Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?
Catholic Exchange ^ | June 14, 2006 | Fr. Roger Landry

Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 601-618 next last
To: SoothingDave; Quester
What then are you disputing? If Miryam and Joseph were engaged to be married--and as Quester rightly pointed out, the engagement between siginging the ketubah (marriage contract) and the consumation of the marriage was typically a year, and could last longer--then your whole, If you were a regular young lady two weeks from her wedding night, and an angel said "you will conceive a child" would you be befuddled as to how this could happen? argument is meaningless.
161 posted on 06/15/2006 10:10:44 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: Pyro7480

No, we believe Jesus Christ is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The one God from eternity.


162 posted on 06/15/2006 10:12:42 AM PDT by DaveMSmith (All religion is of life, and a life of religion is to do good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

I think it's somewhat ironic that someone can read a few Jack Chick comic books and somehow become "inspired" by the Holy Spirit so that they themselves can interpret scripture -- all while claiming that theologians for the past 2000 years have interpreted scripture incorrectly.

If Catholic Marian beliefs are so offensive, why didn't Luther or Calvin denounce them (they in fact agreed with them).


163 posted on 06/15/2006 10:12:44 AM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; xzins; NYer
I'm not sure how this thread got off on the track of perpetual virginity.

Hey Bugg. IIRC, the last time you were posting on a "Trinity" thread you were in the midst of a bit of a tempest in a teapot. Maybe there's a good reason why it has taken a detour. :-)

164 posted on 06/15/2006 10:13:32 AM PDT by P-Marlowe (((172 * 3.141592653589793238462) / 180) * 10 = 30.0196631)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins; NYer

LOL That occurred to me as well. It's almost tempting to try to recreate that tempest on this thread. Almost.


165 posted on 06/15/2006 10:14:52 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; nmh; Quester
Riddle me this: If you were a regular young lady two weeks from her wedding night, and an angel said "you will conceive a child" would you be befuddled as to how this could happen?

Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

Seems to me Mary was thinking in the immediate present, not the imaginary two week time frame from your fertile imagination.

Pay attention now - "I HAVE NO...." is present tense. Riddle solved.

166 posted on 06/15/2006 10:16:15 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
What then are you disputing? If Miryam and Joseph were engaged to be married--and as Quester rightly pointed out, the engagement between siginging the ketubah (marriage contract) and the consumation of the marriage was typically a year, and could last longer--then your whole, If you were a regular young lady two weeks from her wedding night, and an angel said "you will conceive a child" would you be befuddled as to how this could happen? argument is meaningless.

You don't understand the argument.

Forget about the two weeks, I was speaking colloquially. Let's say it was a year. My argument still makes sense.

Why would a woman preparing to engage in a normal sex-filled marriage act astonished when told she was going to conceive a child? Her response makes no sense. The angel did not tell her "you are pregnant now." That could elicit a "how can this be?"

But telling someone ready to enter a marriage that they are going to become pregnant is not exactly supposed to be a mystery.

SD

167 posted on 06/15/2006 10:20:24 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: wagglebee
But by the same token, why is it so difficult to believe that God bestowed Salvation on Mary prior to her birth?

Not difficult to believe at all.

Catholicism does not contend that Mary didn't require a Savior, just that her Salvation preceeded ours.

Yes she was saved (salvation) before I was saved. But I already am saved (salvation) even before I die.

Finally, were Adam and Eve conceived free from sin (i.e. in an immaculate state)?

This is language I do not recognize (am not familiar with). By concieved to you mean created? Were they created free from sin?...The answer is yes....then came the fall and from that time on, we were all born into sin....even Mary (because she is not God incarnate) But none of these questions have anything to do with whether or not either of us have faith in Jesus Christ, or whether or not we will be granted Grace and therefore salvation. In our basic beliefs in the trintiy, we are one, we are the body of Christ IMHO.

168 posted on 06/15/2006 10:24:21 AM PDT by colorcountry (Life isn't fair, it isn't unfair either. It just "is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Luke 1:34 And Mary said to the angel, "How shall this be, since I have no husband?"

Whose goofy translation is this?

KJV:34Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

Young's Literal Translation: And Mary said unto the messenger, `How shall this be, seeing a husband I do not know?'

Amplified Version34And Mary said to the angel, How can this be, since I have no [intimacy with any man as a] husband?

SD

169 posted on 06/15/2006 10:24:35 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: DaveMSmith

Ah, I see. It's a matter of interpretation.


170 posted on 06/15/2006 10:26:08 AM PDT by Pyro7480 ("If you wish to go to extremes, let it be in... patience, humility, & charity." -St. Philip Neri)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
This is language I do not recognize (am not familiar with). By concieved to you mean created? Were they created free from sin?...The answer is yes

So then you believe Adam and Eve were gods?

SD

171 posted on 06/15/2006 10:27:00 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
So then you believe Adam and Eve were gods?

Why do you ask that? Did I say that? They were created - free of sin...they were the first created humans on earth. Were Adam and Eve conceived in a womb, were they born from a womb?

Mary was. She was the product of an honest to goodness sexual encounter...just like you and me.

172 posted on 06/15/2006 10:33:21 AM PDT by colorcountry (Life isn't fair, it isn't unfair either. It just "is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
Whose goofy translation is this?

RSV
173 posted on 06/15/2006 10:37:58 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
Using Grodi's method of identifying distinct denominations, we can see there are many, many separate listings for Catholic Church.

What kind of methodology is this? The Knights of Columbus listed as a denomination? LOL! The KOC is a fraternal order within the Church!

Most of the rites listed are still under the authority of the Pope.

Catholic Rites and Churches

And what the heck is this? Catholic-French Parishes Catholic-German parishes? A desperate attempt it seems to break up the Church into denominations.

Why use Marcus Grodi's method? Why not quote a Protestant, like David Barrett, who quoted that figure in the World Christian Encyclopedia 1981 edition?

CONSERVATIVE, MAINLINE, AND LIBERAL WINGS" IN PROTESTANT CHRISTIANITY

According to David Barrett et al, editors of the "World Christian Encyclopedia: A comparative survey of churches and religions - AD 30 to 2200," there are 34,000 separate Christian groups in the world today. "Over half of them are independent churches that are not interested in linking with the big denominations."

174 posted on 06/15/2006 10:42:50 AM PDT by FJ290
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: colorcountry
Why do you ask that? Did I say that? They were created - free of sin...they were the first created humans on earth.

OK, now we're getting somewhere. So you believe it is possible for a human being to exist without original sin and without personal sin and yet these people are not gods?

So why get so bent out of shape when we claim Mary is conceived without original sin? Why accuse us of making her into a diety?

Do you get the point yet? "Sinless human" does not equal "diety." It didn't for Adam and Eve and it doesn't for Mary.

Were Adam and Eve conceived in a womb, were they born from a womb? Mary was. She was the product of an honest to goodness sexual encounter...just like you and me.

Do you think something in the sex act itself makes babies sinful?

I thought Catholics were the sexually repressed ones.

SD

175 posted on 06/15/2006 10:45:27 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave; Quester
My argument still makes sense.

Not really. Given that having a child would be the normal, expected result of a marriage, Miryam would have been somewhat befuddled at an angel showing up to announce it either way.

Moreover, the context of Israel's dealings with YHVH give the answer: If you look at the history of messengers of God showing up to announce births, they tend to appear to women incapable of having children normally. In the cases of Sarah and Hannah, for example, they were barren until the Lord opened their wombs. In the case of Miryam, she was still a virgin, some time off from her wedding night, and so she took the angel's message to mean that there would be a miraculous element to the birth and/or that the conception would occur immediately.

The only possible avenue I can see you trying to take is to conjure some supposed "virginal marriage" out of the wind. The Jews, however, had no such concept; even the Lord Himself defined marriage thusly:

And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
(Matthew 19:5-6, ref. Gen. 2:24)
In other words, the marriage of Miryam and Joseph would have been considered a "sham marriage" if they'd never consumated it by "becoming one flesh." Moreover, even the RCC recognizes this problem to an extent by recognizing the "lesser status" of an unconsumated marriage:
The Code of Canon Law, Canon 1061 -- §1 A valid marriage between baptized persons is said to be merely ratified if it is not consummated. It is said to be ratified and consummated if the spouses have in a human manner engaged together in a conjugal act in itself apt for the generation of offspring. To this act, marriage is by its nature ordered and by it the spouses become one flesh.
In conclusion, the supposed perpetual virginity of Mary is a classic example of imposing Greek Platonism (the same Platonism which gave rise to Gnosticism) on the Scriptures' original Jewish cultural context. If you truly want to understand what the Jewish Messiah taught, as well as the jewish Apostles, who quoted from Jewish Scriptures for their authority, stop thinking like a Platonist and start thinking like a Jew.
176 posted on 06/15/2006 10:46:18 AM PDT by Buggman (L'chaim b'Yeshua HaMashiach!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
The Amplified version (a favorite of Protestants) explains the meaning of the RSV test. It's euphemism. That's why other versions translate the meaning to be that of denying sexual relations not of being married.

SD

177 posted on 06/15/2006 10:47:27 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Buggman
Not really. Given that having a child would be the normal, expected result of a marriage, Miryam would have been somewhat befuddled at an angel showing up to announce it either way.

Not if the angel was announcing a special purpose for the child, which he was.

And anyway, her befuddlement wouldn't be over how she was to conceive. Even normal betrothed girls knew where babis came from.

In other words, the marriage of Miryam and Joseph would have been considered a "sham marriage" if they'd never consumated it by "becoming one flesh."

The Lord can do what He wants. According to the "rules," Jesus is a bit of a bastard, as others have alleged. Let's not get too carried away in trying to deny Mary her due.

SD

178 posted on 06/15/2006 10:51:01 AM PDT by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave

No, I'm saying that Adam and Eve do not equate with Mary. You've taken a leap with saying that Adam and Eve were created without sin and that Mary was BORN without sin.

Adam and Eve were, at one time sinless - - at that time they were with God, he dwelt with them, walked beside them (not as Christ[God incarnate] but as God). Then Adam and Eve sinned and were separated from him.

Since that time we have all been separate from him, until he comes to dwell in us. So are you saying because the Christ dwelt within Mary's womb she was without original sin?


179 posted on 06/15/2006 10:57:25 AM PDT by colorcountry (Life isn't fair, it isn't unfair either. It just "is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: FJ290

You don't get it yet, and I can't explain it, it seems.

Protestant Baptist are one denomination IMO, Methodist are one, Presbyterian another. I don't think that by breaking them down further into synods and local church's you accomplish your task of making them separate denominations anymore than the Knights of Columbus is listed as a denomination....you are agreeing with my point precisely.

I have attended almost all of these so-called divisions within Christianity. There is less division and more unity than quoting some statistic about 33,0000 will tell you. This just causes division.

I think catholics are Christian, as are baptists, anabaptists, lutherans, evangelicals - - simply because we love God/Jesus/Holy Spirit as one. We profess the doctrine of trinity. We don't all agree with each little point of understanding and I think God is okay with that (or else we would all attend one massive organization presided over by a dictator and hiding what we truly believe).

God recognizes small groups of believers meeting together to partake of the Lord's supper and worshipping Him. The believers in Acts met in homes, in small tight-knit groups, full of love, compassions, unity....that is our model of Church.


180 posted on 06/15/2006 11:08:07 AM PDT by colorcountry (Life isn't fair, it isn't unfair either. It just "is.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 601-618 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson