Who put them in charge?

[Rick Otto]

is a little more than implicit, IMHO.

I wouldn't touch a hypostatic union, but I have a certain fondness for hydroponic onions.

 

[lionroar0]

The Trinity


is a little more than implicit, IMHO.

I wouldn't touch a hypostatic union, but I have a certain fondness for hydroponic onions.

That's what everyone says but somehow can't post explicit verses.

I find this very interesting.

Peace

 

[IgnatiusOfAntioch]

is a little more than implicit, IMHO.
.

Great, then please post the explicit verses if they exist.

 

[Anoetos]

I think the baptism of Jesus is a startling picture of the Trinity:

The Father speaks, the Spirit descends and the Son goes forth to His redeeming work.

Explicit? No, the Trinity is not defined here but it is certainly more than just "implicit".

 

[UBERROGO]

The catholic church is what I am talking about here. I seemed to be confused because Jesus never put any one church over the others. His instructions were to live as one body in Him and love everyone unconditionly as we love our God. So why does the Catholic church think they should control the ancient scrolls, make laws, and the everything else they have done for 100's of years. I have nothing against the Catholic church, I am just confused about this. The new revival which I believe is described in the new testament; which is starting to take place now, has no one church causing the movement but the Body of Christ stepping out into the land and starting the revival. That is just a different subject though. Thanks, God bless.

Do you have a better place to keep the ancient texts? I dont think they have many laws here in America that I have to follow though. I dont find them to be particularly bossy either.

 

[lionroar0]

I think the baptism of Jesus is a startling picture of the Trinity:

The Father speaks, the Spirit descends and the Son goes forth to His redeeming work.

Explicit? No, the Trinity is not defined here but it is certainly more than just "implicit".

That is what explicit means. It means defined. The other choice is implicit wich may lead to an explicit definition. And there were times when it did not in such cases such as the Arians and the gnostics.

Peace

 

[Rick Otto]

you falsely limit our choice with a simple, "either implicit or explicit".

Allow me to borrow from your own Latin refinements.

The Trinity verses aren't exactly EXplicit, but they are indeed MORE than merely IMplicit, they are in fact HYPER-implicit!

Now pardon me if I neglect to leap at your invitation to toss my pearls before thee.

PAX! And may God RICHLY bless you!

 

[lionroar0]

Nay, my enlightened friends...


you falsely limit our choice with a simple, "either implicit or explicit".

Allow me to borrow from your own Latin refinements.

The Trinity verses aren't exactly EXplicit, but they are indeed MORE than merely IMplicit, they are in fact HYPER-implicit!

Now pardon me if I neglect to leap at your invitation to toss my pearls before thee.

PAX! And may God RICHLY bless you!

Nope sorry none of those veres say that the Trinity is undivided and of the same essence. Nor do they say that they are co-equal.

They say that the Father spoke and the Spirit descended. I guess the Father commanded the Spirit to descend to Jesus the Son. Was Jesus the Son before the Spirit decended or did He become the Son after the Spirit as commanded to descend on Jesus?

I'm well aware of your pearls. If you want to call them that.

I'm still wating for explicit verses.

Peace

 

[Anoetos]

That is what explicit means. It means defined. The other choice is implicit wich may lead to an explicit definition. And there were times when it did not in such cases such as the Arians and the gnostics.

Peace

Exactly, and Sola Fide doesn't mean that doctrines have to be explicit in Scripture in order to be true.

Protestants don't deny the competence of the Church to infer doctrine from Scripture and to articulate it having done so.

The point I am making is that this, finding the Trinity in the Bible is light years away from finding, oh, say, Mary's immaculate conception.

But it's an eyeball test really.

It looks to me like the Trinity has more granularity in the Bible and it seems to look that way to others as well since your church is the only one who endorses the IC making it, if nothing else, far from truly "catholic".

 

[christianpaintballer32]

Do you have a better place to keep the ancient texts? I dont think they have many laws here in America that I have to follow though. I dont find them to be particularly bossy either.

Well you have a good point, I am starting to learn that there are good things the RC is doing for Christianity. But if you look at how many people who don't go searching for the information most people don't know what to tell them. If people can't see the church working; whether it be a non-demoninational or Catholic church, they think Christians are pompus and self-righteous. Unfortunately the doors of all Churches who are proclaiming Jesus need to reform and open there doors and look at what is happening in their own local cities and towns. This was what was really at the root of my questions drive.

 

[lionroar0]

Exactly, and Sola Fide doesn't mean that doctrines have to be explicit in Scripture in order to be true.

Protestants don't deny the competence of the Church to infer doctrine from Scripture and to articulate it having done so.

The point I am making is that this, finding the Trinity in the Bible is light years away from finding, oh, say, Mary's immaculate conception.

But it's an eyeball test really.

It looks to me like the Trinity has more granularity in the Bible and it seems to look that way to others as well since your church is the only one who endorses the IC making it, if nothing else, far from truly "catholic".

The Immaculate conception is biblically implied but i guess we probably have to agree to disagree on this. The CC is truly Catholic and universal and the IC is not a cause of diviseness. There were many protestants denominations already alive and thriving before the IC was declared dogma.

Peace

 

[UBERROGO]

Well you have a good point, I am starting to learn that there are good things the RC is doing for Christianity. But if you look at how many people who don't go searching for the information most people don't know what to tell them. If people can't see the church working; whether it be a non-demoninational or Catholic church, they think Christians are pompus and self-righteous. Unfortunately the doors of all Churches who are proclaiming Jesus need to reform and open there doors and look at what is happening in their own local cities and towns. This was what was really at the root of my questions drive.

I dont understand what you are saying in the bold here.

If you are saying that we Christians should take care of the people around us before we take care of people over seas for instance, then I agree. I am also guessing that you (or someone you talked with) see Christians giving money away over seas when there are people who are right next to us homeless and dying. And that you or they are seeing them as doing it to get recognition without having to get down and dirty in thier own neigborhoods. Well I could see where that peopson is coming from then.

Forgive me if I am entirely off track!

 

[Rick Otto]

"Nope sorry none of those veres say that the Trinity is undivided and of the same essence."


Au contraire, mon frer. They perfectly illustrate unity of essential purpose(being) in an undivided manner.


'Nor do they say that they are co-equal.'

Their co-equality is shown in their co-equal presence & purpose. Lack of cognizence isn't proof of non-existence.


"They say that the Father spoke and the Spirit descended. I guess the Father commanded the Spirit to descend to Jesus the Son.'

I guess you are comfortable with guessing. I find THAT "interesting".

"Was Jesus the Son before the Spirit decended or did He become the Son after the Spirit as commanded to descend on Jesus?"

What's the dif?
John 1 pretty much erases your manufactured contrast.
"I'm well aware of your pearls."
>Exactly as I suspected, thus verifying the rhetorical nature of your "invitation".

"If you want to call them that.'
>Of course I want to call them that. More rhetoric instead of substance.
C'mon, you're educated in this stuff. You can do better than rhetoric.

"I'm still wating for explicit verses."

Get comfortable. Until you accept the validity of hyper-impliciteness, something your own private interpreters use, you will BE 'waiting".

Pax Domini, from your friendly, neighborhood Pontificus Minimus.

 

[lionroar0]

Au contraire, mon frer. They perfectly illustrate unity of essential purpose(being) in an undivided manner.

The same can be said a corporation. That the individuals ina corporation pefectly illiustrate unity of essential purpose(being) in an undivided manner. A corporation is although comprise of many individuals it is one entity, one being, acting in one undivided manner.

We all know that God is not a corporation.

Their co-equality is shown in their co-equal presence & purpose. Lack of cognizence isn't proof of non-existence.

Define co-equal presence and purpose. Stating that their co-equality is shown in their co-equal presence and purpose does not define their co-equality it just confuses the issue even more by bringing to undifined phares.

1. Co-equal purpose and
2. Co-equal presence.

What do these mean?

I guess you are comfortable with guessing. I find THAT "interesting".

Your deflecting the issue. I posted that interpretation to show that I can interpret those verses outside of Tradition. When intertrepeted to mean with the Tradition that defined the Trinity it mean that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are indeed Co-equal and undived.

What's the dif?
John 1 pretty much erases your manufactured contrast.
"I'm well aware of your pearls."
>Exactly as I suspected, thus verifying the rhetorical nature of your "invitation".

John states that the Word became flesh it does not say when this happened. Does John 1 say that this happen at the momment of conception or did the Word become flesh when Jesus was baptised?

If you want to call them that.'
>Of course I want to call them that. More rhetoric instead of substance.
C'mon, you're educated in this stuff. You can do better than rhetoric.

I will hold you to that as well.

Get comfortable. Until you accept the validity of hyper-impliciteness, something your own private interpreters use, you will BE 'waiting".

As yet no one has posted any explicit or verses about the Trintiy.

What does hyper-impliciteness mean?


Still waiting.

Peace

 

[christianpaintballer32]

I dont understand what you are saying in the bold here.

If you are saying that we Christians should take care of the people around us before we take care of people over seas for instance, then I agree. I am also guessing that you (or someone you talked with) see Christians giving money away over seas when there are people who are right next to us homeless and dying. And that you or they are seeing them as doing it to get recognition without having to get down and dirty in thier own neigborhoods. Well I could see where that peopson is coming from then.

Forgive me if I am entirely off track!

That is exactly what I was talking about, people on the home front of their own churches aren't looking across the street to the people who are in trouble or doing drugs or homeless. Don't get me wrong people do great work over seas, but THIS country needs people to do great work here. Also even pastors are human, I think a lot of people need to understand that and cut them some slack. That is a completely different subject though.

 

[UBERROGO]

That is exactly what I was talking about, people on the home front of their own churches aren't looking across the street to the people who are in trouble or doing drugs or homeless. Don't get me wrong people do great work over seas, but THIS country needs people to do great work here. Also even pastors are human, I think a lot of people need to understand that and cut them some slack. That is a completely different subject though.

Yeah the Church (myself included) needs to get away from just throwing money at the problem, and go take care of the problem ourselves.

 

[NewCatholic]

The catholic church is what I am talking about here.

Jesus Christ is the one. Here is a good way of discerning the Church which Christ founded.
There are a few things we know about this true church:

1) It was built by Jesus Christ himself (Matt 16:18) which means that it must be about 2000 years old.

2) Jesus only built ONE church (Matt 16:18).

3) This church is the God -ordained upholder, protector and defender of the truth(1 Tim 3:15).

4) This church is the fullness of Christ (Eph 1:22-23) which means that it is also the fullness of truth (John 14:6).

5) The unity of this church will be proof to the world that Jesus was sent by God (John 17:21,23). In order for this unity to be seen by the world this church must be a visible church.

6) The unity of this church must be a unity like that which exists between Jesus and the Father (John 17:21-23), therefore there can be no contradictions in doctrine. The Father and the Son do not disagree on doctrine therefore neither can the "true church".


7) The Church which Jesus Christ founded is the one to whom He revealed and who He gave the authority to declare and decree which books are to be contained in the New Testament.

Find that Church, and you've found the Church which Jesus Christ founded.

 

[DarkLord]

Add in history to prove CC claims:

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrneans, 8:2 (c. A.D. 110).

St Ignatius was Bishop of Antioch and lived in Apostolic Times

"[A]ll the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished." Martyrdom of Polycarp, 16:2 (A.D. 155).

Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John

The Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world, as we have already said." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 1:10,3 (A.D. 180).

St Iraneus was Bishop of Lyon and compiled the 4 Gospel

“For it is evident that those men lived not so long ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once expelled.” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).

"For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life…--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations…so does her authority…the succession of priests…[a]nd so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church…Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church…For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church…for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichaeus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you." Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichaeus, 4:5,5:6 (A.D 397)

St Augustine was a famous apologitic and hammer of heretics in 390AD. He cant be wrong.

“Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built,' who also obtained 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven...'” Tertullian, On the Prescription Against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200)

The early church (CC) was built on Peter...is urs?

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

The early church is apostolic and petrine.

 

[Rick Otto]

the early church fathers would assess the state of the church today?

 

[DarkLord]

I think they will be displeased at how divided we are with the formation of sola scriptura and lack of respect towards the CC.

But they will proud to know there are 2 billion christians in the world.