[geocentrism] Re: The Trinity
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:13:43 +1000
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
Other related posts:
