Spirituality
14 Dec 09
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by galveston75This is quite a lot to swallow. You have raised several issues which I will try to address separately.
I have answered this before with many, many postings but start with this:
http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/Contents/doctrine/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Trinity.htm
And the few scriptures that are misunderstood that you think supports the trinity add up to about 4 where as the whole Bible never teaches it. So that's 66 books that never teach the trinit ...[text shortened]... esearch on line is very easy for anyone to do and see the proof that the trinity is paganistic.
1. The site you have supplied does not offer a very convincing picture of trinities in pagan culture. It certainly shows triads, such as Anu, Enlil and Enki. However, this is a far cry from the Trinity. The traditional Trinitarian formula states that God is whole, integrated and one and cannot be divided. However, according to the author of this site, Anu and Enlil and Enki were separate gods, of different natures. They were not one God. In the case of Amun, Re, Ptah, he speaks of them as divisible, with Amum its name and Ptah as its body. This is not remotely Trinitarian because it allows for the divisibility of the Triad into individual parts whereas the Trinitarian formula says that there is only one nature, no division but instead total unity in the Godhead. This is the Catholic criticism offered on Catholic answers:
'The Christian Trinity is the most emphatic assertion of the unity and unicity of the Godhead, whereas in pagan religions, whatever their triad may be, it is an absolute denial of the unity of the Godhead.
...
'The gods Anu and Ea were originally Sumerian gods. Ea was the god of the city of Eridu on the Persian Gulf and reputed the giver of learning and wisdom. He was the Neptune or ocean god and embodied the mysteriousness of the distant waters. Bel is the well-known Baal, or "Lord" of the Bible, since the Semites conceived the deity as lord or king: melek. As "Lord" of the City of Nippur he took the characteristics of its old Sumerian city-god Enlil, a storm-god wielding the hurricane, and was gradually transmuted into the lord of the earth and the lord of mankind. Anu was the most ancient of all the gods; the word means heaven and no doubt was once used for a purer concept of the deity, before it was degraded to a kind of political polytheism….How can anyone of common sense see any connection whatever between their crude Babylonian fancies and the Christian Trinity? One might as well cite Jupiter, Mars, and Mercury or Zeus, Ares, and Hermes as prototypes of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.'
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9207clas.asp
It is impossible to deal with all the other claims of this author. I do not believe it is a very trustworthy source of historical information. Catholics would largely agree that early Christianity embraced Greek philosophy. In many ways, this is a strength. However, Catholics would reject the idea that this entailed some kind of syncretism. The last two Popes have affirmed the importance of Hellenic philosophy and its important role in Christianity but have never embraced Hellenic religion. I would also say that the idea of the Trinity rather than Modalism runs counter to the Gnosticism which the author said was the primary influence over early Christianity.
2. For the majority of Christians, i.e. Catholics, Orthodox and to some extent Anglicans, dogma is seen as developmental. The fullness of revelation came in Jesus Christ and is inerrantly recorded in the Scriptures. However, the Scriptures were never intended to be a collection of dogmatic statements. They are not written like legislation nor like scientific textbooks. So consequently, when later Christians were confronted with philosophical questions, like the divinity of Christ, the unicity of God or even what books are part of the bible, they believed that the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, would help them resolve these dilemmas. In no way have they believed that they are adding to Revelation but rather making explicit what was already implicit in Scripture. This is the basis of Tradition. So Christians would argue that while no explicit mention of the Trinity is in the bible, there is compelling evidence in John 1 (even if it is mentioned only once) and that the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised his apostles, resolved the dispute at the Nicene Council. Christianity, and especially Catholics since Henry Newman, has understood that doctrine emerges in history by the work of the Holy Spirit and that this is handed down via Tradition.
3. As I indicated earlier, the Trinity actually comes before the official promulgation of the bible. Catholics have always wondered on what basis Protestants feel assured of the authenticity of Scripture when no consensus emerged until much later (in fact, even at the time of the Nicene Council there was dispute about some books.) Without the authority of the Church to decide the biblical canon, how do Protestants know which books are inspired and which are not? Catholics also wonder why Jesus Christ would abandon his church and leave only a book as the source of revelation -- at a time when the majority of Christians were illiterate.
4. From a theological perspective, I also wonder how non-Trinitarians who presumably reject the divinity of Christ as well understand the redemption. For the majority of Christians, the efficacy of the redemption derives from the incarnation -- Jesus Christ as both man and God atones for the sins of man and redeems man to God. But if Jesus Christ was only a man, couldn't anyone atone for mankind's sins (why not St. Peter who supposedly suffered the crucifixion upside down?).
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI suspect the greatest obstacle is semantic. In another thread, Jaywill talks about Jesus Christ and the Spirit as one "person" in a way which is very different to the traditional formulation of nature and person. Quite possibly, we are in full agreement and there is only apparent discord because the language used is not mutually understood. I am sure if I had the pedagogic abilities to clarify what these terms mean, I would show that there is more agreement than disagreement. Theology I guess is one of those difficult areas where language is more of a barrier than a medium.
Lots of people hold beliefs that lots of other people find weird. Sometimes there are paradigmatic differences that make just understanding—let alone any agreement—difficult.* Most of our arguments on here really end up being little more than information sharing, that can at least promote understanding (in my opinion, argument—or debate, if you prefer—is a ...[text shortened]... ove, information sharing to further mutual understanding. That, in itself, is difficult enough.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75No galveston, the EXPERIENCE of the Trinity rules.
Confusion, theories, opinions, mysteries, etc, etc. I guess the Mystery of the Trinity rules....
Conrau is doing a very good job at an schoarly and intellectual refutation of your concepts.
But that the Triune God is mysterious is the Bible's word, not man's. So what?
There are mysterious things which we can enjoy and experience. Are you afraid to experience somthing which you cannot fully explain or understand ?
"The mystery of Christ" (Col. 4:3) That is the Bible's word and not the pronouncement of some historical creed.
"Holding the mystery of the faith" (1 Tim. 3:16) again, not the decision of a council in a creed but the word of the New Testament.
" ... unto the full knowledge of the mystery of God, Christ" (Col. 2:2) This too is not the Nicene pronouncement. This is not creed or doctrine. It is the pure utterance of the Scripture.
We can enjoy the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. To fully explain this mysterious God is difficult. The New Testament tells us that not a church council.
So we receive Christ, the mystery of God, and love Him and enjoy Him and teach about Him. Like Paul who prayed he would open his mouth boldly concerning the mystery:
"Praying at the same time for us also, that God would open to us a door for the word, to speak the mystery of Christ (because of which also I am bound)" (Col. 4:3)
Put away your scoffing that we admit the Triune God is mysterious. Open your being to the mystery and receive Christ into your heart by faith.
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasin the case of a minor it is out of the hands of any parent. In the UK, the hospital may administer blood, regardless of the wishes of even the minor, or their parents. Therefore that rules out sons and daughters. In the case of an adult we have the right of seld determination, that means that we have the right to decide what shall be done with our own bodies.
If people laugh *with* you, you are a real joker. If people laugh *at* you, then you are nothing more than a fool.
Now a quesiton to you: If you daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife or your own mother need a blood transfusion - do you help her to the doctor or do you let her die in a ocean of prayers of yours?
Don't make me laugh, it's a serious question that deserves a serious answer.
There are in fact many bloodless alternatives, therefore it is usually, even in the case of an emergency, not really an issue. The problems usually arise when hospitals do not know of, or feel reluctant to use alternative procedures, or when the patient themselves have not made their wishes known and can therefore have their stance (or that of the next of kin) legally contested by the hospital.
In the case of elective surgery, there are also many procedures that a person can take, depending on the dictates of their conscience. There are now, what is termed blood fractions, essentially derivatives of blood, but not whole blood or any of its four constituent parts, many of these are now recombinant and can be synthetically produced and it is up to the individual conscience whether a Christian Witness shall make use of these or not.
In America there are entire hopsitals dedicated to bloodless surgery, where patients have a greater rate of recovery than those who suffer complications through the use of blood. i have tried my best to be informative, however, each case must be evaluated on an individual basis, and these rae just general principles and guidelines.
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo you rather send your daughter, your sister, your girlfriend, your wife and your mother to a certain death even if a transfusion could save their lives.
in the case of a minor it is out of the hands of any parent. In the UK, the hospital may administer blood, regardless of the wishes of even the minor, or their parents. Therefore that rules out sons and daughters. In the case of an adult we have the right of seld determination, that means that we have the right to decide what shall be done with ou ...[text shortened]... must be evaluated on an individual basis, and these rae just general principles and guidelines.
Okay. Question asked and answered.
Quite barbaric if you ask me. I'm glad that there are more JW culters than there are. I wouldn't be a christian follower if this was used by christians. I'm glad that I'm not that brutal kind.
15 Dec 09
Originally posted by Conrau K============================
I suspect the greatest obstacle is semantic. In another thread, Jaywill talks about Jesus Christ and the Spirit as one "person" in a way which is very different to the traditional formulation of nature and person. Quite possibly, we are in full agreement and there is only apparent discord because the language used is not mutually understood. I am sure if I ...[text shortened]... gy I guess is one of those difficult areas where language is more of a barrier than a medium..
I suspect the greatest obstacle is semantic. In another thread, Jaywill talks about Jesus Christ and the Spirit as one "person" in a way which is very different to the traditional formulation of nature and person.
You are right about the semantic problems. There is simply the shortage of the human language to adaquately express the nature of God.
I use the term Person. I may use the term Persons. But I have to "borrow" these words.
I have to borrow from the limited human utterance to try to discribe the indiscribable.
Perhaps, we could say that in God there are three _______, and simply leave it blank. We do not really know what to place there.
Three hypostasis? Three Persons? Three WHAT ? I really do not know what to say. I know what the Bible shows.
So I am in agreement with you that in attempting to explain the three-oneness of God it is easy to have semantic obstacles.
Maybe I should say "In God there are three ________s." Maybe I should humbly admit that human language fails me.
He is very mysterious this Three - one God.
=====================
Quite possibly, we are in full agreement and there is only apparent discord because the language used is not mutually understood. I am sure if I had the pedagogic abilities to clarify what these terms mean, I would show that there is more agreement than disagreement. Theology I guess is one of those difficult areas where language is more of a barrier than a medium.
=====================================
Latter I would like to support your paragraph with some quotations. I have to run now.
15 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasyes, but no ones asking you, for you dont know anything about it. what is it about the right of self determination, please note the word SELF determination, that you do not understand? what is it about the individual exercise of the human conscience that you do not understand? what is it about the medical procedures you do not understand? what is it about biblical principles that you do not understand? when you have answered these questions, you shall be able to determine what utter nonsense and drivel your post amounts to.
So you rather send your daughter, your sister, your girlfriend, your wife and your mother to a certain death even if a transfusion could save their lives.
Okay. Question asked and answered.
Quite barbaric if you ask me. I'm glad that there are more JW culters than there are. I wouldn't be a christian follower if this was used by christians. I'm glad that I'm not that brutal kind.
i had somehow expected better from you Fabian, now i have become accustomed to the sensationalistic style of journalism best reserved for tabloid newspapers.
16 Dec 09
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3052629/Shot-Jehovahs-Witness-refuses-blood-transfusion.html
here is a very recent case, close to Noobsters part of the world, in which two Jehovahs witnesses were shot, the husband died as a consequence and the mother underwent bloodless surgery to remove two bullets from her back and is in a stable condition. it just goes to show Fabian, how little you actually know about this subject!
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by menace719. Jehovah is a made up word.
While I respect the JW's here are problems.
1. Denial of who Christ really is namely God.
2. Denial of the Holy Spirit also being God.
3. Believing that abstaining from certain foods or drink will make them holy.
4. Blood issue not being able to comprehend the difference between a blood
transfusion and actually eating or drinking blood. two dif ...[text shortened]... rd and
can be proven.
8. That only 144,000 will make it to heaven.
Manny
16 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou rather kill your daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife, and your own mother, than give them a blood transfusion.
yes, but no ones asking you, for you dont know anything about it. what is it about the right of self determination, please note the word SELF determination, that you do not understand? what is it about the individual exercise of the human conscience that you do not understand? what is it about the medical procedures you do not understand? what is ...[text shortened]... ome accustomed to the sensationalistic style of journalism best reserved for tabloid newspapers.
No, I don't why, because you haven't told me why you can be so brutal and barbaric, and I cannot find anything in the bible that can back you culters up.
Christ teaches us love, you teaches us brutality. Who would I rather believe?
I rather turn to be a christian than to be a JW culter.
16 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75While not being what makes a Christian it is one of the fundamental beliefs of Christians that God has a triune nature. So you are attacking Christians when you talk about the trinity or what have you.
The point here is you are attacking my religion and I don't believe I've ever attacked yours by name is I don't know what it is. The only thing I'm doing is trying to establish the fact that this one doctrine is not taught in the Bible and has pagan origins. I'm not here to convert anyone from any religion to another but by sharing these obvious facts of ...[text shortened]... e others here "just might" look into it and realize it will not be accepted by God.......
Manny
16 Dec 09
I see Christ as the risen Lord & Savior! I see the humanity & the divinity. Good point if Christ were just a spirit being or lesser god then His sacrifice was for not. Christ is superior to the angels as the book of Hebrews states. He Christ also is from the priest hood of Melchizedek which has no beginning or end. Read this whole book closely it explains the supremacy of Christ. You know there are certain fundamental beliefs that without you have not Christianity. Maybe some other religion but not Christianity.
Manny
16 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasi am sure you make a perfectly great nominal Christian, you can determine for yourself what is morally acceptable and what is not, you can advocate evolution in direct opposition to the teaching of Christ, you can spout sensationalistic diatribe which ignores evidence and statement of fact, you can give vent to your prejudices, all in all, your half way there already, a nasty piece of work, i am sure you would be welcomed with open arms.
You rather kill your daughter, sister, girlfriend, wife, and your own mother, than give them a blood transfusion.
No, I don't why, because you haven't told me why you can be so brutal and barbaric, and I cannot find anything in the bible that can back you culters up.
Christ teaches us love, you teaches us brutality. Who would I rather believe?
I rather turn to be a christian than to be a JW culter.
You state that Christ teaches us to love , while having no idea what love actually means nor what Christ actually taught regarding love, yet you seem able to pontificate to others about it in this regard, why i have humoured and engaged you in conversation i honestly do not know, for you have contributed nothing either to my understanding nor my spirituality, but seem intent to litter the forum with sensationalistic claims with no basis other than your ignorance and prejudice. i wish you well with your knew found faith.