… I had referred to the Catechism to help explain.
There are verses that show the divinity of Jesus but it seems the attempt in this thread it to explain why Acts 5:30 does not disclaim the divinity of Jesus. The answer that I have proposed lies in the understanding that the Spirit of Jesus lives eternally as He laid down His Body for our sake…
… Notice that you quoted the Catechism. This is exactly what I was doing when FPerito said he needed Bible verses. However there is no reason why we can’t use other sources to explain the proper understanding of scripture.
Hi Coder.
I’m in complete agreement with your answer. I’m also aware that you previously referred to the Catechism of the Catholic Church before I did on the thread ( please accept my apologies if I didn’t make that part clear enough). The effort had been to augment what members had previously posted in reference to the CCC with a type of “in a nutshell” quote taken from the most pertinent sections… again, agreeing with you that , *“there is no reason why we can’t use other sources to explain the proper understanding of scripture.” * ;particularly considering that as the thread progressed (some might think slightly
digressed from the original focus ) reference was made to the Creed…
pretty sound argument…
but the follow-up question would be like this…are we saying that when Jesus died on the cross, He was separated into two forms, one which is the eternally living spirit and the other is the mortal body? If this is the case, then how come the Creed says that Jesus descended to the dead? another dilemma would be, RCC claims that Jesus was raised both flesh and spirit, right? so when did the union happened?
… after which point I think we are no longer simply being asked to provide some potentially corrective insight into an erroneous interpretation of sacred scripture, we are additionally required to defend what we believe. In this situation it is fair to use whatever means are available to us.
To simply provide more quotes from sacred scripture in the hope of correcting an error (considering our brothers and sisters who operate sola scriptura) is sometimes to provide additional scriptures which also end up being misinterpreted, especially if the “interpreters” are obstinate in their original error… Let’s face it - Who likes to be wrong ? Heck, it’s happened to me so often that I finally chose a user name that would remind me.
Further to what we believe, it appealed to me as particularly fortuitous that in posts # 31 & 32 you and Benadam had brought us back to emphasis on the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
My personal view is that denying the divinity of Christ is always an attack on the Holy Trinity. Attacks of this nature vary in their approach. Several distinct distortions can stem from the erroneous interpretation of scripture we are discussing.
One example of the consequent distortion would be the conclusion that Jesus Christ was only a man, and that after his death, God somehow raised him up to some sort of superhuman level.
But more subtle distortions also exist. The INC’s current interpretation of Acts 5:30 isn’t even really a conclusion – it’s a question, and there is nothing definitive about it. All it does is relegate Christ’s divinity into a circle of continuous doubt . Hence, if it does not infer the error that Jesus was only a man, then it infers that there are at least two Gods: Jesus and the God of Abraham…thereby implying - a somehow lesser God and a greater God .
As St. Ambrose tells us :
(Three Books of Saint Ambrose on the Holy Spirit; Book III, Chapter XIII.)
biblestudy.churches.net/CCEL/FATHERS2/NPNF210/TOC.HTM#TopOfPage
92.” But what do you fear? Is it that which you have been accustomed to carp at? lest you should make three Gods. God forbid; for where the Godhead is understood as one, one God is spoken of. For neither when we call the Son God do we say there are two Gods. For if, when you confess the Godhead of the Spirit, you think that three Gods are spoken of, then, too, when you speak of the Godhead of the Son because you are not able to deny it, you bring in two Gods. For it is necessary according to your opinion, if you think that God is the name of one person, not of one nature, that you either say that there are two Gods, or deny that the Son is God…”
Perhaps some of us have heard the considerably popular story about St. Augustine walking on the beach :
One day he was walking on the sandy beach by the ocean. There churned in his mind the mystery of the Holy Trinity. He was talking to himself: “One God, but three Persons. Three Persons–not three Gods but one God. What does it mean? How can it be explained? How can my mind take it in?” And so he was torturing his mind and beating his brains out, when he saw a little boy on the beach. He approached him to see what he was doing.
The child had dug a small hole in the sand. With his little hands he was carrying water from the ocean and was dumping it in the little hole. St. Augustine asked, “What are you doing, my child?” The child replied, “I want to put all of the water of the ocean into this hole.” Once more St. Augustine asked, “But is it possible for all of the water of this great ocean to be contained in this little hole?” And the child asked him in return, “If the water of the ocean cannot be contained in this little hole, then how can the Infinite Trinitarian God be contained in your mind?” And the child disappeared. He was actually a little angel. St. Augustine learned his lesson. He reverently thanked God, Who taught him in such a miraculous way that the mystery of the Holy Trinity cannot be comprehended with human reasoning. It is a matter of faith rather than of human reasoning.
In a homily given by Deacon David Olsen in 2008, alluding to this story, he remarks…
stjames-cathedral.org/liturgy/Olsen%20Homilies/Trinity%20Sunday%20DDO.pdf
“Seventeen centuries later, understanding the mystery of the Trinity, One
God that exists in three persons, is just as elusive and difficult for us to get our
minds around, as it was for St. Augustine. Over the past two millennia, many
have tried to envision and explain the Trinity through ideas, comparisons and
examples, ways to help us visualize and understand a triune God, like our Trinity
banner, three separate and unique panels that together make one banner. As
central as the dogma of the Trinity is to our Christian faith, the good news is that
the Trinity is not a concept that we need to understand, it is a reality that we need
to experience.”
As Catholics we are certainly blessed to have both Scripture and Tradition taken into consideration by the Magisterium before it proposes something or defines something for our belief. Whereas our non Catholic Christian brothers’ and sisters’ faith is sometimes defined in terms of either a radical or rational search for truth, we Catholics tend to define our faith as an acceptance of said truth. We give the assent of faith. This does wonders for a person’s sense of conviction.
One explanation why Catholic-non Catholic dialogue could reach an impasse on this matter is the concept of the Holy Trinity isn’t something which can be fully explained rationally. So perhaps we might feel a little compassion for non Catholics who try to explain their Christian faith exclusively from a rational standpoint. Some of them (referring here to the INC interpretation of Acts 5:30) lack a strength of conviction. They can’t finish their sentence, so to speak. That interpretation of Acts, brought to its completion must say either:
- Jesus is not God , or
- There are two or three Gods – One greater, One intermediate and (One least).
But what is the more prominent underlying sentiment here ? In actuality , the INC are saying, “We don’t understand the Holy Trinity in its entirety” ; to which we, as good caring Catholics may reply, “Neither do we – but we don’t understand it in its entirety the way it is meant to not be understood in its entirety. We’ll pray for you!”
