

Generally speaking, theologians simply do not believe God actually wrote the Bible and inspired every word as we know there are so many "variations" found within it, including hundreds of spelling errors found in John's gospel according to theologian and Christian historian Sir William Barclay.

So, there simply is no evidence whatsoever that it is inerrant or 100% divinely inspired, and yet millions of people probably read it every day, and I am one of them.

Hard to say, so I really don't get into that.

What to me is more important for myself is to realize that there is Something a lot bigger than me out there that created all and that I need to try and live as morally as possible along faith lines. Jesus' message of "love one another" very much resonates with me.

As far as my judgement is concerned, that's for God to decide-- not me.

Thank you as we had a wonderful Christmas starting with Midnight Mass and then having our family over on Christmas Day. Hopefully yours was enjoyable as well.

Glad you had a nice Christmas. We live in the Southern California mountains and got snowed in. We'll be seeing the family tomorrow for a belated celebration. It's nice up here, but it has it's problems!

Best wishes for the new year to you and yours. I'm sure God has good things in store for you in 2019.

 

[74x12]

Now I remember that you are not a Trinitarian.

Here is a good link that explains the Hebrew conception of pre-existence:
Pre-Existence in the Hebrew Mind

I'd be curious to get your reaction. Thanks.

OK, have to go to work; but I plan to read it later.

 

[rrobs]

OK, have to go to work; but I plan to read it later.

Here is another good link on pre-existence from a Jewish perspective:
The Nature of Pre-existence in the Hebraic Mind and the "Logos"

Sorry to bother you again, but that will be all until you get a chance to peruse these two. Take care...

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I didn't say he was, and the CC doesn't claim he was either. Instead, it's a day set aside to commemorate his birth and what he did.

I do realize you did Not say Jesus was born on the 25th, sorry I was Not clear about that,
but the fact that Jesus was Not born on the 25th, and being taught as being a day to celebrate his birthday is a lie.
The fact is: the 25th scripturally is Not true.

According to Luke 22:19 the only day Jesus himself set up to commemorate him was his day of death, Not birth.

 

[Oeste]

but the fact that Jesus was Not born on the 25th, and being taught as being a day to celebrate his birthday is a lie.
The fact is: the 25th scripturally is Not true.

The birthday is unknown, not a lie, because the celebration by the church of Jesus' birth is real.

As Frederick Douglass, who was born in slavery, put it:

I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it. By far the larger part of the slaves know as little of their ages as horses know of theirs, and it is the wish of most masters within my knowledge to keep their slaves thus ignorant. I do not remember to have ever met a slave who could tell of his birthday. They seldom come nearer to it than planting-time, harvest-time, cherry-time, spring-time, or fall-time. A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege. I was not allowed to make any inquiries of my master concerning it....
​

Like all slaves, he simply took a day to celebrate his birthday. This didn't make a slave's celebration or birthday a lie, it simply meant their exact birth date was unknown.

According to Luke 22:19 the only day Jesus himself set up to commemorate him was his day of death, Not birth.

There is nothing in scripture that prevents Christian's from celebrating Jesus' birthday. Had Jesus wanted to restrict our commemorations to his death, he would have told us:

And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do only this in remembrance of me.”

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The birthday is unknown, not a lie, because the celebration by the church of Jesus' birth is real.
As Frederick Douglass, who was born in slavery, put it:

I have no accurate knowledge of my age, never having seen any authentic record containing it. By far the larger part of the slaves know as little of their ages as horses know of theirs, and it is the wish of most masters within my knowledge to keep their slaves thus ignorant. I do not remember to have ever met a slave who could tell of his birthday. They seldom come nearer to it than planting-time, harvest-time, cherry-time, spring-time, or fall-time. A want of information concerning my own was a source of unhappiness to me even during childhood. The white children could tell their ages. I could not tell why I ought to be deprived of the same privilege. I was not allowed to make any inquiries of my master concerning it....​

Like all slaves, he simply took a day to celebrate his birthday. This didn't make a slave's celebration or birthday a lie, it simply meant their exact birth date was unknown.
There is nothing in scripture that prevents Christian's from celebrating Jesus' birthday. Had Jesus wanted to restrict our commemorations to his death, he would have told us:
And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do only this in remembrance of me.”

If Jesus' birth day was important it would be in Scripture. December's date is totally Not true.
Apparently Jesus' death day was important enough to be in Scripture - Passover which was the 14th day of Nisan.

Since those first-century Jews did Not celebrate birthdays, what does Fred Douglass have to do with X-mas.
When a person makes himself the center of attention, or another makes a person the center of attention that puts God is second place. Jesus never put his God in second place.

Since Scripture is against mixing according to 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, then how is mixing the Satrunalia with Scripture Not mixing ______ . That is a form of religious syncretism.

 

[Oeste]

If Jesus' birth day was important it would be in Scripture.

Jesus’ birth is perhaps one of the most important events in the history of mankind and it most certainly IS marked in scripture.

December's date is totally Not true.

It doesn't matter. Christians don’t celebrate a December date. They celebrate the birth of Christ.

Apparently Jesus' death day was important enough to be in Scripture - Passover which was the 14th day of Nisan.

Both the birth and death of Christ are recorded in scripture. The actual date is unimportant because Christians don’t celebrate the date (December 25th) …we celebrate events, like the birth, death and resurrection of Christ.

Do you understand the difference? At church, the pastor does not say "We're here to celebrate December 25th."

Since those first-century Jews did Not celebrate birthdays, what does Fred Douglass have to do with X-mas.

It has nothing to do with X-mas, but it has everything to do with your statement that unless one knows the exact date of birth it's a lie to celebrate it.

My married friends take the time to celebrate their "first date". They don’t remember the exact date, but they know the month and they celebrate their first date every year on the same day of that month. This doesn’t make their celebration a lie URAVIP2ME, it simply means the exact date is unknown. The same concept holds true with Frederick Douglas and the same with the birth of Christ. You do not need an exact date to celebrate an event because it’s not the date you’re celebrating…it’s the event!

And yes, they are fully aware that the bible doesn't specifically tell married couples to celebrate their first date. But they are also certainly aware the bible doesn't prohibit it. There's always that possibility that some pagan culture, at some pagan time, in some pagan land, celebrated a pagan "Friends Day". Who knows? Perhaps they killed off their old friends and got new ones. But they're not worried about it, because it's their "first date" they are celebrating, and not the "first date" some pagan culture celebrated.

What is even more wondrous about this is that even if their are a group of men who cannot or will not see the difference between their "first date" from a supposed "Friends Day" celebration of pagans, they know their is a God who does.

When a person makes himself the center of attention, or another makes a person the center of attention that puts God is second place. Jesus never put his God in second place.

Then either the doctrine is wrong or our bibles are wrong:

"and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of Jehovah Me.” In the same way, after supper He took the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Jehovah Me." (1 Corinthians 11:24-25)​

Should we cross out “Me” and righteously insert “Jehovah” since “Jesus never put his God in second place”?

Since Scripture is against mixing according to 1 Corinthians 10:20-21, then how is mixing the Satrunalia with Scripture Not mixing ______ . That is a form of religious syncretism.

For an Organization concerned with exact dates, there appears to be a lot of mixing. The feast of Saturn was held from December 17th through the 23rd. I don’t know of anyone who celebrates the feast of Saturn anymore, do you? Christians celebrate the birth of Christ, not the date of December 25th, not the sale at Macy’s, and certainly not the feast of Saturn.

But let me ask you something…if I were to tell you that every Thor’s Day (Thursday) the pagans gathered to celebrate the Kingdom of Odin in a large Hall, would that prevent you from going to a Kingdom Hall on Thursdays?

Wouldn’t that be a “mixing”, a form of religious syncretism?

Why or why not?

 

[metis]

The liturgical calendar has a great many dates on it to commemorate various people, mostly "saints", and the day that is chosen for them doesn't relate to which day they may have been born on-- it' just a day set aside to commemorate them.

 

[Muffled]

The Roman Catholic writer Thomas Hart, in his book, To Know and Follow Jesus, commented on a couple of verses in Hebrews.

Heb 2:17,

Wherefore in all things it behoved him (Jesus) to be made like unto [his] brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things [pertaining] to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people.
​

Heb 4:15,

For we have not an high priest (Jesus) which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.​

"The Chalcedonian formula [the council's decision declaring Jesus both God and man] makes genuine humanity impossible. The conciliar definition says that Jesus is true man. But if there are two natures in him, it is clear which will dominate. And Jesus becomes immediately very different from us. He is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent. He knows the past, present, and future … He knows exactly what everyone is thinking and going to do. This is far from ordinary human experience. Jesus is tempted but cannot sin because he is God. What kind of temptation is this? It has little in common with the kinds of struggles we are familiar with."
​

Indeed, had Jesus known He was God he would not have been at all like the rest of us.

Evidently you forgot to read on to "yet without sin."

 

[Muffled]

I think the topic is difficult once Jesus is made to be God. If he is understood as the son of God and not God the son all the difficulty goes away. Few Christians are willing to even consider that Jesus is not God, so orthodox Christianity has indeed complicated things.

I believe that explains why the Qu'ran would say God does not have sons. There are different ways of viewing that but the son of God has more problems than God the Son.

As a youth I believed in God but did not know Jesus. When I received Jesus as Lord and Savior the Holy Spirit led me to believe He is God as well. Since then the proofs of that have been mounting way above the concepts of the adversarial point of view.

 

[Muffled]

If you are right, the two verses in Hebrews that say Jesus was just like us are not true. He couldn't be anything like us if he couldn't fail and yet Hebrews says he was just like us.

John 1:14 says the logos became flesh. That didn't happen until many years after the beginning spoken of in John 1:1, so Jesus was not there in the beginning. There is more to the logos than simply substituting the word Jesus for it.

I'll start a thread specifically on the logos in the next few days.

I believe the body of Jesus was not there in the beginning but the Logos was and is the operational part of Jesus.

 

[rrobs]

Evidently you forgot to read on to "yet without sin."

I do understand that Jesus was without sin. In fact, that's the beauty of Jesus' life. Although he was a man tempted in all points as you and I, he loved us enough to keep himself sinless, to remain the lamb without blemish God required for our redemption. He even obeyed God to the death of the cross. He had free will and therefore could easily have taken the devil up on his offer to rule all the kingdoms of the world. Fortunately for us, Jesus knew that his kingdom was not of this world.

Getting back to Jesus being tempted in all points like you and I:
First of all, God can not be tempted. Secondly, do you have a sense of being God when you face temptation? I assume you don't. So if you don't but Jesus did, it could hardly be said that he was tempted like all of us, could it? Do you really think there is any chance God would succumb to temptation (if He could even be tempted)?

 

[rrobs]

I believe that explains why the Qu'ran would say God does not have sons. There are different ways of viewing that but the son of God has more problems than God the Son.

As a youth I believed in God but did not know Jesus. When I received Jesus as Lord and Savior the Holy Spirit led me to believe He is God as well. Since then the proofs of that have been mounting way above the concepts of the adversarial point of view.

I'm not sure what the Quran has to do with the trinity.

Why is there a problem with Jesus being the son of God? After all, that is exactly what he is called almost 50 times in the scriptures. On the other hand, he is called God the Son a grand total of zero times.

I might suggest it was tradition rather than God that led you to believe Jesus is God.

Interestingly enough, during the first 2 centuries after Christ it was the Trinitarians that held the adversarial point of view. None of the first century church leaders taught a trinity. That is not only scriptural, but any history book of the early church will show that talk of a trinity was a Johnny Come Lately phenomena. The trinity infiltrated the early church doctrine when the Gentiles began to fill the ranks of the early church. They brought their Pagan ideas with them, including the idea of God becoming man to save the world. The Jews in the first part of Acts (before the Gentiles entered the scene) knew who God was and they were well aware that the Messiah would be raised up as a man like Moses (Acts 3:22) who was certainly not God or a god-man.

 

[rrobs]

I believe the body of Jesus was not there in the beginning but the Logos was and is the operational part of Jesus.

Yes, although Jesus was not physically with God in the beginning, the logos was. John 1:1 is clear on that point. However, to simply substitute the word "Jesus" for the "Word" is not accurate.

First of all, by capitalizing "Word," the translators led us to believe it was speaking about a proper noun, i.e. Jesus. None of the original documents had capital and small letters. They were all capital letters. That is easy to verify.

Even a little bit of your own research on the word logos will show you that it means much more that a "word." It in means the thought process behind the word of the person (God) who uttered the word. Abbott-Smith's Manual Greek Lexicon of the New Testament says following:

Of that by which the inward thought is expressed,
1. a word, not in the grammatical sense of a mere name (ἔπος, ὄνομα, ῥῆμα), but a word as embodying a conception or idea:
2. a saying, statement, declaration: esp. of the precepts, decrees and promises of God,

In other words, the logos reveals God's mind, His plan for redemption. Of course that plan was with God in the beginning. Jesus is certainly the star of that plan, but he is not the plan itself. Jesus is Jesus and the plan is the plan.

Hebrews 1:1-2 says that God communicated His plan to man in different ways at different times. He spoke His plan, He gave His plan to Israel in written form, He divulged His plan via the prophets, etc. Finally it says, "in these last days spoken unto us by [his] Son." What last days? He spoke through His son, Jesus, when Jesus was born, when the plan finally became flesh (John 1:14). Prior to that time, Jesus, as the star of the logos (plan), was certainly in God's mind, but the physical Jesus did not exist until he was born, just like the rest of us, his brothers (Heb 2:11).

Jesus was a perfect example of God's plan, just as the scriptures and the words uttered by the prophets were a perfect example of God's plan. Jesus, unlike the rest of us, always did exactly what God wanted him to do. That is why he could say that if you saw him you saw God. Don't we have an idiom that says, "if you've seen one, you've seen them all?" We understand perfectly well that we didn't actually see, "them all." We understand that it means that the one we did see was exactly like the rest so in effect we did see them all. That's all Jesus was saying. He knew that he was a perfect example of God's plan, which he of course was.

The Jews had a very different view on life than the Greeks. Much of what we have been taught really comes from a Greek perspective. We tend to read the scriptures from a Greek perspective, but the scriptures were given to the Jews, not the Greeks. God spoke in terms that the Jews understood, not the Greeks.

Greek thought tends to emphasize the mental side of life, whereas the Jews were more interested in the practical side of life. It is an interesting subject for research. In any case, it all means that it is important that we make an effort to understand what the Jews thought as they read the scriptures. Here is an interesting link that may help you understand more fully what pre-existence and the logos meant to the Jewish reader:

Pre-Existence in the Hebrew Mind

 

[URAVIP2ME]

But let me ask you something…if I were to tell you that every Thor’s Day (Thursday) the pagans gathered to celebrate the Kingdom of Odin in a large Hall, would that prevent you from going to a Kingdom Hall on Thursdays?
Wouldn’t that be a “mixing”, a form of religious syncretism?
Why or why not?

First, Jesus did Not say at Luke 22:19 to do that in worship of him, but in remembrance of him.
There is a difference. Jesus said who to worship at John 4:23-24.

I think you know who named all of the planets ( except for Genesis 1:10 )
So, then you know who named all the days of the week. They are Not Hebrew names.
We do Not go by a Hebrew calendar, but Caesar's.
So, even when Nisan the 14th day from the Jewish calendar falls on a Thursday it is still Nisan 14.
The 'secular' names of the planets or days of the week have nothing to do with Scripture.
Basically people do Not worship the planets or days of the week.
Even Sunday was a day set aside by the political as a rest day for farmers.

 

[Oeste]

First, Jesus did Not say at Luke 22:19 to do that in worship of him, but in remembrance of him.
There is a difference. Jesus said who to worship at John 4:23-24.

Agreed. That's why Christians don't worship holidays. They remember them.

I think you know who named all of the planets ( except for Genesis 1:10 )

Likewise, I think you know who named the pagan gods, like Saturn.

So, then you know who named all the days of the week. They are Not Hebrew names.
We do Not go by a Hebrew calendar, but Caesar's.

Ceasar's calendar has numerical equivalents for every day of the year. For instance, New Years Day is the first day of the first month, or simple 1/1/2019.

So, even when Nisan the 14th day from the Jewish calendar falls on a Thursday it is still Nisan 14.

Correct, but that doesn't stop anyone from coming along and claiming Jehovah Witnesses have "adopted" the pagan calendar for the sake of convenience.

The 'secular' names of the planets or days of the week have nothing to do with Scripture.

Correct, but that doesn't stop anyone from claiming otherwise simply because they decide to keep themselves "clean and undefiled" by using numeric equivalents for the days and months whilst the rest of the "pagan planet" does not.

Basically people do Not worship the planets or days of the week.
Even Sunday was a day set aside by the political as a rest day for farmers.

Correct again, and for the exact same reasons we can conclude Christians do not worship Saturn on Christmas.

 

[Muffled]

I do understand that Jesus was without sin. In fact, that's the beauty of Jesus' life. Although he was a man tempted in all points as you and I, he loved us enough to keep himself sinless, to remain the lamb without blemish God required for our redemption. He even obeyed God to the death of the cross. He had free will and therefore could easily have taken the devil up on his offer to rule all the kingdoms of the world. Fortunately for us, Jesus knew that his kingdom was not of this world.

Getting back to Jesus being tempted in all points like you and I:
First of all, God can not be tempted. Secondly, do you have a sense of being God when you face temptation? I assume you don't. So if you don't but Jesus did, it could hardly be said that he was tempted like all of us, could it? Do you really think there is any chance God would succumb to temptation (if He could even be tempted)?

I believe when God is operational in me no temptation has any power over me. It is the same for Jesus. That doesn't mean the devil doesn't try to tempt Jesus but only that he can't succeed. So yes Jesus endured temptations without being tempted.

 

[Muffled]

I'm not sure what the Quran has to do with the trinity.

Why is there a problem with Jesus being the son of God? After all, that is exactly what he is called almost 50 times in the scriptures. On the other hand, he is called God the Son a grand total of zero times.

I might suggest it was tradition rather than God that led you to believe Jesus is God.

Interestingly enough, during the first 2 centuries after Christ it was the Trinitarians that held the adversarial point of view. None of the first century church leaders taught a trinity. That is not only scriptural, but any history book of the early church will show that talk of a trinity was a Johnny Come Lately phenomena. The trinity infiltrated the early church doctrine when the Gentiles began to fill the ranks of the early church. They brought their Pagan ideas with them, including the idea of God becoming man to save the world. The Jews in the first part of Acts (before the Gentiles entered the scene) knew who God was and they were well aware that the Messiah would be raised up as a man like Moses (Acts 3:22) who was certainly not God or a god-man.

I believe that is ok because you are not the first one to not understand it.

I believe it cause confusion with material thinking people who think that God must have become physical and had sex with Mary. I am sure you can see the problem with that.

I believe I had no such tradition and you have no way to judge whether it was God leading me or not without that information coming from the Holy Spirit.

I believe that is illogical a time frame does not determine whether something is true or not.

I believe there is no evidence that paganism had any influence.

I believe a likeness can mean in some ways but not necessarily in all ways. So Moses was a person who led his people out of Egypt and in like manner Jesus will lead His people to the New Jerusalem. That does not mean that Jesus has to be a man like Moses. One can't focus on this verse and ignore the ones that say that Jesus is God in the flesh. If there were no references to Jesus being God in the flesh then one could use this likeness in that way otherwise one may not.

 

[Fiddle DD]

He doesn't sound like a Catholic, does he?

He might get thrown out.

Do Catholics still get thrown out?

 

[Fiddle DD]

I'm not sure what the Quran has to do with the trinity.

Why is there a problem with Jesus being the son of God? After all, that is exactly what he is called almost 50 times in the scriptures. On the other hand, he is called God the Son a grand total of zero times.

I might suggest it was tradition rather than God that led you to believe Jesus is God.

Interestingly enough, during the first 2 centuries after Christ it was the Trinitarians that held the adversarial point of view. None of the first century church leaders taught a trinity. That is not only scriptural, but any history book of the early church will show that talk of a trinity was a Johnny Come Lately phenomena. The trinity infiltrated the early church doctrine when the Gentiles began to fill the ranks of the early church. They brought their Pagan ideas with them, including the idea of God becoming man to save the world. The Jews in the first part of Acts (before the Gentiles entered the scene) knew who God was and they were well aware that the Messiah would be raised up as a man like Moses (Acts 3:22) who was certainly not God or a god-man.

I think you make some good points.

Can I ask, what denominations you are?