Posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:45 AM PST by policyforever867
The Holy Trinity
I'll pick this up later as I am posting on my cell. In the mean time, why don't you find the scripture that defines the trinity?
I don't have to, because I do not hold to 'sola scriptura'.
As St. Augustine said, "For my part, I would not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church."
-A8
The key is the concept of Incarnation. The notion that Jesus was both human and divine is anathama to many. I do not see how one can reconcile the notion that evil can exist in a world created by a God that is all powerful and all good unless we accept that God "became" man. Monarchialsm, the theory that "the king" himself came down and disguised himself as man and suffered death does not save the attributes of God as laid down in Scripture.
Then what value do you put on scripture?
Why do you comment on scripture?
At any rate, thank you for further reinforcing that the doctrine of the trinity is yet another creation of the church at Rome.
As St. Augustine said, "For my part, I would not believe the Gospel except on the authority of the Catholic Church."
Is Augustine your God? Is the church at Rome your God? What is the end game of such a maleable faith as this that changes with the passing of each pontiff?
I don't *put* any value on Scripture. It already *has* value, being the Word of God.
Why do you comment on scripture?
Because it is worth commenting on.
At any rate, thank you for further reinforcing that the doctrine of the trinity is yet another creation of the church at Rome.
Creation is too strong a word. All the truths of orthodoxy are received, determined, preserved, and put forward by the Catholic Church. But the Church does not "create" dogma.
Is Augustine your God?
No. He is a creature. But he is a great saint, one of the doctors of the Church, and well worth listening to. If you haven't read him, I recommend starting with his Confessions.
Is the church at Rome your God?
Yes and no. 'No', in the sense that mere human beings are creatures, and creatures are not God. But 'yes', in a sense, for the Church is the Body of Christ, and Christ is God. So there is a real sense in which our service to the Church is our service to Christ.
What is the end game of such a maleable faith as this that changes with the passing of each pontiff?
First, this is no game. This is reality, and the stakes are eternity. But second, if you think that the Catholic faith is so maleable, feel free to name one dogma that the Church has changed.
-A8
I'm starting to think you purposely misinterpret my responses. Just exactly what value is scripture to you? What is the standard with which you judge doctrine to be sound?
Because it is worth commenting on.
But if it isn't the final arbiter, what is the point? If the Word of God is not the gold standard, why bother? Why not just post excerpts from the Catechism?
Creation is too strong a word. All the truths of orthodoxy are received, determined, preserved, and put forward by the Catholic Church. But the Church does not "create" dogma.
In what year was Mary deemed to have ascended?
First, this is no game. This is reality, and the stakes are eternity.
By "end game", I meant result and I am sure you knew that.
But second, if you think that the Catholic faith is so maleable, feel free to name one dogma that the Church has changed.
KU04 grabs the rebound...... he dribbles down court..... the clock is counting down 3_2_1, KU04 shoots
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
HE SCOOOOOOOORRRRRREEEEESSSSS
"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." Cardinal Gibbons (for many years head of the Catholic Church in America), The Faith of Our Fathers (92d ed., rev.; Baltimore: John Murphy Company), p.89.
Nice shot...........swishhhhhh!
Just exactly what value is scripture to you?
Do you know the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic value? You keep asking questions about extrinsic value, as if you don't know about intrinsic value. Scripture is immensely valuable, because, as I already said, it is the "Word of God".
What is the standard with which you judge doctrine to be sound?
If the Sacred Magisterium approves it.
But if it isn't the final arbiter, what is the point? If the Word of God is not the gold standard, why bother? Why not just post excerpts from the Catechism?
You are viewing the three-fold authority (Magisterium, Scripture, Tradition) as if they are necessarily *hierarchically* related. But they are not hierarchically related. They are three equal authorities, but each in a different mode that complements the other two.
In what year was Mary deemed to have ascended?
I don't know that the *year* Mary ascended was "deemed".
By "end game", I meant result
Sorry, I didn't know you meant "result". I like chess, and "end game" in chess does not mean "result". I thought you were using a chess term.
-A8
I'll never understand how this is called monotheism...
With regarding to understanding the doctrine of the Trinity, make monotheism your *starting point*, and then it will be easier.
-A8
Are you ever going to tell me whether Sunday worship is Biblical or an invention of the church at Rome?
Jesus and the Father are not "the same entity," they are two divine persons sharing a single divine nature with the Holy Spirit.
If you add this to the first time the word God appears in scripture, the Greek shows it as "Elohim" which is a plural word. Literally translated, Genesis 1:1 should read "In the beginning, Gods created the heavens and the earth".
This is really ridiculous, cultish nonsense.
So you're saying that, when the shema says "Hear, O Israel, the LORD your God, the LORD is one" ... it doesn't really mean it?
And then there's Is 43:10, which says there's only one God ... and there it is again in Is 44:6 ... only one God again ... and Is 44:8 ... only one God again ... and Is 44:24 ... only one God again ... and oh, there it is again, in Is 45:6 ... only one God ... and Is 45:14 ... only one God ... and Is 45:18 ... only one God ... oops, there it is again, Is 45:22 ... only one God.
Do you want me to go on, or should I put up a bunch of 18pt, bright blue silliness declaring that "the Bible wins again," because, in fact, it does, against all of the false doctrines you teach.
Right. If you assume that something is X, then you'll 'think' that it's X.
I already did, remember. I said, "Yes".
Have you stopped beating your wife yet? No, wait, that's a "poisoned well," what you're trying to get me to bite on is a "false dilemma". But they're both fallacies of argumentation.
By the way, the canon of the New Testament is "an invention of the church at Rome". Better be consistent, and reject that as well. Of course, since you've already rejected the central thesis of the Old Testament, monotheism, rejecting the New Testament should be a piece of cake, true?
Monotheism is the starting point, theologically, historically, and epistemically. "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one." (Deut 6:4)
-A8
Your body is a machine that supports the functions of a sentient rational being in this world. The spirit is non-physical. It is all those things your mind holds, it's knowledge, understanding, values, wisdom, ect... Your person is the spirit. Your physical body is just a physical machine that supports and enables it. The spirit all by itself is what you identify as your self. Your self can't exist w/o the mechanics the physical machine provides for in this world.
The soul is the machine that supports the functions and holdings of spirit elsewhere, as in Heaven. The spirit in both places is the same. Just as God is a trinity, so too is man, because he was made in the image and likeness of God.
Whith man, his Earthly body came first. With God it was the other way around and Jesus had to develope the identical Spirit on His own. He was taught the knowledge by the Father, but not all knowledge, as some just wasn't given. Only the important stuff. With that He developed wisdom, understanding, made decisions to aquire values. All identical with the Fathers, so that the Spirits were the same.
In that way, there are 3 persons in one individual. The same spirit, or self is common to all 3. Only the physical differs. The individual self is eternal.
No matter what I come up with, you will find some new word or adjective to explain it away. This is what I mean with the word "maleable". This is also why the statements on sins like homosexuality by the pontiff are so incredibly long and in need of interpretation. The system is self propagating so that it can mean many things - thus "universal".
When was it deemed appropriate to sell indulgences? When was it deemed sacramental to confess one's sins to a clergyman? When was the sacrament of confirmation instituted? When was it decreed that the clergy be celibate? When was the first "holy day of obligation" kept? When was the first Easter? When was the first Christmas? When was it OK to bow and pray to a statue and when was it not? All of these things have a starting point long after the close of scripture. In the case of Sunday worship, we actually know when this apostasy was decreed because it took a civil law to enforce it. The indulgence sales have stopped. Are these dogmas, doctrines, rites of passage, dictates, ordinances, initiations, or shall I call them something else? Whatever they are, some Catholics practiced them and some have not. There have been many changes in your system of worship, of this there is no doubt.
Do you know the difference between extrinsic and intrinsic value? You keep asking questions about extrinsic value, as if you don't know about intrinsic value. Scripture is immensely valuable, because, as I already said, it is the "Word of God".
Adding adjectives to the word "value" does not define what value you ascribe to scripture. Since it was proven in my last post that the Catholic church willfully breaks a commandment of God, I can only deduce that scripture has no value to you.
You are viewing the three-fold authority (Magisterium, Scripture, Tradition) as if they are necessarily *hierarchically* related. But they are not hierarchically related. They are three equal authorities, but each in a different mode that complements the other two.
What is the deal with you and three co-equal brances? This is a religion thread with absolutes, not a constitutional thread. If you guys have no standard and just go with what the guy at the top says, then why don't you just say that?
I don't know that the *year* Mary ascended was "deemed".
In what year was it deemed by the chuch at Rome that Mary had ascended? At what point in history was it deemed appropriate, or even sacramental, for Mary to be prayed to? Did the apostles do this? Which ECF insituted this practice?
Both cannot be true. Answer it so we can move on. Is Sunday worship biblical or is it a witness to the binding and loosing power of the church at Rome? Without an answer to this, I have no reference in which to continue the debate. This guysseems to be able to answer it, why can't you?
"You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify." Cardinal Gibbons (for many years head of the Catholic Church in America), The Faith of Our Fathers (92d ed., rev.; Baltimore: John Murphy Company), p.89.
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.