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! It can't? But it is God-breathed isn't it? And so it is not a lie, is it? And it is clear and to the point, isn't it? If you answer 'yes' to these questions, and from your position I cannot see that you could do otherwise, then we have a simply-worded, clear, concise statement that was inspired of God and is 100% true. It contradicts your position. One is therefore wrong.
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 calling them "heresies" is simply labeling them with a ridicule-invoking word because they contradict the stance you take - just like Evolutionists have to resort to ridicule to support their paradigm 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 (nope, clear differerences of opinion and interpretation, which you call 'heresies' because you claim, without scriptural justification, that the Catholic Church is God's mouthpiece - just as all other groups, sects, creeds claim EXACTLY the same thing) 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: The authority of this gathering is not recognized by me.
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 aaah, now we are getting somewhere, 'authorized guidance', but who is 'authorized'? 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.
I thought that you would state this, but it requires some further twisting of Greek to "justify" this position, since siblings of Jesus are most definitely mentioned.
She would have been, after all, God's wife.
I was
going to ask where this fantasy came from…… but never mind.
Ask away. Mary has a child by ... well, God, I suppose. If she is not God's wife, then what sort of business is this?
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. Yes, the ancient trinity 'logic' that was around for centuries before Christ.
Jesus is
God and man.
Mary is
the mother of Jesus.
è 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?
Hislop does not lead me closer to God, but he does a fine review of myths that have been soaked up by the Council of Nicea. In searching for truth, I look solely to the source of truth - the word of God. When you understand what the word of God is and what the fourth canonical Gospel is really saying, then you will hopefully see the trinity idea in a different light.
In any event, I feel it now time to close this thread. You are very welcome to respond and defend your position, I do not cut threads with the last word, but please be aware that I will not respond to your reply not because I cannot, but because I see our positions too far apart.
I respect your right to hold fast to your beliefs, especially as I consider that you do not blindly do so, but feel that it is you who do not see the wood for the trees. For the god of the Hebrew writings is not the God that I have come to appreciate.
Neville.Pax tecum,
Neville
Robert B