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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I'm not at home now, but I do have a catechism. I'll look up a few things later. Thanks. But it's kind of like the theory of abiogenesis, maybe it is, maybe it isn't because no one knows and doubtfully will any human know except to accept that in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. That settles any big question in my mind, because of observation and learning what the Bible says.
Yes, it is that difficult. Three persons are one being? Where in the human race are three humans said to be one human, forget being. That three humans are all humans is true, but one human in three humans?
There are many well-educated Protestant theologians as well, yet they separate themselves from Catholic doctrine. Now getting back to the definition of substance, according to the catechism I have, I'm looking under the topic of the Holy Trinity in the Teaching of the Faith, "the Church uses the term 'substance'...to designate the divine being in its unity..." So, aside from describing in detail at length all three designated as persons of the trinity, I will simply say so far that the Bible does not back up the idea that all 'three' are co-equal persons in the "Godhead."
Yeah, but that’s not what the doctrine says. We can’t forget “being” because that’s what the Greek term says. You’re creating a straw man.
Not at all. Three persons do not add up to one 'being.' Sorry, but it neither works in theory nor in biblical reality. However, one is free to believe what he wants. Even if it doesn't add up.
The idea of essence in three persons called God then saying they combine in theory to make one "being" doesn't make sense.
I didn’t insist not ask that you believe it. I said that’s what the doctrine says.
That’s not what the doctrine says. You people dismiss the doctrine when you haven’t read it or understand what it says. Why is that?
But the reality is that they agree on more things than they disagree on, especially the most important items. I grew up in a Protestant church but didn't convert to Catholicism until I was 30, so I've had extensive experience in both.
Again, the key is understanding the concept of "essence" and how it is used, especially since the NT was written in Koine Greek. "Essence" was a widely used concept with the Mediterranean scholars back then and afterward, and this is by no means the only Greek-influenced concept that shows up in the N.T. One sees Paul's Greek education being reflected in his epistles, for another example, especially his use of dichotomy.
It says what it says, as I was looking at it, it does not make sense and it is not biblical.
There are some preachers of different doctrines that are good speakers but when they get into detail about belief or doctrine, it is at that point and fundamental, that I withdraw.
I couldn't believe it because it is fundamentally and unequivocally inexplicable and based on an errant doctrine.
No, it's not "based" on an errant doctrine. Doctrines aren't "based" on Doctrines.
With me, I'll listen but then I want to see if evidence is there to back them up. Even though they come from different angles, science and serious theology cannot be at odds with each other, which is one main reason why I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up in that rejected the ToE. My theological orientation strongly reflects my "naturalistic" viewpoint that God and nature, though not being exactly the same, must go hand-in-glove together, much like a paintings typically reflect some things about the painter.
Really? So that is why people claiming to be Christian have systemically killed each other throughout the centuries? Not to mention if the mother of Jesus is still the virgin?
My basis for worship is not mythic Bible stories.
I believe that God is existence itself -- Being itself, that includes all life and energy, rather than some existent being in juxtaposition to creation.
So does this existence you speak of have a mind?
So the trinity is a doctrine but the explanation of essence within that doctrine is not based on a doctrine.
God. What do you worship? Something other than God?
There is Consciousness.
Doctrines are based upon the Apostles' teaching, part of which are the Biblical texts.So the trinity is a doctrine but the explanation of essence within that doctrine is not based on a doctrine.