[geocentrism] Re: Trinity
- From: "Robert Bennett" <robert.bennett@xxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 12:57:08 -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."
Exactly the point. By staring at a tree you can’t see the forest. The mystery
of the Son of God made man can’t be addressed by one sound bite from Scripture!
As explained – and apparently ignored – below.
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.
* Joseph was the foster father of Jesus.
* Adultery is voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and
a partner other than the lawful spouse. Mary was engaged, not married, when
she conceived of the Spirit.
* Mary agreed to conception by divine intervention , not sexual
intercourse. Hence the perpetual virgin Mary.
* Mary had no other children besides Jesus.
She would have been, after all, God's wife.
I was going to ask where this fantasy came from…… but never mind.
But then, wait a minute, she would also have been "mother of god," which is
where the Catholic phrase comes from.
Why don’t you ask a Catholic where the phrase comes from? It’s pure logic.
Jesus is God and man.
Mary is the mother of Jesus.
==> Mary is the mother of God and man.
But this defies reason, you say. Not so, since the premises are true and the
syllogism valid.
It’s not a contradiction, which would defy reason, but a mystery, which calls
for faith more than reason.
The heart knows things that the mind cannot even dream of.
This is that ancient nonsense that way, way predates "Christianity." Alexander
Hislop covered it well in "The Two Babylons."
What a tangled web.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave,
When God’s word we disbelieve.
Hislop certainly can weave a tangled web to trap the naïve. Aren’t you still
looking for truth in all the wrong places?
Pax tecum, Neville
Robert B
Neville.
Other related posts:
