Does the Trinity really mean that God and Jesus are one?

[tommy4321]

jimmy:

I think you are misunderstanding the doctrine of the Trinity. The Trinity says that there are three different persons in God, The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit. They are all of the same being and of the same essence. The Father is the source of the whole Trinity. The Son is begotten of The Father, and the Spirit proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source, and through The Son to us.

Now, The Father, The Son, and The Spirit are one in being, but they are seperate in person. The Son is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Father and The Spirit is not The Son.

We know very little about the Trinity. The Son is looked at as being The Word through which all things were made.[John1][Nicene creed] Augustine describes The Son as being the truth of God.The Confessions] We know that he is eternal and unmade.[John 6 where he says, “Before Abraham was I AM”][Nicene creed] We know that Jesus is the incarnate second person of The Trinity.

The Holy Spirit is explained as the gift of The Father and The Son and as the love between The Father and The Son by Augustine.[On Christian Doctrine] He proceeds from The Father as an ultimate source but also proceeds from The Son in a way. He is said to proceed through The Son by many Church Fathers.

Really we do not know a whole lot about The Trinity.

Hi Lazer:

I wanted to tip my hat to you for being able to tyoe in Hebrew, very impressive and astute. You do have a compelling arguement in your last post, but I brought this one up from Jimmy in this earlier post from this thread. Jimmy is saying here that Jesus and God are seperate persons, I also heard this again from a recent post on the other thread I have going from a Catholic on my Revelations are we ready post. However, I can’t figure out what is meant by some Catholics when they say they are not seperate persons and some say they are seperate?

On the Bill of Rights portion that is written by nation and I gather that Jesus really did not support any nation, political powers or any other universal power other than his Father.

I will point out that JW’s do like to read from their material and will not argue with you on this point, you are right here. They like to use Jehovahs name and it draws thier membership closer to the true God and I don’t see this as a weakness in their organization. Notice I say their organization because as a Bible stuent I have not yet officiall converted as I still need to have the same clean standards as they do meaning dropping my materialism and non-Godly stuff from my life that I inhereted from Adman to be clean enough to share the goods news of the thruth of the Kingdom and paradise earth versus the heavenly annointed class that is not recognized by most organized religions.

Yes, I think that even the Catholics have been slow to recognize some of their mistakes. I believe it was not until 1992 that the church admitted it was wrong taking a nuetral stance against Nazi Germany. The New Jerusalem Bible uses Yahwehs glorious name, but it is still not used at a Catholic mass. This was a first century superstition not to use the devine name and here we are two thousand years later and we are not hearing from the church that this was a mistake even though it appears in written form at this point and maybe in the future they will come around and use his name verbally like many other reilions do around the world. Organized religion that takes on the form of a government sometimes acts like a government in acknowleging mistakes, would you agree. I enjoyed your post and believe you are a true christian. take care, tommy

 

[wcknight]

AS in the other thread, there is no explanation for the Trinity. It is a mystery of faith anything anyone says here is pure speculation, including what I say.

There is ONLY ONE God, there are 3 aspects or persons or personalities or manifestations of God, for lack of a better term,

The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all the same God. How that is, nobody knows.

Contrary to popular misconception the Church did NOT take a neutral stand and it most definitely did not condone or approve of any of the Nazis abuses. It did NOT come out and make a public condemnation of Nazism and it had very good reasons not to and that is a very different from saying it was neutral.

The fact is that the Pope very strongly opposed the evils of Nazism and did everything he could to aleviate the suffering and murders cause by Hitler. He did not come out with proclamation because it very clearly that was having the opposite effects on Hitler.

Whenever the Pope made any statements or wrote anything to oppose Nazism, Hilter would kill more or impose even harser penalties on both Catholics and on Jews or on whoever the Pope was trying to protect.

The Pope was wise enough to finally do everything in secret. He ordered fake Baptismal certificates for thousands of Jews. And he secretly ordered all churches, monasteries and convents to become safe havens for many more thousands of jews. It is estimated that the Pope was personally responsible for saving several hundred thousand jews. That is by far many more than any other individual, organization or country.

The Church did NOT have to appologize for anything that happened, the fact that it did (apologize) should not in any way be taken as admission of any wrong doing either directly or indirectly. The only thing it may have been guilty of is maybe not recognizing Hitler for the monster that he was earlier.

There may have been some who collaborated with the Nazis out of fear or self interest, but it clearly was not the popes either Pius XI or Pius XII, both of whom are up for canonization, and deservedly so.

 

[tommy4321]

Here is a portion of an introduction by an essay written by Michael Phayer entitled “The Catholic Church and the Holocaust” that I thought you may want to review and perhaps post any comments to his writing:

The Mosaic law of Hebrew Scripture, “Thou shalt not kill,” became part of the moral code of all Christian churches. Why is it, then, that when prominent scholars write books about the murder of the Jews, church leaders receive scant mention? Contrariwise, those who have written about rescue of Jews during the Holocaust often deal at length with ordinary Christians. Why are the names of these rescuers obscure to us?

This book deals specifically with the Catholic response to the Holocaust. True to form, I found that Pope Pius XII did relatively little for Jews in their hour of greatest need, and that ordinary Catholics did a great deal more. It was never my intention to write a book solely about Pius XII’s response to the Holocaust, yet the pope stands center stage or in the wings of nearly every chapter of this study, overshadowing ordinary men and women who acted heroically but had little or no authority in their church.

If the Catholic response to the Holocaust was somehow backward or upside down, how is this to be explained? Catholics in modern times had grown accustomed to the leadership of their pope, especially since the promulgation of the dogma of infallibility in 1870. During the Holocaust the table was reversed. Instead of leading, Pope Pius XII said that the church’s bishops spoke for him when the Nazis came for the Jews. But the bishops, not used to acting independently, said nothing or very little. In the end, when it came down to actual rescue work, a few Catholics, people in the pulpits and pews, left to their own devices, acted courageously.

This explanation, while essentially valid, generalizes too much and analyzes too little. There were highly placed churchmen who participated in rescue; I refer to the Vatican’s diplomatic corps operating in eastern Europe near the fulcrum of the Holocaust. This select group included Angelo Roncalli, the future pope. Even if the impetus to intervene for Jews was limited and usually came from the papal diplomats rather than from Rome, the diplomatic corps worked under the direct supervision of the pope. For this reason we may assert that through his diplomatic corps Pope Pius XII intervened at times to save Jews.

It was all well and good, of course, that the pope used diplomatic channels to save Jews. In the matter of genocide, however, diplomacy proved more of a weakness than a strength. Diplomacy functions within the boundaries of civilized behavior. The Holocaust ruptured those bounds beyond all measure. Hitler did not know or care to know the language of diplomacy. Pius XII’s greatest failure, both during and after the Holocaust, lay in his attempt to use a diplomatic remedy for a moral outrage.

Fear of communism was a thread that ran through Pius XII’s papacy. Filled with anxiety about communism’s spread into central Europe during the war and its successes in western Europe after the war, Pius engaged the Vatican in no-holds-barred diplomatic solutions to the Red threat. Defying international efforts to bring Holocaust perpetrators to judicial accountability, the Vatican allowed fascist war criminals and fugitives from justice to become engaged in the postwar struggle against communism. The ethical credibility of the papacy fell to its lowest level in modern times.

Those who have debated Pius XII’s response to the Holocaust—and they are numerous—either condemn him for cowardice for not speaking out or praise him for a gallant prudence for keeping silent so as not to endanger more Jewish lives. It is useless to debate what would have happened if Pope Pius had spoken out in language that directly challenged Hitler. Historians unanimously agree that Hitler would not on that account have curtailed the Holocaust. But beyond that, we simply do not know exactly what effect such a pronouncement might have had.

Actually, Pope Pius had options other than speaking out or being silent. The most important of these, especially for those making the “gallant reticence” argument, would have been to support individuals and groups who were rescuing Jews. Both moral support and financial assistance lay entirely within the pope’s reach. Assistance of either kind would have resulted in the rescue of many more Jews.

Three decades ago Rolf Hochhuth, introducing Pius XII in his famous play The Deputy, instructed the actor to capture the pope’s “aristocratic coldness” and the “icy glint” of his eyes. Hochhuth’s Pius was a person incapable of compassion for human suffering. In his 1999 biography of Pius, Hitler’s Pope, John Cornwell pinned an even uglier face on Pius—that of an antisemite. Cornwell’s Pius was the perfect pope for Hitler, because the pontiff’s antisemitism allowed the dictator to carry out genocide while he kept silent.

 

[tommy4321]

Part II

These images of Pius XII miss the mark. Jews and Gentiles alike who had audiences with the pope recalled his warm personality, and documents record a number of occasions when the pope wept openly. He was not a cold, unemotional human being. If Pius was tainted with antisemitism, it did not keep him from aiding Jews during and after the Holocaust. I have found that in deciding whether to intercede or not for Jews the pope responded to concrete circumstances and developments of the war. To hold that the pope always acted negatively toward Jews is to close one’s eyes to the historical record.

This study differs from other works about Pope Pius in two additional respects. A historical portrait of Pius XII lacks a clear focus if his record during the Cold War era is ignored. Nearly half of this book takes up that record. Second, the pope was not a lone player in the drama of the church and the Holocaust. Shining the spotlight on Pius alone has diverted attention from the actions of other Catholics. The choices that confronted Pope Pius during the Holocaust often confronted the individual churchgoer.

What was the record of the whole Catholic church, not just the papacy, during the Holocaust? The 1998 Vatican statement on the Holocaust, “We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah,” indicates that individual Catholics committed wrongdoing but that the church itself incurred no responsibility.1 No one would accuse the bishops or the pope of murdering Jews, but did they not have the duty or mission to urge Catholics to protect, not harm, Jews? Rather than individual “straying” Catholics, was it not the church itself, including especially its leaders, who bear the burden of guilt?

The fact is that the Pope very strongly opposed the evils of Nazism and did everything he could to aleviate the suffering and murders cause by Hitler. He did not come out with proclamation because it very clearly that was having the opposite effects on Hitler.

Whenever the Pope made any statements or wrote anything to oppose Nazism, Hilter would kill more or impose even harser penalties on both Catholics and on Jews or on whoever the Pope was trying to protect.

The Pope was wise enough to finally do everything in secret. He ordered fake Baptismal certificates for thousands of Jews. And he secretly ordered all churches, monasteries and convents to become safe havens for many more thousands of jews. It is estimated that the Pope was personally responsible for saving several hundred thousand jews. That is by far many more than any other individual, organization or country.

The Church did NOT have to appologize for anything that happened, the fact that it did (apologize) should not in any way be taken as admission of any wrong doing either directly or indirectly. The only thing it may have been guilty of is maybe not recognizing Hitler for the monster that he was earlier.

There may have been some who collaborated with the Nazis out of fear or self interest, but it clearly was not the popes either Pius XI or Pius XII, both of whom are up for canonization, and deservedly so.

 

[pangit]

hi, im just simple catholic, just share my ideas too, if its beyond the church teachings, im willing to be corrected.

TRINITY— Three PERSONS in ONE GOD.

NEW STANDARD DICTIONARY/ others
BEING — anything exists

PERSONS---- a being that has INTELLECT and WILL.
Spirits are named persons coz they have intellect and will, The trinity are called persons coz they have intellect and will, MAN is called person coz he has intellect and will.

HOLY SPIRIT IS A PERSON — it has an intellect and will,
JN. 14:26

NATURE— refers to SUBSTANCE, THE CONSTITUTION.

The WORD BIBLE cannot be found in the bible BUT the IDEA/ CONCEPT is in the Bible ( word of God) thats why the CHURCH term it Bible. Thesame with the word TRINITY —the word cannot be found in the bible BUT the concept / idea is IN the bible thats why the church name it TRINITY.

THE CONCEPT / IDEA: ( BASE ON JESUS WORDS HIMSELF)

MAT. 28:19 " in the NAME of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit…"

IN THE NAME — The nature–ONE SUBSTANCE— ONE GOD
OF THE ---- THEY ARE DISTINCT with each other
FATHER,SON, HOLY SPIRIT,----- 3 PERSONS.

The SUBSTANCE / NATURE in Jesus, in the Father, in the Holy Spirit are ONE.—GOD but THEY ARE 3 PERSONS. IF we cannot make our selves into 3, then GOD DOES.

1 person + 1 person+ 1 person == 3 God (THIS IS WRONG, WE MUST NOT ADD PERSON THEN ANSWER IS NATURE)

1 person + 1 person + 1 person == 3 PERSONS ( CORRECT)

FATHER IS GOD ------Isias 45:5
THE SON IS GOD ------ TITO 2:13
HOLY SPIRIT IS GOD ----- MAT 12:32

THE COUNCILS of the church only DECLARES / CONFIRMS what has been believed and Practiced by the early Christians.

REGARDING THE CROSS:

Stauros---- this term is an equivocale term ----means has different meaning.
1. ---- IT can be a POST, STAKE…
2. ---- IT can be THAU-- two lines intersect CRUX or
CROSS.
WHEN WE SAY HANG ON THE STAUROS – it does not mean post ONLY, or CROSS only BUT EITHER OR.

we also knew that Jews uses a stake to kill criminals by stabing at their hearts or stomach.

we also knew that Roman Goverment kill/ punished their Criminimals by CRUSIFIXION using the LATIN CROSS two intersecting lines.

JESUS was punished by the ROMANS NOT JEWS thats is why ALL HISTORIANS DECLARES — Jesus was hang on the CROSS. the Jews falls under the Roman rule.

( WORLD HISTORY BY OBRIEN PAGE 148) “the sign of the CROSS was used by the Cristian from the time of Apostle”

1 Cor: 1:18 — " For those who are perishing the CROSS is FOLISHNESS but for us who ARE SAVE IT is the POWER of GOD." we focus on the POSITIVE SIDE of the CORSS OF CHRIST— we are happy because we are save by Christ.

CROSS — SYMBOL — REPRESENTS MESSAGE---- SALVATION ( JESUS himself)-- we look on the positive message.

Galatians 6:14-17 — " I have nothing to GLORIFY except the CROSS OF JESUS…"

REGARDING IMAGES

IDOLATRY — considering anything as GOD, for example,
when you see your picture and later call it GOD THEN it is forbidden BUT if you see/ consider it as JUST AS A PICTURE NOT GOD then it is not Idolatry. thats why we have
TROPHIES, PICTURES, MOVING PICTURES, STATUE OF LIBERTY ETC…

in exod 20:4 “” you shall bow down to THEM…" this them refers to Gods in the time of moses. like Astharot, Baal, Melcom ETC…

BUT God COMMANDS to MAKE IMAGES made out of Gold, and they and God Communicate in the middle of two Angels and give his commandments, EXODUS 25:18-22.

2 KINGS 17:22 – THEY PROSTRATE on the Floor Praying in front of the two images of Angels ( represents Gods presence)

2 Chronicles 32:12 – GOD COMMANDS HIS TEMPLE a PLACE OF WORSHIP be INGRAVE BY IMAGES OF ANGELS, FACE OF MAN, FLOWERS OF PALMIRA— ceiling, wall, down to the floor and doors etc…

NAME OF GOD

Hebrew name of GOD YHWH is the Original given by God to his HEBREW People.VERY OLD NAME,wether you put a vowel on it or not, the Hebrew people PRONOUNCE IT YAWEH — while JEHOVAH used by German people , MODERN NAME not used by the HEBREW , IT IS THE WRONG USED AND PRONOUNCE OF YAWEH, ( GROLIER UNIVERSAL
ENCYCLOPEDIA VOL.6 PAGE 37 )

Catholic used the proper name used by Hebrew YAHWEH

 

[tommy4321]

Well thought out post! Especially the stuff on the cross. I am not sure if it was a cross or stake either. But there is something in this world that puzzles me. When I see an image of the devil like on a bumper stciker or a rock and roll shirt, often when you look hard you also see the cross. Why is this? Is this a trophey from the evil one? Is it extreme sarcasm? I don’t know the answer here.

I picture Jesus a strong man and a founder of Christianity. I don’t picture him anything in terms of hopelessness or weak. Like as a baby pictured with Mary, the image you see on the front page of this web design or a helpless man dying on the cross. I wonder if Jesus would have wanted us to bear the cross on a chain on our neck since he died on one. Sort of like a mother who’s son was killed by a gun would wear a gun around her neck or if when Jesus was turning over the tables of the money changers if he was tortured and killed on his donkey there would a donkey be posted on top of churches today.

Since we pray to God through Jesus and do not need learning aids that may be detestable to God, could the cross itself be considered an Idol if one was to worship the cross posted up on the Altar. Please do not take offense to this discussion, I am trying to get at where the line is drawn between idol worship and worship through any object to God and if objects used in worship may be detestable to God. God Bless, tommy

 

[tommy4321234]

Lets don’t forget this one either about one true God, or three wrapped in one as a big mystery.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Edited out quote of suspended user reincarnated

Yeah, lets ignore the Bible, or better yet, lets rewrite it so that it matches what we want rather than what God wants.

There is one true God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Three in One. I believe St Patrick has a good teaching on this issue.

This has been held since the beginning of the Church.

It is funny how a groups that did not exist until the 19th century deny this.

 

[TOP]

I’ve felt divine intervention, it came from God, I don’t know who brought it, an angel, the Spirit, Jesus. But I think, Jesus Christ made it availible to me, as I’m a sinner, but I felt ONE thing, love. When this happened, I saw many things I still dont understand. But I believe Jesus Christ Is the son of God, the Word made flesh and an example of the way we are to live and seek life in this world. Yes, Jesus and The Father are one on earth and his Word is forever, as Paul Still brings the Word to the gentiles. Do you think these things have stopped? I don’t know how these thing will be revealed to us in Heaven as we are brought before the full Truth, so I try in the simple Truths, if I fail to maintain in that, how would I know the big questions. I still have a long way to go before Im accepted with The full Revalation of Jesus Christ. Tim