A simple question with a simple answer.

[Imagican]

If one reads what is taught as the Trinity Doctrine, one could never make such statements. The Persons are independent but still One Being.

And regardless of what one thinks is the meaning behind "the Word of God" or whether one believes the Three are indeed One, it is still true that Saint John says Jesus was there when everything was created and that NOTHING that is was not made through Him.

So even if one tosses out the teaching of the Trinity Doctrine, Saint John does not make the distinction needed (between living and non-living) required to arrive at one Divine Being making some stuff including another divine being who then makes every thing living. I do not need the Trinity Doctrine to that rendering of Gen 1:1-4 to see that it does not work with what Saint John clearly says about "everything that is".

"2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Let me try this ONE more TIME:

My gosh. You have taken ONE line out of the entire Bible and decided that it is LITERAL in the sense that YOU want it to be. But there are OTHER LINES in the Bible. And we are NOT to form doctrine over a LINE of the Bible. But to compare each line to ALL others in order to FIND the truth.

We have specific lines that ALSO state that Christ is the LIGHT of men. That He is the FIRSTBORN of EVERY creature. That He is the BEGINNING of the creation of GOD. Many lines that specifically refer to His part in creation as pertaining to LIFE. So if we ADD UP the lines instead of trying to make ONE LINE literal, we see that it expresses a DIFFERENT meaning than the ONE you are tying to say it MUST BE.

If someone simply says ALL things, it MUST be in reference to SOMETHING. Jesus did NOT create GOD. As far as we are instructed, He didn't create the ANGELS either. NOR was He responsible for creating HEAVEN. It more so speaks of Him being instrumental in the creation of ALL things ON this earth and in the heavens. Not ALL THINGS period. And at one point it offers direct explanation of that which He is responsible for creating. You've read it but haven't ACCEPTED what it actually offers:

Colossians 1

5 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.


Here is the IMPORTANCE of what is offered in the above scripture. EVERY THING mentioned is in reference to LIFE. thrones, dominions principalities, powers, the church, firstborn from the dead. Every ITEM mentioned are items pertaining to LIFE. And I have already pointed out that ALL things were NOT created by Christ. God is ONE. the realm of God another. The angels. And as far as I'm concerned, the LIGHT created in the very beginning was NOT created by Christ, but GOD. The heavens and the EARTH itself, created not by Christ, but GOD.


But in the words above, it would SEEM to read: 'all things pertaining to this LIST of things', not ALL THINGS PERIOD. Read it yourself WITHOUT trying to interject your OWN ideas.


When Pharaoh gave Joseph power over ALL things in his kingdom, you can rest assured that that didn't INCLUDE himself. That's a GIVEN. He didn't need to say, "I give you power over ALL things, (except myself)". I was a given that his authority did NOT over ride Pharaoh himself. So the 'all things' was LIMITED to SPECIFIC things.


And it is no different with the words we have pertaining to Christ creating "ALL THINGS". It does not LITERALLY mean ALL things, but ALL things pertaining to a SPECIFIC purpose.


I find it difficult to understand why this concept is so difficult to YOU to understand. YES, if we take the ONE line that you offer, it would SEEM to mean what you say it does. But that is NOT the ONLY line pertaining to this subject. We MUST take ALL lines pertaining to the subject in order to come to PROPER understanding.


Blessings,


MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

First of all am not the one claiming we can take a single sentence in the beginning of the Bible in isolation and claim it tells us all we need to know about Jesus and God, or at least about whether Jesus was "made". No one, at least no one claiming to hold the Bible as Gods Word, until very recent era questioned whether God Himself was made.

As to the opening of the Gospel of Love, it actually and very literally says "all things made" not just "all things". Since God "is" He is not "made" and would not be included in anyone's mind hearing those words. The question, or rather one question that arose very early in the Church was whether being "not created" or "not made" included Jesus; likewise the meaning of "first born", "only begotten", "Son"...etc..

Since the same Saint writing this also says He is God, people that believe God made everything that is made do not need to ask whether Saint John meant everything or just everything living/alive. And those with a healthy understanding of the vastness of God certainly do not need to ask who made Him.

Also try this: God became Man and died for all, making it possible for (not forcing) the restoration of the entire human race vs God created someone else to do that for Him and then try to explain how those options fair in light of what that Man said about no Greater Love.

 

[Imagican]

And just look at what you have allowed a 'man made doctrine' dictate what you believe that isn't really there. You state that Jesus WAS God in the flesh, and then make reference in the same sentence that directly opposes the view:

The "no greater love" STATES that God sent HIS SON. it does NOT offer that God became FLESH. And since God CANNOT die, it could NOT have been God that DIED upon the cross. It doesn't take rocket science to clearly SEE that Jesus LITERALLY died upon the cross. And we have His Words stating that God had abandoned Him. Yet you still can't get past 'trinity' to SEE who it was that died upon the cross.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Actually the verse by the writer of the Gospel of Love I was referring to states:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."


So my point was to compare and contrast the two views of God/Jesus in light of that statement. One has God sending another to become a man and die for us (the human race), the other God Himself becomes Man to die for us. So in light of John 15, which version has shown a greater Love?

So it is a simple question. According to Saint John, Is it showing more love to send someone to die to save your friends , or to offer up ones own life?

And no I am not belittling the sacrifice any father makes, sending a child into harms ways for the greater good.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . Colossians 1

5 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

Here is the IMPORTANCE of what is offered in the above scripture. EVERY THING mentioned is in reference to LIFE. thrones, dominions principalities, powers, the church, firstborn from the dead. Every ITEM mentioned are items pertaining to LIFE. And I have already pointed out that ALL things were NOT created by Christ. God is ONE. the realm of God another. The angels. And as far as I'm concerned, the LIGHT created in the very beginning was NOT created by Christ, but GOD. The heavens and the EARTH itself, created not by Christ, but GOD.

But in the words above, it would SEEM to read: 'all things pertaining to this LIST of things', not ALL THINGS PERIOD. Read it yourself WITHOUT trying to interject your OWN ideas. . . .

Wrong! You accuse someone else of interjecting their own ideas into scripture when that is exactly what you done. If Paul had intended to say "all things pertaining to this list of things" that is exactly what he would have said.

Paul wrote "τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται." He would have written, "τὰ πάντα [γέγραπται ὧδε] δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται" if he had intended to write "all things written here," rather than "all things."

 

[Imagican]

Could it be said it is just a obvious that the light being created in Gen 1-4 is physical light since it states it was separated into day and night?

Would also be leery of anyone suggesting the Bible contains or was even meant to contain all the answers or that God intended for man to "know" everything He knows.
There are plenty of passages suggesting He is beyond our comprehension/imagination. So again, laugh at Trinity Doctrine all one likes, which BTW was never intended to "fully" explain God - it only came about as a defense against what others claimed about God, the Father, Jesus and the Spirit - so it is really more of what God is not teaching rather than a full explanation of something we obviously cannot come close to comprehending. Trinity aside, my point remains that what is being offered here as simple is simply not.

Let me assure you, I do not LAUGH at 'trinity'. I simply choose to follow as instructed through scripture. Not one line of scripture instructs me to accept or follow 'trinity'. And ANYONE that makes even a simple attempt can find the evidence that it was a purely 'man made doctrine'. That the ORIGINAL view of the Son was NOT: 'the Son being ONE person of three that make up ONE God'.

'Trinity' doesn't EXPLAIN anything in any sense of 'rationality'. Even those that created it and forced it into 'the church', openly admit that it is STILL a 'mystery', (incomprehensible to any created intellect). So that begs the question: why 'create something that doesn't EXPLAIN anything'? And couple this idea with what we are offered concerning "Godhead", and it becomes perfectly clear that 'trinity' was simply a group of men insistent upon worshiping the Son AS God. And the ONLY way to do this was to CREATE 'trinity'.

Oh, and the 'day and night' thing? Are you serious? A day to God can be as a thousand years or a thousand years as a day. Yet you personally believe in a literal 'six DAY creation'?

Ever heard someone use the EXPRESSION, "Back in MY day?" Does this mean a LITERAL 'day'?

God related to Moses, (a much more simple man than those that exist today), what Moses could UNDERSTAND. Instead of going into intricate detail concerning 'creation', it was offered in basic terms that could be understood by the men it was given to at the time. A 'day' was OBVIOUSLY used in reference to the BEGINNING and ENDING of TIME periods. Or, Maybe you believe that God just 'snapped His fingers' and everything was just 'created'. If that's the case, WHY 'a day'. Why not a minute or and hour?

The IDEA that the term 'day' as used in the Bible is LITERAL is to believe that God is somehow confined to 'THE' day determined by a Sun and Planet that HE created. As far as we know, a DAY to God is a complete rotation of the ENTIRE Galaxy. As far as we know, there may have only been a thousand 'God days' since 'creation'.

God used the term DAY because it represented something that Moses COULD understand. If God had tried to use numbers like millions or billions, that would have offered NOTHING but confusion at the time.

But if you believe that the days were literal 24 hour periods of time, then you believe that Dinosaurs and men LIVED together. You know, like T-Rex and such. Yet in that ENTIRE layer of sediments in which their remains exist, not ONE single sample of HUMAN remains has been found. Millions of fossils of other 'creatures', but not ONE PIECE of human remains in THAT layer that contains the Dinosaurs???? Hmmmm............

The obviousness is that 'day' was merely a term used to define ONE act of 'creation' from another. And DAY and NIGHT were representative of BEGINNING and END. Nothing more.

Mere speculation so far as having the ability to PROVE any of this. But there IS evidence to the CONTRARY of the idea of literal DAYS. These were simply words used to determine EVENTS. And we have found evidence SINCE those words were penned that plainly illustrate that all was NOT accomplished in literal six 24 hour periods of time. Add to that God is ETERNAL and there is NO reason to believe that He was in 'such a hurry' to prepare this planet for our existence. Gold takes millions of years to form. Oil takes millions of years to form. Diamonds take millions of years to form. "Naturally" of course. Either that, or you are forced to dismiss EVERYTHING that pertains to SCIENCE.

To boil it down to it's simplest terms, the term 'day' was merely symbolic of a TIME period in which certain events 'took place'. Night and Day were simply used to indicate a beginning and ending of particular events. These words were OBVIOUSLY used 'symbolically' when we add up all the evidence. And it's not the ONLY place in the Bible where words are used 'symbolically'. You know, like using the 'term' DUST when referencing the 'creation of man'. We are NOT 'made of literal DUST'. If you believe so, DEFINE 'THE' dust from which we were 'created'. What 'dust' most likely MEANS according to the manner in which is was used would be 'ELEMENTS' or "COMPOUNDS" in TODAY'S language and understanding. We can even see the evidence of this in terms used LATER in the Bible. Towards the end of the Bible we SEE God explain that at one point, even the very ELEMENTS of this Earth being MELTED with extreme heat. An indication that as man's UNDERSTANDING increased, God was able to more accurately explain things in words with MORE direct meaning.

The use of the 'term' "LIGHT" in the NT in reference to Christ, does this mean LITERAL 'Light'? Or is it 'something' different? Perhaps something 'spiritual' that has absolutely NOTHING to do with that which is PHYSICAL? Or are we to believe that Christ 'glowed in the dark'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Actually the verse by the writer of the Gospel of Love I was referring to states:

"Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends."


So my point was to compare and contrast the two views of God/Jesus in light of that statement. One has God sending another to become a man and die for us (the human race), the other God Himself becomes Man to die for us. So in light of John 15, which version has shown a greater Love?

So it is a simple question. According to Saint John, Is it showing more love to send someone to die to save your friends , or to offer up ones own life?

And no I am not belittling the sacrifice any father makes, sending a child into harms ways for the greater good.

Once again, you take ONE line and attempt to form DOCTRINE. What about all the OTHER lines of scripture? How about the lines that STATE that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to actually SEE God and LIVE? That indicates that the 'glory' of God is so intense that for a man to encounter it would result in his DEATH. If this is TRUTH, then how could God, who's glory cannot be encountered directly by man, BECOME a 'man' without DESTROYING him?

And if God is immortal, He CANNOT 'lay down His LIFE'.

Take this into consideration: When imploring Abraham to PROVE his love for God, what did God require? And if God required this of Abraham, could God offer ANY LESS in return?

See, that is EXACTLY what God did: He offered HIS SON, not HIMSELF. And the ENTIRE NT explains this without confusion. When Christ identified Himself, He did NOT identify Himself AS God. When Christ asked the apostles, "Who do YOU say that I am?" Their answer was unanimous: The SON of the LIVING God.

And the FACT that the last words recorded by Christ were: "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" PURELY proves that it was NOT God who died upon the cross. For Christ could not have uttered these words UNLESS they were the TRUTH. And to BE the truth, that means that the very SPIRIT of God had to withdraw itself from Christ for His words to be TRUTH. "Forsaken" MEANS 'abandon'. So Christ was CERTAINLY not God when He uttered these words. And the words were NOT: "My Father", but "My God".

You indicate that you are somehow assured of 'trinity'. Yet that in and of itself is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You can only SAY that you are assured. For it is IMPOSSIBLE to be SURE about a 'mystery' other than in that it IS a 'mystery'. The ONLY understanding offered in a mystery IS the FACT that it is a mystery. There is NO true understanding in a MYSTERY. That's what MAKES a mystery a mystery, the FACT that it is NOT understood. If not understood, there can be NO 'true' assurance. MERE 'speculation'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Wrong! You accuse someone else of interjecting their own ideas into scripture when that is exactly what you done. If Paul had intended to say "all things pertaining to this list of things" that is exactly what he would have said.

Paul wrote "τὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται." He would have written, "τὰ πάντα [γέγραπται ὧδε] δι' αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται" if he had intended to write "all things written here," rather than "all things."

You know, I assume that since God instilled the potential for abstract thought into His ultimate ''creation'', He most likely expected it to be USED according to His Word. But I must admit, to some, it seems a foreign concept.

Who was the Bible written to? Who was meant to READ it? If the answer is MAN. Then what is contained within the Bible is: 'that which pertains to MAN'. Not a 'big brainer'. Just common sense.

So, if God is eternal, then OBVIOUSLY there has been MUCH that has 'taken place' in eternity. Our creation is only a SPECK of time compared to ETERNITY.

With these things in mind, we can come to some conclusions concerning the manner in which God has chosen to communicate with US, (mankind). And one of those conclusions is that God was NOT 'created' by Christ. Nor is there any indication that the domain where God exists as well. So there are TWO 'things' that Christ did NOT 'create'. And, if Christ was INDEED: a created being, then whatever existed BEFORE His creation was NOT 'created' by HIM.

So I'm not merely GUESSING here, I am simply taking what has been offered and applying whatever EVIDENCE exists to the words offered. That you have chosen to allow a group of very LIMITED men to create their OWN doctrine and accept it as your own doesn't LIMIT me in the same manner. For I was NOT instructed to follow ROMANS and their interpretation of the Bible. The Bible was created so that I could READ it and come to proper understanding WITHOUT some 'other man' forcing me to believe what THEY insist I must.

By accepting a 'doctrine' created by men, you have CHOSEN to limit yourself to THEIR understanding. And once accepted, it is IMPOSSIBLE to see BEYOND what has been accepted. Not THE 'path' that I choose to follow.

ALL 'things' were NOT 'created' by Christ. So that makes it APPARENT that the 'all things' offered is in reference to 'all things PERTAINING to something IN PARTICULAR'. And in the case of the Bible that was written TO MEN, it obviously means 'all things pertaining to MAN'. Not 'all things PERIOD'.

So it's not ME that has allowed 'doctrines of men' to limit my understanding. I REFUSE to get CAUGHT UP in 'religions' created by MEN. And I certainly refuse to adhere to Gods created by men as well. The God that I worship loves ME enough to reveal whatever 'truths' He wishes me to understand. And it is THROUGH scripture that He has offered UNDERSTANDING. But, it does take one able and willing to understand and accept what is offered AS it is offered.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Ok, regardless of agreement or disagreement, let's focus on THIS:

When we are told that Jesus Christ IS the "Light of this world", what does THAT mean? Is it a matter of the 'physical' or is it a matter of that which is "Spiritual"?

Let us focus on THIS 'simple question' and it's obvious answer, "What does it MEAN?" In what 'manner' is Jesus Christ: the Light of this world?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The only "mystery" is man's inability to fully comprehend the Nature of His existence. The Trinity Doctrine is not a "mystery" and no one should deny that it "developed". Since I follow a teaching authority given the Grace of teaching on such matters without error, it does not bother me to know that they had to defend what little we do God/Father/Jesus/Holy Ghost are against those who would claim things like "Jesus was not a man" or Jesus was "created in the beginning" or "Jesus is not Divine".

Oh, and the 'day and night' thing? Are you serious? A day to God can be as a thousand years or a thousand years as a day. Yet you personally believe in a literal 'six DAY creation'?

Actually only mentioned it because the key verse in the first version of the Creation story depicts the "creation" of night and day, (darkness and light), and I thought that same verse was being used here to suggest it means Jesus was created, which then means one has to confess at same time Evil was created -which results in other issues with one's version of Who God is.
Personally I believe God capable of doing 6 days if we wanted or taking eons, and also making whatever resulted in 6 days look like it was eons old. As long as one professes the Father made all that "is" through Jesus, am not sure it matters whether one thinks that literally took 6 days or 6 eons.

The use of the 'term' "LIGHT" in the NT in reference to Christ, does this mean LITERAL 'Light'? Or is it 'something' different? Perhaps something 'spiritual' that has absolutely NOTHING to do with that which is PHYSICAL? Or are we to believe that Christ 'glowed in the dark'?

Blessings,

MEC

Light, like Good are used to depict God, and I am perfectly willing to give Jesus that title. It is also often used as a contrast to dark/evil. And with the anti-ortho/tradition direction this thread/thoughts have taken, one might as well suggest the devil/pre-existed this creation also and/or God made evil which is an oxymoron one believes God is Good.

As to Light of the World, it is also in reference to "drawing" all mankind to Him, which in our normal state, being made in His Image (Who alone is All Good), we would by our nature be attracted to Goodness provided we do not let our habit of sin harden our hearts.


sdsd

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Once again, you take ONE line and attempt to form DOCTRINE. What about all the OTHER lines of scripture? How about the lines that STATE that it is IMPOSSIBLE for a man to actually SEE God and LIVE? That indicates that the 'glory' of God is so intense that for a man to encounter it would result in his DEATH. If this is TRUTH, then how could God, who's glory cannot be encountered directly by man, BECOME a 'man' without DESTROYING him?

And if God is immortal, He CANNOT 'lay down His LIFE'.

Take this into consideration: When imploring Abraham to PROVE his love for God, what did God require? And if God required this of Abraham, could God offer ANY LESS in return?

See, that is EXACTLY what God did: He offered HIS SON, not HIMSELF. And the ENTIRE NT explains this without confusion. When Christ identified Himself, He did NOT identify Himself AS God. When Christ asked the apostles, "Who do YOU say that I am?" Their answer was unanimous: The SON of the LIVING God.

And the FACT that the last words recorded by Christ were: "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" PURELY proves that it was NOT God who died upon the cross. For Christ could not have uttered these words UNLESS they were the TRUTH. And to BE the truth, that means that the very SPIRIT of God had to withdraw itself from Christ for His words to be TRUTH. "Forsaken" MEANS 'abandon'. So Christ was CERTAINLY not God when He uttered these words. And the words were NOT: "My Father", but "My God".

You indicate that you are somehow assured of 'trinity'. Yet that in and of itself is an IMPOSSIBILITY. You can only SAY that you are assured. For it is IMPOSSIBLE to be SURE about a 'mystery' other than in that it IS a 'mystery'. The ONLY understanding offered in a mystery IS the FACT that it is a mystery. There is NO true understanding in a MYSTERY. That's what MAKES a mystery a mystery, the FACT that it is NOT understood. If not understood, there can be NO 'true' assurance. MERE 'speculation'.

Blessings,

MEC

Actually I used a single verse to ask a question, one we should all note was not even attempted to answer.

And if God became Man, then that man indeed is capable of laying down His life. But that is beside the point and unnecessary to address to answer my question.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Ok, regardless of agreement or disagreement, let's focus on THIS:

When we are told that Jesus Christ IS the "Light of this world", what does THAT mean? Is it a matter of the 'physical' or is it a matter of that which is "Spiritual"?

Let us focus on THIS 'simple question' and it's obvious answer, "What does it MEAN?" In what 'manner' is Jesus Christ: the Light of this world?

Blessings,

MEC

Both. As I said, being God He is all Good. Our being made in His Image means we would be attracted to that Goodness, like a moth to light. Our corrupted nature due to the sin of our first parent means we tend to rebel against that nature, can harden our hearts and act against that Nature. However that corruption of human nature does not alter Who He is - still the Light, still All Good and still able to draw all mankind to Him.

 

[Norah63]

Trinity is not "simple". It is said to be a mystery for just that reason.
Another other way of seeing truth , they see as a plurality of God's.
Which is not accepted by Jews or trinitarians.
Who wouldn't want there to be a Son, or any other sons and daughters?
Thoughts?

 

[Imagican]

Doc,

According to those that created and instituted 'trinity', you are incorrect. For those that created and instituted 'trinity' outright STATE that it is indeed, a mystery. Maybe you should learn more about what it is that you profess to believe in. But here, let me 'enlighten you':

From New Advent:

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.

These words offered by those that CREATED 'trinity'. So if there IS such a 'thing' as 'trinity', the words offered above are words as close as humanly possible used to describe it's NATURE.

New Advent is the 'Catholic Encyclopedia'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

If you 'boil it down' to it's basic premise, it works like this:

The Roman's 'religions' EVOLVED over time. Since what became ROME was a 'gathering' of people from throughout the Empire, the obviousness is that ROME was not a 'singular' entity, but much like America: a 'melting pot' of people from all over the KNOWN world at the time.

And as ROME evolved, so too did their 'religions'. And as MOST philosophers saw it, this 'evolution' was a necessary process for coming to a COMPLETE 'truth'.

And this is HOW 'Christianity' became a PART of the Roman Empire. It was adopted as the 'next step' in the evolution of THEIR 'religions'.

Instead of 'starting over' with Christ. They basically introduced Christ into their previous 'religions'.

And we can clearly SEE the evidence to prove what I have offered. For the RCC has 'traditions' that have absolutely NOTHING to do with 'Christianity'. So instead of LETTING GO of their past, they simply introduced Christ INTO their 'religion' as the NEXT evolutionary step in the development of their 'religion'.

Temples, (Cathedrals), rules and regulations, the Pope as the 'vicar of Christ', idolatry, (bowing to and praying TO statues), the robes and colors, the 'Holy days', their method of chanting, rosary beads, the list is practically ENDLESS of those THINGS that were a part of their 'religion' PREVIOUS to the introduction of Christ.

And there were 'sects' of the 'religions' in Rome that placed their faith in 'multi part gods'. Gods that were made up of MORE than one 'person' to to say. More than ONE entity that coexisted in ONE god.

So it only stands to reason that it was perfectly clear to some when they encountered 'Father, Son and Spirit' that this concept existed in Christianity as well.

Yet in DIFFERENT parts of the world, there WERE those that refuted their ideas and fought against them. There WERE those that simply accepted what was offered by the apostles without a NEED to create 'doctrine' different than that which had been offered. Those that were more interested in following as they had been directed rather than 'make up' a NEW manner in which to worship.

So at one point, a pagan Emperor took it upon HIMSELF to have a debate and at it's conclusion declared that from, "that" moment on, in HIS Empire, Jesus and God were the SAME.

And of interest is Constantine. A pagan Emperor who's Empire was 'falling apart'. He was DESPERATE to find SOME way to keep it together. And when he witnessed those that were willing to DIE for their faith, it obviously had such an impact upon him that he decided to bring this new religion INTO his Empire in the HOPES that it would be the "GLUE" that could be used to hold his Empire together. A UNIFIED 'religion' where it's adherents were willing to DIE for their 'God'.

But what ensued was NOT merely allowing 'Christianity' into the Empire. What happened was basically the formation of a NEW religion that they CALLED 'Christianity'. But in fact, it's RULES and DOCTRINES and regulations were MAN MADE completely OUTSIDE Of what already existed. They basically formed an almost COMPLETELY NEW religion.

And if one does their homework, it is CLEAR that other places that were ALREADY 'Christian' BEFORE it was condoned in Rome, had a LOT of differences WITH Rome once Rome started forming THEIR 'new religion' and calling it "Christianity". What did Rome DO? They EXCOMMUNICATED all that did not AGREE with their NEW 'religion'. They imprisoned, tortured and murdered any and EVERYONE that disagreed with their "NEW" religion until one was forced to HIDE whatever one practiced that didn't AGREE with the EMPIRE. Eventually, the teachings of the Empire WON out and only a very FEW of the TRUE believers and followers EXISTED. And THOSE were forced to KEEP their faith TO THEMSELVES or face the possibility of being imprisoned, tortured or murdered IN THE NAME OF CHRIST.

And folks, THAT, in and of itself OUGHT to be ENOUGH for those that understand the TRUTH to clearly SEE: you CANNOT torture and murder people in the name of the TRUE Christ. IMPOSSIBLE. So that can only indicate that those that would do such things could ONLY do them in the NAME of Christ. And the 'Christ' who's name they were using was a Christ that they DIDN'T even KNOW. And if they didn't know Him, He didn't KNOW them.

Matthew 7:

20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.
21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.


Blessings,


MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Imagican,
Cannot have it both ways. Mystery in that context simply means we would not have arrived at a particular knowledge absent Divine Revelation and as such we are also incapable of elaborating (fuller knowledge) further or making clear analogies. Once a thing is revealed by God (Divine Revelation), it is known and accepted as true - which was my point. In this context, that Jesus is God, Father is God, Holy Ghost is God and there is One God is not a mystery - it is truth and that declared in the Trinity Doctrine. What is rightly called a "mystery" is our inability to understand how Three are One, not the fact that They are One. And am ok with not being able to fully comprehend God, whereas some think that is a problem.

I have no problem with the idea God could reveal things to mankind or establish a teaching authority on earth to protect and spread His Revelation of Himself to man, of which the Trinity Doctrine is a small part.

And we note again no attempt to respond to my question. Seems a little one sided here

 

[DrBubbaLove]

LOL, avoid answering a simple question and deflect by throwing mud at the Church. People have been doing that for several thousand years, the same Church is still here as God promised it would be.

Want to try to respond to my question?

 

[Imagican]

Ok Doc, I give up. Do me a favor. I am a simple man. I have gone back and tried to find the 'question' you are referring to but so far have been unsuccessful. So, if it is not too much trouble, repeat the question so that I know what you are referring to. I will certainly do my best to answer it. For I assure you I have NOT intentionally avoided answering ANYTHING that has been asked of me. But I am a man. Perfectly capable of mistakes.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Norah63]

So it is a simple question. According to Saint John, Is it showing more love to send someone to die to save your friends , or to offer up ones own life?

Is this it?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

yup