[geocentrism] Re: The Trinity
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:07:21 +1000
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
Other related posts:
