That was well done Allen.. I might have been able to improve on it a bit, but from you, that is well done.. I particularly like the way you admit the Bible doesn't quite make it on the complex issues.. That is why the RCC has millions of additional pages of data.. My little debate here with you is nothing compared with the enormous arguement I'm having with my own colleagues over all that data, elsewhere. My own Priest is almost excommunicating me, but I told him he does not have the power or the jurisdiction.. The sin I'm accused of: Calumny and detraction.. I'm an expert on the theology of those.. I'm not rolling over and submitting on this one yet. Phil ----- Original Message ----- From: Allen Daves To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 9:56 AM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Trinity Read carefully..I’m not anti- "Trinity"....................There are many analogies and similitudes regarding the Trinity and I think for the most part they are adequate. I will say, I personally don’t like using the word coz it is not found anywhere in scripture. ..why do i think that is important? Well for one, it is hard not to think beyond what is written if you invent words to "describe" what you don’t understand in what is written and then try to define what that word means.......ummmmmm.............What is found in the scripture is a vague concept. It is that vague concept that we call "the trinity". But the text does not detail that concept nor does it ever mention any term with intrinsic meaning to refer to that vague concept except perhaps "us" and "One God". This is part of the problem. We invent words that could only get any valid meaning from vague concepts found only from a source that does not bother to divulge that information and yet we still insist on assigning our invented words/ concepts with intrinsic, absolute values. We ge so caught up in our adhoc words that we loose sight of what we are given specifically. .The Father via Christ created all things. God refers to himself as us...so "us" it is.....there is only "one God" so I only acknowledge one God. Do I fully understand that ..NO..... Does this cause a philosophical conundrum for me...NO.. It would be different if the text went into a explanation but it does not thus I infer there are things and words not lawful to be uttered or even understood by man. ......However, lets put things in some perspective..If there really is a God who created man and the universe and all the complexities in the universe and in man....then seriously.....for us to "fully" understand much less be able to explain the nature of this kind of God who created our "Infinite & infinite complex universe" would be at least as comparable as asking all the ants in the world to put their brains together so as to be able to read our thoughts......?.. It is just not possible even if they could put all their brains together much more so that they cannot. Thus they can perceive our presence, just as we can perceive His. But, even some animals that you can train, there are still limits to understanding and you could never divulge all of the depths of the human mind (ie..thoughts v intents..or emotions) to a fish. (even if you take him out of the water). No matter how much training...... ----- Original Message ---- From: philip madsen <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 4:07:21 PM Subject: [geocentrism] Re: The Trinity If a man had two heads on necks from the same body, and there have been such born, then is that two persons in one man ? or, If a man had one body, and suffered with split personality, with three separate personalities in communication, is that like the trinity.. ? I can ask, because the trinity is a mystery, which has never been fully explained anywhere. I offer two ancient and contrary opinions.. which sort of confirms my last line..for a full article you can use the links at the end.. Philip IV. THE TRINITY AS A MYSTERY The Vatican Council has explained the meaning to be attributed to the term mystery in theology. It lays down that a mystery is a truth which we are not merely incapable of discovering apart from Divine Revelation, but which, even when revealed, remains "hidden by the veil of faith and enveloped, so to speak, by a kind of darkness" (Constitution, "De fide. cath.", iv). In other words, our understanding of it remains only partial, even after we have accepted it as part of the Divine message. Through analogies and types we can form a representative concept expressive of what is revealed, but we cannot attain that fuller knowledge which supposes that the various elements of the concept are clearly grasped and their reciprocal compatibility manifest. As regards the vindication of a mystery, the office of the natural reason is solely to show that it contains no intrinsic impossibility, that any objection urged against it on Reason. "Expressions such as these are undoubtedly the score that it violates the laws of thought is invalid. More than this it cannot do. The Vatican Council further defined that the Christian Faith contains mysteries strictly so called (can. 4). All theologians admit that the doctrine of the Trinity is of the number of these. Indeed, of all revealed truths this is the most impenetrable to reason. Hence, to declare this to be no mystery would be a virtual denial of the canon in question. Moreover, our Lord's words, Matthew 11:27, "No one knoweth the Son, but the Father," seem to declare expressly that the plurality of Persons in the Godhead is a truth entirely beyond the scope of any created intellect. The Fathers supply many passages in which the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature is affirmed. St. Jerome says, in a well-known phrase: "The true profession of the mystery of the Trinity is to own that we do not comprehend it" (De mysterio Trinitatus recta confessio est ignoratio scientiae -- "Proem ad 1. xviii in Isai."). The controversy with the Eunomians, who declared that the Divine Essence was fully expressed in the absolutely simple notion of "the Innascible" (agennetos), and that this was fully comprehensible by the human mind, led many of the Greek Fathers to insist on the incomprehensibility of the Divine Nature, more especially in regard to the internal processions. St. Basil, "In Eunom.", I, n. 14; St. Cyril of Jerusalem, "Cat.", VI; St. John Damascene, "Fid. Orth.", I, ii, etc., etc.). and the contrary At a later date, however, some famous names are to be found defending a contrary opinion. Anselm ("Monol.", 64), Abelard ("ln Ep. ad Rom."), Hugo of St. Victor ("De sacram." III, xi), and Richard of St. Victor ("De Trin.", III, v) all declare that it is possible to assign peremptory reasons why God should be both One and Three. In explanation of this it should be noted that at that period the relation of philosophy to revealed doctrine was but obscurely understood. Only after the Aristotelean system had obtained recognition from theologians was this question thoroughly treated. In the intellectual ferment of the time Abelard initiated a Rationalistic tendency: not merely did he claim a knowledge of the Trinity for the pagan philosophers, but his own Trinitarian doctrine was practically Sabellian. Anselm's error was due not to Rationalism, but to too wide an application of the Augustinian principle "Crede ut intelligas". Hugh and Richard of St. Victor were, however, certainly influenced by Abelard's teaching. Raymond Lully's (1235-1315) errors in this regard were even more extreme. They were expressly condemned by Gregory XI in 1376. In the nineteenth century the influence of the prevailing Rationalism manifested itself in several Catholic writers. Frohschammer and Günther both asserted that the dogma of the Trinity was capable of proof. Pius IX reprobated their opinions on more than one occasion (Denzinger, 1655 sq., 1666 sq., 1709 sq.), and it was to guard against this tendency that the Vatican Council issued the decrees to which reference has been made. A somewhat similar, though less aggravated, error on the part of Rosmini was condemned, 14 December, 1887 (Denz., 1915). links The Blessed Trinity This article is divided as follows: I. Dogma of the Trinity; II. Proof of the Doctrine from Scripture; III. Proof of the Doctrine from Tradition; IV. The Trinity as a Mystery; V. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Greek Theology; VI. The Doctrine as Interpreted in Latin Theology. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jack Lewis To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 8:46 AM Subject: [geocentrism] The Trinity Neville Jones wrote: My faith is in our Father, not in any man. I am a Unitarian, not a Trinitarian. Neville do you accept the first two verses of Genesis? The word 'God' used is plural in Hebrew. Then who or what was the 'Spirit of God' that was hovering? Is this Spirit the same as God or is it something different from God? Gen 1:26. Who was the 'Us' that God was referring to when he said 'Let Us make man etc.' As I understand Neville you accept the Gospel of John or Magdalene as you you would call it. So what do you understand about verse 1? John is clearly referring to Jesus who was in the beginning and was God. Now we have a plural God mentioned in verse 1, a Spirit of God and then the use of the word 'US' in verse 26 and finally then Jesus in John 1:1. The Trinity is mentioned immediately in the first two verses of Genesis and among many other places in the Bible and Jesus' connection confirmed by John 1:1. It is absolutely clear that God is not a 'unity God' but a 'Trinity God'. Your insistence of slavishly using this single scripture "By myself I can do nothing." to deny the Trinity in the face of the above scriptures shows your inability to understand how God can be three distinct persons. It is purely your inability to comprehend or willingness to accept such a concept. In spite of your undoubted human intelligence and human reasoning powers, they just won't stretch to comprehending the Trinity. May I suggest you take a look at a small A5 size book that I sent to Steven which details almost all the references to the Trinity in the Bible. But I imagine your let-out will be that the Bible it is just a book of astrology, except for some bits, and therefore unworthy of further investigation. As an academic exercise why don't you check-out this book and see if it does indeed prove the Trinity even though you reject the Bible itself. If you can show me that it doesn't then I will personally re-think the Trinity. Please don't cloud the issue with the introduction of extra-Biblical material. The Bible has to stand or fall on this one issue - does the Bible supports a Trinity Godhead? Jack No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 1:41 PM ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG. Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 1:41 PM