K
Keikiolu
Guest
Khal,… Khal,… Khal,… even when I /ignore you, I can’t get away from your inanity.
Truly interesting inanity, which I’d be VERY interested in hearing more about.
- Status
Truly interesting inanity, which I’d be VERY interested in hearing more about.
V
Vincent
Guest
Father, Son and Holy Spirit are **not **separate.
There is one and only one God, and because **each of the three *is ***this one and only one God (that is, each possesses the same one divine nature), they cannot be described as separate.
While they are not separate, they are **distinct, **and as I’ve written earlier, their distinctions are found only in their mutual relationships.
The Catholic Church holds that “everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship.” Therefore, Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in terms of what they are: the one and only one God.
This oneness also means that there is one and only one knowing and willing operation that the three **equally **possess. To use your language, each does not “have their own mind to think” that is not **equally **possessed by the others.
Because of this equality, the Son and Holy Spirit are not “puppets” of the Father.
I would not describe Father, Son and Spirit as either “functions” or “levels” as they sound too much like the **modalistic **theory that is **rejected **by the Catholic Church.
The three are properly called “divine persons” and these persons are “subsistent relations”.
"The term “person” . . . designate
K
Khalfan
Guest
Since all of you ‘Christians’ have your own versions of Bible, give me the names of some catholic versions of Bible that you refer and accept. I will show you that ‘inanity’ in them.
K
Khalfan
Guest
You cleverly ignored the question.
Do the Son and Holy Spirit have their own mind to think, or are they just puppets of the Father God?
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Uh,… which one are you quoting from?
I’m using the RSV-CE (Revised Standard Version-Catholic Edition).
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Do you understand that there are MYSTERIES concerning the Holy Trinity?
Apparently you don’t, which is characteristic of moslems, as islam is essentially a “rationalistic materialistic” perversion of Christianity, which distances itself FROM it’s source (Christianity) by thinking it can ANSWER all the UNANSWERABLE parts of that source by “materialistic rationalization”.
To actually answer your question:
Jesus is Fully God and Fully Man, therefore Jesus as man has a mind as any FULL MAN.
The Holy Spirit is a “spirit person”, and as all persons have a mind, He has a mind.
All these individual minds (including God the Father) are never in conflict with one another, always agree with one another, and are not in any way “puppets” of one another.
HOW precisely that works is a MYSTERY, which is simply humanly not fully comprehendable, yet nevertheless exists.
How do we know it exists? Because we are told by God, via the Magisterium, that that is so.
If that “reason” doesn’t satisfy you, then you’re not a Catholic, which I imagine we can both agree with cheerfully.
Thanks for being such an excellent example of “what you are”, dude…!
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
There is no way to rationalize the Divine. So there is very little sense in attacking the mystery of the Trinity doctrine.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Well put…!There is no way to rationalize the Divine.
Though, ALL reason (actual rational thought) POINTS TOWARD the divine.
…it just can’t get you TO the divine. Why not?
You tell me…!
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Thats what I always suspect. We are in full agreement.
P
Peregrino
Guest
Isn’t the doctrine of the trinity exactly that? An attempt to rationalize the divine (or what Catholics believe is divine). It is one thing to call something a mystery and say that it eludes rationalization (I agree wholeheartedly), it is another to say that we can’t touch the *explanations *of that mystery (which is what the trinity doctrine really is). All explanations are fair game IMHO.There is no way to rationalize the Divine. So there is very little sense in attacking the mystery of the Trinity doctrine.
A
AgnosTheist
Guest
Its best for Keikiolu to answer this.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
No. It is a revelation of truth, and was not “derived” by rationalization.Quote:Originally Posted by AgnosTheist forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif There is no way to rationalize the Divine. So there is very little sense in attacking the mystery of the Trinity doctrine.
Isn’t the doctrine of the trinity exactly that? An attempt to rationalize the divine (or what Catholics believe is divine).
So, you have just said that LOGICALLY, a “real” mystery ELUDES rationalization, which we both agree the truth of the Holy Trinity IS, which means that THIS real mystery, as with ALL real mysteries, are NEVER rationalizations…!
I agree with this, entirely.
You also state that what we DO know of the Holy Trinity is an “explanation”, which is a (revealed) description, and not a “rationalization”.
I also fully agree with this.
Only those “explanations” which are REVELATIONS given by God, via the single authoritative source of this information (the Magisterium), are “fair game”.
…therefore, I disagree with you completely in this last part.
(( Thanks for defering to my august opinion on this one, Agnos…!
))Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
P
Peregrino
Guest
I should have bought a noun. My bad. I meant that the divine is a mystery, the trinity itself is an explanation. I was not attempting to confer an ontological status upon the concept of the trinity. The trinity is an attempt to explain the manifestation of the divine itself, it is a construct.
I agree with you that we part company here. No one person and no single organization has cornered the market on “divine revelation”.
K
Keikiolu
Guest
Heh he he he…!! Vanna,… Vanna,… flip that noun, my darling…!!
No. The Holy Trinity is a reality, not an explanation.
The Trinity is not a “conjecture” of what is “behind it”. It is THE THING that is being descibed, not the description.
And once again, you’re wrong.
See above explanation as to why the Holy Trinity is NOT a construct.
Personal revelation is accessable to individual persons, but it can’t contradict revelation as given by God to THE CHURCH.
The Church has “cornered the market” on deciding what is “divine revelation”, and since the only thing which can be given “divine revelation” IS the Church, through it’s members, it is the sole “container” OF “divine revelation”.
If you don’t believe that, then you’re not Catholic, which is fine.
Mahalo ke Akua…!
E pili mau na pomaika
i ia oe. Aloha nui.
I
inJESUS
Guest
Sorry again for my late reply
Second, does any missing event in one gospel prove it did not happen? hence the missing miraculous birth in John proves it did not happen? i just can’t follow your reasoning.
.
No 2 people EVER give the same exact testimony ever. Take this example of 9/11:
2 people witnessed it. The first reports:
i saw one plane hitting the tower. Fire was everwhere. People were screaming and others were falling off the building.
the second reports :
i saw 2 planes hitting the tower. People were falling off the tower. Firemen arrived 5 mn later. Ambulances carried hundreds of injured.
Obviously both testimonies are different yet both are correct. You will find no 2 humans who will give the same exact details using the same sentence sequence with the same orders and words, let alone 4 different people talking about the same thing.
the other very important point is the following :
yiu believe the Quran is “munzal”, that is, the exact replica of Allah\s mind/words. This is NOT what inspiration means. Being inspired gives the person the ability to write truth using his OWN words, personnality, audiance ecc. The inspired author is NOT a robot who repeats God’s literal words via an angel.So when Matthew writes to Jews, he will use, by inspiration, a different approach than , lets say, Paul who wrote to gentiles because Jews and gentiles do NOT share the same belief, background, mentality or state of mind. To prove Jesus is the Messiah, Matthew HAS to quote previous scriptures in light of what Jesus did/said. Paul, on the other hand, will have a completely different approach with gentiles who do not have scriptures.Hence, both will write with difference approaches, choice of words, arguments, ecc, both being inspired to reach different kinds of people.
So your approach does not reflect reality neither does it reflect the different audiance behind the different gospels.
? please don’t tell me it is that 16th century forgery? give me this manuscript that denies Jesus’ crucifixion.
Pray tell what does this have to do with anything?
what part is missing in Mark? the resurrection is not missing in Mark’s gospel unless i didn’t get what you mean.
Second, does any missing event in one gospel prove it did not happen? hence the missing miraculous birth in John proves it did not happen? i just can’t follow your reasoning.
.
i quoted Mark. What do you mean the resurrection story is missing in Mark?
2 points here:
No 2 people EVER give the same exact testimony ever. Take this example of 9/11:
2 people witnessed it. The first reports:
i saw one plane hitting the tower. Fire was everwhere. People were screaming and others were falling off the building.
the second reports :
i saw 2 planes hitting the tower. People were falling off the tower. Firemen arrived 5 mn later. Ambulances carried hundreds of injured.
Obviously both testimonies are different yet both are correct. You will find no 2 humans who will give the same exact details using the same sentence sequence with the same orders and words, let alone 4 different people talking about the same thing.
the other very important point is the following :
yiu believe the Quran is “munzal”, that is, the exact replica of Allah\s mind/words. This is NOT what inspiration means. Being inspired gives the person the ability to write truth using his OWN words, personnality, audiance ecc. The inspired author is NOT a robot who repeats God’s literal words via an angel.So when Matthew writes to Jews, he will use, by inspiration, a different approach than , lets say, Paul who wrote to gentiles because Jews and gentiles do NOT share the same belief, background, mentality or state of mind. To prove Jesus is the Messiah, Matthew HAS to quote previous scriptures in light of what Jesus did/said. Paul, on the other hand, will have a completely different approach with gentiles who do not have scriptures.Hence, both will write with difference approaches, choice of words, arguments, ecc, both being inspired to reach different kinds of people.
So your approach does not reflect reality neither does it reflect the different audiance behind the different gospels.
all of these manuscripts and apocrypha talk about Jesus’ death. Find me ONE apocrypha that denies his crucifixion cuz i found none. And who is Mr. Barnabas
? please don’t tell me it is that 16th century forgery? give me this manuscript that denies Jesus’ crucifixion.quotations please. All the gospels report bad actions on the part of the apostles . Jesus Himself said Judas will betray Him, Peter will deny Him ecc so your point is?
what on earth does this have to do with the testimony of the gospels? Jesus was saying that His spiritual sword will sever a man from his father, and daughter from her mother, and so on ( a reference to Micah 7:6) and continues to teach that :“Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take up his cross and follow me is not worthy of me. Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.”
Pray tell what does this have to do with anything?
I
inJESUS
Guest
what other proof than the same ideas found in the sunna which were taught by people you accuse of non-validity because they were not eyewitnesses? the same Luke who is not an eyewitness wrote about the miraculous birth. Does it mean it is not correct because he is not an eyewitness? yet Muhammad wrote the same? Muhammad is not an eyewitness to even 0.00001% of Jesus yet you believe what he says. The difference between Luke and Muhammad is that Luke TALKED and WALKED with eyewitnesses INCLUDING Jesus’ disciples, something Muhammad did not, yet you believe what Muhammad said. Not to mention that Paul’s exact words are quoted by your prophet as Allah’s word. Yes the same Paul you hate so much ; his words are said to be Allah’s words by Muhammad. Was Muhammad plagiarizing Paul? you bet he was because he quoted an idea ORIGINATED by Paul, who combined 2 scriptures together and Muhammad simply quoted Paul’s combination of scriptures
a plagiarism as clear as the sun because the quote is found in no other scripture but Paul’s letters on the one hand you question the validity of the non-eyewitnesses yet we find their teachings in your sunna. Then you question the “author” of this or that gospel yet we find the “questioned” authors quoted by your prophet. Either these people who are “unknown” and “non eye-witnesses” are liars and as a result Muhammad is, or they were inspired and that’s why Muhammad quoted their words. To us there is no question they were truthful because they were the disciples’ disciples and were later quoted by their disciples …a circle , a whole tradition.
nop in fact the apocrypha differ in many points from the Quran.
The apocrypha talk about Jesus’ crucifixion, resurection, Him being God ecc things very, very orthodox that you do not believe in. Yet they were rejected because they were NOT apostolic and because some had fiction + truth.What Muhammad quoted from the apocrypha were some passages from here and there that he thought were correct. Example, the legend of Jesus talking in the craddle. Where did it come from? from a jealous writer who wanted to defend Mary’s virginity so he invented this scenario. It is wrong because it never happened. Why? simply because the accusations against Mary were held AFTER Jesus’ ministry, not before
another plagiarism is about Jesus giving life to clay birds. Wow how deep. The gospel Muhammad took this passage from is halarious since it portrays Jesus the baby as a magician having fun with things, one of them is giving life to clay birds. Where did the gnostic crucifixion come from? some Christians with a Jewish background could not “swallow” the fact that their Messiah was tortured and killed. In their understanding, He is to be victorious, so how can he suffer? to reconcile both, they replied to the Jews who were boasting of “killing the Messiah” : do not boast! it appeared to you that you crucified and killed him but you did not because the one you crucified was his “appearance” (= his body") whereas the Spirit of the Messiah hence the “true Jesus” was raised to God victorious, mocking all of you who thought you can kill him".No i was not quoting the Quran. I was quoting gnostics
the same self-proclaimed disciple was quoted by your prophet.
Second, how do i measure? first off, Paul walked and talked and preached with the other disciples who attested to him. Second, Paul gave the same teachings as Jesus and the other disciples. Third, he lived at a time where eyewitnesses were living and they attested to him. Fourth, delete all of his letters, we still find Jesus who was crucified and resurected, the same Jesus the Word in flesh. Anyone who gives a different gospel than that of Jesus, be it Allen White, Muhammad or Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
I
inJESUS
Guest
if i live 6000 year or 20000 year from now , what is historical is historical, and what is in the scriptures is and will remain God’s revelation. What opposes scriptures and history and logic is rejected on the spot. Any self-proclaimed prophet who insults God’s power by saying His word is corrupt and by such re-invents scripture and history will be no more than an anti-Christ, a false Messiah, a wolf in sheeps’ clothing and a joke. So my answer is : it is not about years, it about the same message that parallels God’s revelations and human history or not.
I
inJESUS
Guest
P
Peregrino
Guest
Actually, once again, you’re wrong. (I don’t say that much, it is kinda fun!)
Is God one or many? You will say God (the trinity) is one. Appending the concept of trinity is simply a way to explain (while keeping intact God’s unity) how God can exhibit different characteristics. The characteristic is not God. God is manifold-panentheistic arguments hold a certain amount of sway with me.
The trinity doctrine is a convenient construct and interpretation/explanation of your perspective on God’s divinity.
It would fun to go back and forth on this but I think we are both intelligent enough to realize that a compromise on our perspectives on this issue is not possible.
(I don’t say that much, it is kinda fun!)The “thing” described by the trinity doctrine is real, the trinity doctrine is an attempt to pull together scripture to support, solidify and explain a particular perspective on that reality.
Is God one or many? You will say God (the trinity) is one. Appending the concept of trinity is simply a way to explain (while keeping intact God’s unity) how God can exhibit different characteristics. The characteristic is not God. God is manifold-panentheistic arguments hold a certain amount of sway with me.
The trinity doctrine is a convenient construct and interpretation/explanation of your perspective on God’s divinity.
It would fun to go back and forth on this but I think we are both intelligent enough to realize that a compromise on our perspectives on this issue is not possible.
Sure it can. Problem is, you say “THE CHURCH” gets to declare which revelations are valid, ergo, nothing will ever trump the Church because it won’t contradict itself. Rather convenient don’t you think? When you make the rules, you get to decide who is wrong. Everything congruent to the Church’s perspective is a self-fulfilling prophecy (pun intended), everything contradictory is chalked up to some sort of mental disorder on the part of the recipient…lol
I
inJESUS
Guest
i read what i wrote 3 times so far and i don’t find myself writing that your wisdom alone is you. I wrote that your wisdom is an attribute of you hence it is you, not other person, yet it is disctinct from you because you have wisdom but you are not wisdom.
to put it as simple as i can:
when i say Khalfan’s wisdom, am i talking about Khalfan or someone else? im talking about an attribute of Khalfan. Hence Khalfan’s wisdom is equal to Khalfan but Khalfan is not wisdom but Khalfan and wisdom is his attribute.
Jesus is the Fathers’ Wisdom hence is uncreated, eternal and divine= equal to the Father in nature but the Father is not Jesus.
the rest of your post can be summarized with this question : how can God become a full human while remaining God? how can He combine both? if i were God i’d have answered you but my brain is too limited.
What i can at leat explain is that Jesus was not a human with only divine wisdom nor was He the divine with a human wisdom. Jesus had both. How? again, if i were God i’d have known but God says His ways are not our ways neither are His thoughts our thoughts.
He is God, His Wisdom is full yet He understands our wisdom and lives our wisdom and thoughts.God with all His Wisdom, thinks like us in order to guide us. God does not communicate with us using His Wisdom but our wisdom otherwise we won’t be able to communicate with Him. When dealing with us, God uses His Divine Wisdom and our human wisdom. He has both.One does not negate the other but we don’t know the how.
- Status