• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

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

A Roman Catholic on the Trinity

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Yeah. I always found that odd. In bible study or church I can understand it. Scripture isn't an isolated text. Non christians have been studying and looking up and researching about scripture for years. Non christians can appreciate scripture like believers. Non scriptures are theist and polytheist and....as well.

I understand personal preference as most, but as a whole that doesn't make sense..even especially on a religious forum. If not to help seekers or talk to christians, what other topics can you discuss scripturally without, I guess being too spiritual? ??
We are getting off topic. The original post was about a quote by the Roman Catholic scholar, Thomas Hart on the humanity of Jesus. Do you have anything to say about that?
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
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.
Thus has been explained myriads of times here at RF, and the key to understanding that view, whether one ultimately believes in it or not, is though the concept of "essence" in Greek philosophy, especially through Aristotle.

Here: Essence - Wikipedia
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
Thus has been explained myriads of times here at RF, and the key to understanding that view, whether one ultimately believes in it or not, is though the concept of "essence" in Greek philosophy, especially through Aristotle.

Here: Essence - Wikipedia
True enough. Whereas Apitotle was a rather brilliant man, I don't take him as a source of ultimate truth. That is the sole domain of the scriptures for me. I don't say everyone has to believe that, it's just what I've found to be most useful.
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Cant remember where I answered the OP. I commented on harts point of view.

Incarnation/flesh is the only way he is like a human. Its the exterior thats like humans. The spirit isnt.

It highly depends on how you define what a human is?

Is human just mean in the flesh? If so, jesus is like a human

Is human just mean his spirit? If so, jesus is not like us.


Nothing is verbatum.

@rrobs

Somewhere before this comment. I'd have to find it.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I already did. You didn't comment. It was a long post.
Yes you did and I most certainly did comment on your posts. Still, for some time now we have been discussing matters not related to the OP. So if you are done with the OP let's just let dead dogs lay. I'm sure we'll meet again!
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
@rrobs

Somewhere before this comment. I'd have to find it.
I found it and you did and then I commented on your posts. But as I said in post #106, we've pretty well wrung out the OP. Please don't think I'm angry, offended, or anything. I'm not. We'll talk about something else later.
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
Strait out of Strong's Concordance:

G2320 θεότης theotes (the-o'-tees) n.
divinity (abstractly).
[from G2316]
KJV: godhead
Root(s): G2316

The root word (G2316) referred to is theos, which is almost always translated as God.

I do understand what the word "Godhead" means, but no, I don't understand the analogy between your family and God.
Very simple. God is a single being with three points of consciousness, The Father God, The Son God, and the Spirit God.

My Family, Jones, is a single entity, yet it is made up of individual Joneses.

Another.

The Senior Jones owns a company and is president. His son is vice president. A nephew is in charge of public relations.

  • The senior Jones has complete and total confidence in his son, declaring that any decision by the son is as if he made the decision. The senior Jones pursues other interests for now, leaving the operation of the entire business to his son.
I mentioned Genesis 1:1 and you essentially blew off the plurality there.
Luther, nor any other man for that matter, is not my source of truth. I stick with the scriptures and nothing but the scriptures.

In light of what you said, I would be interested to get your take on the following three verses in the Epistles.

Rom 3:22,

Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
Eph 1:4,

According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:
Col 1:22,

In the body of his flesh through death, to present you holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight:​
A saved Christian is perfect by Christś righteousness being imputed to him. Christs life and death is presented as a substitute for those of the saved sinner, Grace.

Total perfection of the saved sinner, apart from Christs imputed righteousness will not occur this side of the second coming or the grave.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
I mentioned Genesis 1:1 and you essentially blew off the plurality there.
Oops! My mistake. I must have missed it. Didn't ignore it on purpose.

In virtually all mentions of the plural word elohiym it is used with a singular pronoun or attribute.

For example, in verse 27 although the plural word elohiym is used, it says He created man in "his" image, not "their" image.

In all, their are 34 times in Genesis chapter one where the singular verb is used of elohiym. There is one time in verse 26 where "us" is used. You have to weigh the evidence as to whether the 34 times the singular is used, or the 1 time the plural is used, should taken literally.

As I said before, wherever their an apparent contradiction is found in the scriptures, we must look to our understanding or translation. It does not make sense to disregard the many clear verses in favor of 1 or 2 unclear verses. It makes more sense to fit the few with the many.

Regarding verse 26 and "us" there are two possibilities I can see. The "us" might be used as the "royal we" which is used for momentous events. Just Google "royal we" for more info on that.

The other possibility is that God was speaking to His spirit being creations, i.e. angels. Honestly, I'm not sure which of those is the case. I'll have to wait to see God face to face to get that answer. In any case, as I said above, the very next verse said God made man in "his" image.

Again, you need to understand the ancient Hebrew perspective of elohiym. Here is an excerpt from WIkipedia:

"Elohim is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "deities" in Biblical Hebrew. In Hebrew, the ending -im normally indicates a masculine plural. However, when referring to the Hebrew God, Elohim is usually understood to be grammatically singular (i.e. it governs a singular verb or adjective). In Modern Hebrew, it is often referred to in the singular despite the -im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew."​
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
As a final note, your post is off topic.

My post was, indeed, not in response to the main thrust of this thread. However, it was in direct response to a comment you had made. Once that comment was made it was not inappropriate to comment on it.
 

RabbiO

הרב יונה בן זכריה
1) I would do that, but they kicked me off for not believing in the trinity.
2) I've not limited peoples comments. They can say what they want. Conversely, I can engage or not engage whoever I want. Interestingly enough, you yourself appear be limiting my comments. You don't like it, so you tell me what I can and what I can't do. I don't think addressing someone or not is a matter of "rights." I can do and say whatever I chose. I don't need a "right" to do that.

1) Not quite sure how that is possible given that the Christian DIR is open to all Christians and within that DIR there is also a sub-DIR for non-trinitarians, but you would, I assume, know better than I.

2) I'm certainly not limiting your comments nor am I am I saying that you have to engage in dialogue with anyone on the forum. What I am saying is that you appear to be ticked off that non-Christians are commenting on the thread you started and it seems apparent that you would rather that they did not do so. I am simply pointing out that if you want to restrict who can comment on a thread, there are possibilities to do so under the rules of the forum.

Speaking of rules, I would also point out that you and I and all the other members of this private forum are bound by the rules of the forum. Any of us who are members of the forum can do and say whatever we choose........ subject to the rules of the forum.
 

rrobs

Well-Known Member
1) Not quite sure how that is possible given that the Christian DIR is open to all Christians and within that DIR there is also a sub-DIR for non-trinitarians, but you would, I assume, know better than I.

2) I'm certainly not limiting your comments nor am I am I saying that you have to engage in dialogue with anyone on the forum. What I am saying is that you appear to be ticked off that non-Christians are commenting on the thread you started and it seems apparent that you would rather that they did not do so. I am simply pointing out that if you want to restrict who can comment on a thread, there are possibilities to do so under the rules of the forum.

Speaking of rules, I would also point out that you and I and all the other members of this private forum are bound by the rules of the forum. Any of us who are members of the forum can do and say whatever we choose........ subject to the rules of the forum.
I think I can clear up some misunderstanding by assuring you I'm not ticked off or otherwise put off by anything. I do understand we can say what we want. That's what I did. I told her we'd talk about something else later. We've talked about many things. I have nothing against her, or you for that matter, even though you seem to feel the need to control what I say or don't say. And, by God, you have a right to do that. It doesn't make me feel angry, sad, hurt, dissed, or any negative feelings. As you say, it's the nature of the beast. No pun intended by the reference to "the beast." ---that's supposed to be funny, don't take me too serious!
 

shmogie

Well-Known Member
1) Not quite sure how that is possible given that the Christian DIR is open to all Christians and within that DIR there is also a sub-DIR for non-trinitarians, but you would, I assume, know better than I.

2) I'm certainly not limiting your comments nor am I am I saying that you have to engage in dialogue with anyone on the forum. What I am saying is that you appear to be ticked off that non-Christians are commenting on the thread you started and it seems apparent that you would rather that they did not do so. I am simply pointing out that if you want to restrict who can comment on a thread, there are possibilities to do so under the rules of the forum.

Speaking of rules, I would also point out that you and I and all the other members of this private forum are bound by the rules of the forum. Any of us who are members of the forum can do and say whatever we choose........ subject to the rules of the forum.
Non Christians will consistently engage in Christian theological discussions if these discussions are being held where it is appropriate for them to do so. One can always do as I do, ignore them.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
How do you interpret John. 1:1 ?

First, I find the Bible was Not written in King James English.
The same Greek grammar rule applies at John 1:1 and at Acts of the Apostles 28:6 B.
The letter 'a' was inserted at Acts, but KJV omitted it at John 1.
Plus, at John 1:2 John writes that pre-human Jesus was ' with ' God . 'With' indicating another person.
As you continue reading at John 1:18 John says No man has seen God at any time. People saw Jesus.
See also 1 John 4:12 and Exodus 33:20.
At John 6:46 John writes 'Not that any man has seen the Father'. People saw Jesus.
So, pre-human Jesus did Not send himself to Earth, but his God sent (gifted) Jesus to Earth for us.
 
Last edited:

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
Very simple. God is a single being with three points of consciousness, The Father God, The Son God, and the Spirit God.
My Family, Jones, is a single entity, yet it is made up of individual Joneses.

I find God is a spirit (meaning a spirit person), however God's spirit (Psalms 104:30) is Not God the person.
God's spirit is Not masculine gender but is neuter according to Numbers 11:17, 25 as neuter 'It'.
Even now we refer to a car or a ship as 'she ' when we know a car or ship is a neuter 'it '.
God's family is made up of individuals: First His Son (aka Jesus), his individual angels, and us individual humans.
 

URAVIP2ME

Veteran Member
A saved Christian is perfect by Christś righteousness being imputed to him. Christs life and death is presented as a substitute for those of the saved sinner, Grace.
Total perfection of the saved sinner, apart from Christs imputed righteousness will not occur this side of the second coming or the grave.

Sure Christians are saved, but I find that does Not mean 'once saved always saved' because as Jesus said at Matthew 24:13 we must endure to the end in order to be saved.
 
Top