I assume then you reject the Trinity itself as that is not found in Scripture under any description.
If you are Catholic then you are in direct opposition to Catholic Doctrine which requires a perspective of “Sola Verbum Dei”.
Considering scripture in teh context of the actual acts and traditions not recorded in the scriptures is necessary, rational and proper. It is especially so when one considers that The Catholic Church in fact was the authority that selected the texts to be included in The Bible in the first place through the power of the Holy Spirit. You are only getting a part of the story if you look at just what is in print and are denying the power of the Holy Spirit (referenced in scriptures as an acknowledged divine authority).
Sorry I think you are committing the same heresy as did Martin Luther.
Of my goodness. I posted this thread because RightlyDivide didn’t think the Trinity is Biblical. I disagree with him.
I am completely loyal to Jesus Christ’s Church, whom Pope Benedict XVI now sits on the See of Peter, the Servant of Servants of God. How am I committing heresy? I do not deny that God is a Triune God.
Perhaps you make a judgement of me, you should have read the entire context of this thread. I have in fact why how word Trinity came into being.
It was the Council of Nicea in 325 that defined it to combat the heresy of Arianism, which denied Christ and that he was a created being. Theophilus of Antioch first coined the word Trinity. He to it as “triad” of three days: the first three days of Creation, which he then compared to "God, his Word, and his Wisdom.
Tertullian, is the Latin theologian who first explain it. He said the Trinity" and “person” to explain that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were "one in essence— not one in Person.
About a century later, in AD 325, the Council of Nicea established the doctrine of the** Trinity as orthodoxy and adopted the Nicene Creed** that described Christ as “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made,being of one substance (homoousios) with the Father.”
I believe what the Catholic Church defined in those days, and I still do. How dare you call me a heretic.
I believe everything the Bible teaches. God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are one.
Manny believes in the Trinity and uses the word. You are not reading carefully.
You are right. He is not reading the entire thread completely. :rolleyes:
Except scipture never states that. Hopefully you are not going to try and rely on the infamous **Comma Johanneum-**the erroneous translation of 1 John 5 7-8.
Of course it does.
And the Catholic church used to agree with me on this
However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; to him the authentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which the Church and only the Church has given to him as the Word of God. He cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later. Though his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius X’s approval of the Decree “Lamentabili”, all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree
Matt:3:16 And Jesus (Son) being baptized, forthwith came out of the water: and lo, the heavens were opened to him: and he saw the Spirit of God (Holy Spirit) descending as a dove, and coming upon him. 17 And behold a voice from heaven, (God the Father) saying: This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
You bet. And the Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God
Jhn 20:28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.
Well there goes any credbility you might have had. No serious Scholar accepts the **Comma Johanneum. **You wont find it in any modern translations of the Bible not will you find it in any translations prior to the 4th century. It was probably based on an a mistranslated sermon of the third century by Celia or deliberately changed to combat Arianism.
This , of course, is problem with trying to have a serious discussion with someone who not only demands we accept their personal interpretaion of Scriture but also their prefered tanslation.
My father told me right before he died that he was well pleased n me. That doesnt make us one. I beleive in the Trinity but I do so becuase the Church did all the heavy lifting some 2,000 years ago to explain it and codify it.
And so you think the Catholic church was wrong when they agreed with me?
OK I thought you were insisting on a literal interpretation of scripture. I did mix two different posts of yours and misinterpret your position. ** I apologize.**
That said, its ironic you mentioned the Nicene Creed as the codifying doctrine establishing the trinity believe as core to The Church. I agree with it too as all Roman Catholics must. But it was that very desire to head off the heresy of Arianism that caused the Church in Rome to hastily insert a single line of text into the Creed (the “Filioque”) to establish the Double Procession of the Holy Spirit. The phrase was subtle: “proceeds from both the father and the son” to give the 3 persons of the same godhead equal divinity as one unifying principal. To most of the laity that probably seems minor and completely theologically logical and implicit. But the small change to the Creed contradicted a purely fundamental read of John’s Gospel accounts that speak of the Spirit proceeding from The Father TO the Son (John 14:26) (e.g. 1 direction).
Since the change was done without a full-up synod/meeting (which could take many years to conduct back then) and it was in apparent technical violation of the terms of agreement between conducting dogmatic changes with full concurrence between both the East and West it created a huge schism. The Eastern Church fathers claimed it violated the previously agreed upon esoteric terms and was automatic anathema on the side (Rome) who violated that agreement. So when a visiting Byzantine clergy official attended a mass in Rome and heard the “new” Nicene Creed unexpectedly as it was prayed he was offended greatly and sent word back to Constantinople. The whole thing set off the Great Schism between East and West that we still have today.
That schism looked to me like it was more about bruised egos and slighted esteem between the two seats of authority than it was about grave spiritual differences of opinion.
I personally just wish “Christians” et-al could all just get past the small doctrinal things and get onto the task of saving souls…
I’m sorry? If you think that you are in agreement with what the Encyclopedia article says then you have read the article with the same carelessness with which you read Scripture.
Whether or not the “testimony of the three witnesses” is a later addition to the text is not what is being discussed here, and certainly does not lend support to your erroneous position.
God reveals Himself as Triune in Scripture, or He has revealed Himself as a split personality in the Agony in the Garden.
Sorry, but that’s just too fantastic to give any serious consideration. The arians have an easier case to make from Scripture than do you modalists. And the arians are just as mistaken.
You are forgiven, James.
I think you are as careless in you interpretation of catholic teachings as you are scripture. Read the entire artilce and then get back with us.
So you cannot refute what I said but instead just tell me to go reread it? I am careless but all you can do is tell me to reread it?
So that is your case against it? Really?
However, the Catholic theologian must take into account more than textual criticism; to him the authentic decisions of all Roman Congregations are guiding signs in the use of the Sacred Scripture, which the Church and only the Church has given to him as the Word of God.** He cannot pass over the disciplinary decision of the Holy Office (13 January, 1897), whereby it is decreed that the authenticity of the Comma Johanninum may not with safety (tuto) be denied or called into doubt. This disciplinary decision was approved by Leo XIII two days later.**Though his approval was not in forma specifica, as was Pius X’s approval of the Decree “Lamentabili”, all further discussion of the text in question must be carried on with due deference to this decree. (See “Revue Biblique”, 1898, p. 149; and Pesch, “Prælectiones Dogmaticæ”, II, 250.)
Tell me what I am misinterpreting?
The Scriptures would disagree with you on that. Some things are indeed hard to understand…
[quote=2 Peter 3:16]He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.
I interpreted this as
being the case if one is
2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
unlearned and unstable
Which, I would obviously think is not my situation.