[geocentrism] Re: Trinity

 -----Original Message-----
From: robert.bennett@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tue, 24 Jul 2007 14:07:16 -0400


1. The scripture I quoted to you is perfectly straightforward and simple. If this scripture does not stand on its own two feet, so to speak, then I don't know what would. Context therefore does not enter into this equation. You are, of course, saying that the scripture contradicts others and therefore you claim this as your definition of context. This is not normal linguistic context. It is a paradigm conflict. I, of course, agree that it contradicts the ruling "Christian" paradigm, which is why I quoted it:  The idea of Jesus being God is explicitly denied by Jesus' own words.

As in “I and the Father are one.” ??


I think the particular scripture under discussion was, "I am going now to your father and my father, to my God and your God."

2. The ancient idea of a trinity, which well pre-dates the time of Christ, is also denied by Jesus himself when he states, "Why do you call me good? There is none good but God." If Jesus were God, then he would tell us so, he would not deny it, which would be a lie in this case. God does not lie. …….

As in “ The Father is greater than I.” ??

The various heresies of Christology were addressed in the early days of the Church by the Fathers and Councils:  “He is God, not man.”… “He is man, not God”   (which is the belief of Islam today).

The heresies of the Trinity were also dealt with:  “There is a Deity, no Trinity.” (also Islam) .   The Spirit proceeds from the Father, not the Son.”  “The Son is not of the same substance/being with the Father.” etc.

All these were refuted in the summary Creed of Nicea in 325 AD:    

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible.

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father by whom all things were made; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, and was made man;……

 

The refusal to accept the mystery of the Incarnation – that one being can have both divine and human natures – has always been based on pride – that we must understand how this can be in order to accept it as true. 

Once we accept that – as creatures - we cannot know all things, the first two quotes become intelligible. In the first quote, the divine nature of Jesus is speaking; in the second quote, the human nature.  Some sayings of Jesus will always be mysterious to us, as His divinity is unfathomable.

Have you never heard that the devil can quote Scripture to his own advantage?  Revelation must always be read holistically and in context.  Interpretation differences can be resolved by recourse to the guidance of the Spirit via the Magisterium of His Church.

The denials of the Incarnation in 1) and 2) above  are almost as old as Christianity itself.  What is different are the particular verses which the author chooses to carve out of the Bible for disbelief, including Paul’s – incredibile dictu.  This leads to a question posed before: If Revelation claims to all be true, then how can any part be deemed false without including all of God’s words?  

Personal interpretations without authorized guidance leads to faith that is not theistic but solipsistic.

Pax omnibus,

Robert B


Thank you for the Catholic slant on the trinity idea, but you have opened up another problem for yourself. The "Virgin Mary" must have committed adultery by taking another man (Joseph) and having children by him. She would have been, after all, God's wife. But then, wait a minute, she would also have been "mother of god," which is where the Catholic phrase comes from. This is that ancient nonsense that way, way predates "Christianity." Alexander Hislop covered it well in "The Two Babylons."

What a tangled web.

Neville.

Other related posts: