It's NOT in the Bible

  • Thread starter Thread starter JustaServant
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, sure there’s a Holy Spirit, but it’s just a force that God uses to accomplish His will, right? Your scripture verses have not come close to proving that there is One God in Three Persons.

Please provide book, chapter, and verse that will clearly explain to me this central doctrine of our Christian faith.

As I read it, scripture says that God is only one; and warns against gods (plural).

[bibledrb]Deuteronomy 6:4[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Galatians 3:20[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 8:4-6[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Isaiah 42:8[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Exodus 20:2-3[/bibledrb]

[bibledrb]Isaiah 45:5[/bibledrb]

And Jesus* never* referred to God as a deity of plural persons. I mean, couldn’t He have said something like “We are one God in three persons - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” - or is God a God of Confusion?? Couldn’t one of His apostles/disciples said something close to this in scripture??

I look forward to your reply.
I think the mods would have a problem if we discussed scripture that is in the Bible when the thread is about what is not in the Bible.

Just to say I was talking about the deity of Jesus who some do not accept including Jehovah Witnesses even though it is clearly stated in scripture and is an important part of the Roman Catholic faith. If I may also add my weight to what you have already said which is that there is only one God and we are made in His image, having body, soul and spirit.

Thank you.

If you would like to start a new tread whereby we can discuss these matters, then that is fine with me.

By the way, I did hear there are Charismatic Catholics, is that correct do you know?

.
 
I think the mods would have a problem if we discussed scripture that is in the Bible when the thread is about what is not in the Bible.
174a, the moderator will not have a problem with this discussion as the word “trinity” is not in the bible, and Jesus never refers to himself as being part of “One God in Three Persons.”
If you would like to start a new tread whereby we can discuss these matters, then that is fine with me.
I gather that you are conceding the point that this essential Christian doctrine is not in the bible. I was arguing from the viewpoint of JWs who do not believe in the Holy Trinity. They make a very strong and valid case that it’s not in the bible because what they say is true - the idea of one God in three coequal, consubstantial Persons is not directly found in Scripture. The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a Tradition that is supported by Scripture - much like the idea of Sunday worship.

Ironically, Sola Scriptura is not found in Scripture either but many Protestants subscribe to this “Tradition” because they claim it is supported by Scripture…
By the way, I did hear there are Charismatic Catholics, is that correct do you know?
Yes.
 
I think the mods would have a problem if we discussed scripture that is in the Bible when the thread is about what is not in the Bible.

Just to say I was talking about the deity of Jesus who some do not accept including Jehovah Witnesses even though it is clearly stated in scripture and is an important part of the Roman Catholic faith. If I may also add my weight to what you have already said which is that there is only one God and we are made in His image, having body, soul and spirit.

Thank you.

If you would like to start a new tread whereby we can discuss these matters, then that is fine with me.

By the way, I did hear there are Charismatic Catholics, is that correct do you know?

.
A good source for this is the Roman Catholic church itself.

newadvent.org/cathen/03588e.htm

.
 
I think the mods would have a problem if we discussed scripture that is in the Bible when the thread is about what is not in the Bible.

Just to say I was talking about the deity of Jesus who some do not accept including Jehovah Witnesses even though it is clearly stated in scripture and is an important part of the Roman Catholic faith. If I may also add my weight to what you have already said which is that there is only one God and we are made in His image, having body, soul and spirit.

Thank you.

If you would like to start a new tread whereby we can discuss these matters, then that is fine with me.

By the way, I did hear there are Charismatic Catholics, is that correct do you know?

.
The concept of the* imagio dei *is clearly derived from Scripture, and used by Augustine in his work on the Trinity (its theological name is the Vestigas Trinitas).
 
The concept of the* imagio dei *is clearly derived from Scripture, and used by Augustine in his work on the Trinity (its theological name is the Vestigas Trinitas).
Thank you and here is the Roman Catholic Church on the Trinity. After a quick reading of these two links I feel I can align myself with both these positions.

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

By the way I totally refute the teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses.

.
 
Thank you and here is the Roman Catholic Church on the Trinity. After a quick reading of these two links I feel I can align myself with both these positions.

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

By the way I totally refute the teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses.

.
I’m glad about that 😉 JWs have some big issues but Catholics and protestants ought to have the exact same western doctrine of the Trinity (based on the revelation of Scripture, developed in theological tradition)…
 
I’m glad about that 😉 JWs have some big issues but Catholics and protestants ought to have the exact same western doctrine of the Trinity (based on the revelation of Scripture, developed in theological tradition)…
Nice to meet you David. 🙂

.
 
Thank you and here is the Roman Catholic Church on the Trinity. After a quick reading of these two links I feel I can align myself with both these positions.

newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

By the way I totally refute the teaching of the Jehovah Witnesses.

.
Great news, 174a. You’re on your way to discovering the value of Tradition…👍
 
Great news, 174a. You’re on your way to discovering the value of Tradition…👍
Do you mean tradition like this?

The controversies between the mendicants and the secular priests in England and Ireland took an acrimonious form in the fourteenth century. We have a peculiarly interesting instance of this in the case of Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, who preached seven or eight times in London against the mendicants and in nine propositions attacked their poverty and their privileges interfering with parochial rights. Denounced at the papal court of Avignon, he was cited by Innocent VI and defended himself in a treatise, which he read in a public consistory, 8 Nov., 1357, printed under the title “Defensorium Curatorum” in Goldast, “Monarchia S. Romani Imperii. . .”, II, Frankfort, 1614, 1391-1410 and in Brown, “Fasciculus rerum”, II, 466-487., There is a compendium of the nine propositions in Old English in Howlett, “Monumenta Franciscana” II, 276-77. This curious document might be called a negative exposition of the rule of the Friars Minor. An English Franciscan, Richard Conway, defended the friars against Fitzralph; his treatise is edited by Goldast, op. cit., 11, 1410-44. Innocent VI gave a Bull, 1 Oct., 1358, in which he stated that a commission had been named to examine the differences between the Archbishop of Armagh and the mendicants and forbade meanwhile the prelates of England to hinder the four mendicant orders from exercising their rights (Bull. Franc., VI, 316). In the following year a Bull prescribing the observance of the Decretal “Super Cathedram” of Boniface VIII was directed to different bishops of the continent and to the Arch. bishop of York, 26 Nov., 1359 (Bull. Franc., VI, 322). Towards the end of the fourteenth century the mendicants in England were attacked more fiercely and on a broader scale by the Wicliffites. Wiclif himself at first, was not on bad terms with the friars; his enmity was confined to the last few years of his life. While Wiclif had only repeated the worn-out arguments against the mendicants, his disciples went much farther and accused them of the lowest vices. Nor did they confine their calumnies to learned treatises, but embodied them in popular poems and songs, mostly English, of which we have many examples in the two volumes published by Wright (see bibliography). The chief place of controversy was Oxford, where the friars were accused even of sedition. On 18 Feb., 1382, the heads of the four mendicant orders wrote a joint letter to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, protesting against the calumnies of the Wicliffites and stating that their chief enemy was Nicholas Hereford, Professor of Holy Scripture, who in a sermon announced that no religious should be admitted to any degree at Oxford. This letter is inserted in Thomas Netter’s “Fasciduli Zizaniorum, magistri Job. Wyclif” (ed. Waddington, Rer. Brit. Script., London, 1858, 292-95). There are in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries many other instances of hostility with which the friars, especially the Minorites, were regarded by the University of Oxford. Though the Black Death and the Great Schism had evil effects on their general discipline, the mendicants, thanks to the rise of numerous branches of stricter observance, on the whole flourished until the Reformation. Notwithstanding the heavy losses sustained during that period, the mendicants have nevertheless continued to take their part, and that a considerable one, in the life of the Church down to the present day.

newadvent.org/cathen/10183c.htm

.
 
Do you mean tradition like this?

The controversies between the mendicants and the secular priests in England and Ireland took an acrimonious form in the fourteenth century. We have a peculiarly interesting instance of this in the case of Richard Fitzralph, Archbishop of Armagh, who preached seven or eight times in London against the mendicants and in nine propositions attacked their poverty and their privileges interfering with parochial rights. Denounced at the papal court of Avignon, he was cited by Innocent VI and defended himself in a treatise, which he read in a public consistory, 8 Nov., 1357, printed under the title “Defensorium Curatorum” in Goldast, “Monarchia S. Romani Imperii. . .”, II, Frankfort, 1614, 1391-1410 and in Brown, “Fasciculus rerum”, II, 466-487., There is a compendium of the nine propositions in Old English in Howlett, “Monumenta Franciscana” II, 276-77. This curious document might be called a negative exposition of the rule of the Friars Minor. An English Franciscan, Richard Conway, defended the friars against Fitzralph; his treatise is edited by Goldast, op. cit., 11, 1410-44. Innocent VI gave a Bull, 1 Oct., 1358, in which he stated that a commission had been named to examine the differences between the Archbishop of Armagh and the mendicants and forbade meanwhile the prelates of England to hinder the four mendicant orders from exercising their rights (Bull. Franc., VI, 316). In the following year a Bull prescribing the observance of the Decretal “Super Cathedram” of Boniface VIII was directed to different bishops of the continent and to the Arch. bishop of York, 26 Nov., 1359 (Bull. Franc., VI, 322). Towards the end of the fourteenth century the mendicants in England were attacked more fiercely and on a broader scale by the Wicliffites. Wiclif himself at first, was not on bad terms with the friars; his enmity was confined to the last few years of his life. While Wiclif had only repeated the worn-out arguments against the mendicants, his disciples went much farther and accused them of the lowest vices. Nor did they confine their calumnies to learned treatises, but embodied them in popular poems and songs, mostly English, of which we have many examples in the two volumes published by Wright (see bibliography). The chief place of controversy was Oxford, where the friars were accused even of sedition. On 18 Feb., 1382, the heads of the four mendicant orders wrote a joint letter to John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster, protesting against the calumnies of the Wicliffites and stating that their chief enemy was Nicholas Hereford, Professor of Holy Scripture, who in a sermon announced that no religious should be admitted to any degree at Oxford. This letter is inserted in Thomas Netter’s “Fasciduli Zizaniorum, magistri Job. Wyclif” (ed. Waddington, Rer. Brit. Script., London, 1858, 292-95). There are in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries many other instances of hostility with which the friars, especially the Minorites, were regarded by the University of Oxford. Though the Black Death and the Great Schism had evil effects on their general discipline, the mendicants, thanks to the rise of numerous branches of stricter observance, on the whole flourished until the Reformation. Notwithstanding the heavy losses sustained during that period, the mendicants have nevertheless continued to take their part, and that a considerable one, in the life of the Church down to the present day.

newadvent.org/cathen/10183c.htm

.
Instead of copying/pasting over 500 words (who has time to read all that?), how about giving me the short version? And do you have an opinion on what you’re asking me to read, or is this just something for me to read at my leisure…?
 
Instead of copying/pasting over 500 words (who has time to read all that?), how about giving me the short version? And do you have an opinion on what you’re asking me to read, or is this just something for me to read at my leisure…?
The reason I posted from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is that Catholics cannot deny the truth of it for to do so would be to admit the Roman Catholic Church is in error.

The truth is that what the Roman Catholic church published is a sanitised version of what was really happening in medieval England at that time. If you would really like to know about the traditions of men, if you don’t already, then I wrote a short article here. Please enjoy.

robinhode.webs.com/friartuck.htm

.
 
The reason I posted from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is that Catholics cannot deny the truth of it for to do so would be to admit the Roman Catholic Church is in error.

The truth is that what the Roman Catholic church published is a sanitised version of what was really happening in medieval England at that time. If you would really like to know about the traditions of men, if you don’t already, then I wrote a short article here. Please enjoy.

robinhode.webs.com/friartuck.htm

.
You wrote that article, it was good. Its always good to read both sides.
 
The reason I posted from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is that Catholics cannot deny the truth of it for to do so would be to admit the Roman Catholic Church is in error.

The truth is that what the Roman Catholic church published is a sanitised version of what was really happening in medieval England at that time. If you would really like to know about the traditions of men, if you don’t already, then I wrote a short article here. Please enjoy.

robinhode.webs.com/friartuck.htm

.
I’m not seeing how this is relevant to the thread… is it your assertion that the Church is erroneous? False?
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slinger
This has been an interesting thread until the breakdown at the end. All I can say is I am now more convinced than ever that the Bible should be our **only source **for our Christian walk. Otherwise, you have chaos…perfectly evident in threads just like this.
Chapter and verse where it explicitly states it is the ONLY SOURCE?

If it is the ONLY SOURCE…then why so much confusion?
 
The reason I posted from the Catholic Encyclopaedia is that Catholics cannot deny the truth of it for to do so would be to admit the Roman Catholic Church is in error.

The truth is that what the Roman Catholic church published is a sanitised version of what was really happening in medieval England at that time. If you would really like to know about the traditions of men, if you don’t already, then I wrote a short article here. Please enjoy.

robinhode.webs.com/friartuck.htm

.
I’m not sure you’re grasping exactly what Church Tradition really is.
 
I’m not sure you’re grasping exactly what Church Tradition really is.
I’m 67, my father was an ordained Protestant minister and I have been a Christian since about 1954 when I made a decision for Christ, I was baptised in water, (full immersion) when I was about 12 and baptised in the Holy Spirit a couple of years later, I don’t write my testimony down and then put it in a drawer and forget it, I live it,

If you think I need educating please feel free. 🙂

.
 
Chapter and verse where it explicitly states it is the ONLY SOURCE?

If it is the ONLY SOURCE…then why so much confusion?
The confusion of course is simple, there are so many men adding their interpretation. This is why we need only one source and that is the author and finisher of our faith the Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 12:2 “Let us fix our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy set before him endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.”

Following the teaching of Jesus identifies us as Christians, otherwise we are simply the followers of men.

.
 
I’m 67, my father was an ordained Protestant minister and I have been a Christian since about 1954 when I made a decision for Christ, I was baptised in water, (full immersion), when I was about 12 and baptised in the Holy Spirit a couple of years later, I don’t write my testimony down and then put it in a drawer and forget it, I live it,

If you think I need educating please feel free. 🙂

.
Respectfully, 174a, if you have decided that you have nothing to learn from anyone here – why are you here…? :hmmm:

I’m a strong Catholic, but I still find myself learning from both Catholics and Protestants on CAF.

A quote from Benjamin Franklin comes to mind: “Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top