The trinity in the Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
HarryStotle said:
Your position, essentially, is that the Bible cannot be trusted because what you think it literally says isn’t what the Church has defined as dogma.
Click to expand...
So you think I’m advocating sola scriptura at the same time as thinking the Bible can’t be trusted?

And, if you actually read my OP, you will see that this is not at all what I am saying. I am saying it is a doctrinal development. The basis of doctrinal development is that new statements do not contradict previous statements, and nonetheless add something to our understanding.

What I am saying is that the generation of Christians who wrote the synoptics taught that Jesus was a unique man, born of a virgin and was exalted by God to the Lord of all creation for living a perfect life.

A few decades later, the idea that this man called Jesus had always existed developed - he was the eternal Word of God.

The final process in this development is the defining of the trinity itself being the Godhead.
 
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

“There is only one God and he doesn’t look like that.”
 
Though I think there may be some history to your claim it is sketchy and kinda undermines the faith…

It is like along the context of “we didn’t know something at one point so what we know now doesn’t matter.”
 
Last edited:
You are clearly misunderstand this verse. The sentence structure has nothing to do with the phrase

“The spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead.”
 
whyeyeman said:
What I am saying is that the generation of Christians who wrote the synoptics taught that Jesus was a unique man, born of a virgin and was exalted by God to the Lord of all creation for living a perfect life.

A few decades later, the idea that this man called Jesus had always existed developed - he was the eternal Word of God.
Click to expand...
was Jesus not clear that he was God in these passages?

The high priest rose before the assembly and questioned Jesus, saying, “Have you no answer? What are these men testifying against you?” But he [Jesus] was silent and answered nothing. Again the high priest asked him and said to him, “Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?”'Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”At that the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further need have we of witnesses? You have heard the blasphemy. What do you think?” They all condemned him as deserving to die (Mark 14:60-64; see also Matthew 26:61-66). (taken from Catholic answers).

explain this also if it wasn’t clear as to what Christ was insinuating

Jesus claimed to be God in various ways, most clearly when he proclaimed to the Pharisees and other Jewish people gathered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (John 8:58). They responded by picking up stones to kill him because they inferred his words as blasphemy, but he escaped.
In proclaiming himself “I am,” Jesus indeed takes to himself the name God the Father used in revealing himself to Moses (Exod. 3:14). In other words, in saying “I am,” Jesus proclaims that his essence is existence—i.e., that it’s of his divine nature to necessarily exist or be, for God is the uncaused cause. (taken from Catholic answers).
 
Last edited:
For goodness sake. We’ve been through this seventeen times. I don’t trust the Pharisees.
 
You really are behaving like a computer. Just parroting out these same arguments that I have already addressed.
 
whyeyeman said:
For goodness sake. We’ve been through this seventeen times. I don’t trust the Pharisees.
Click to expand...
and so? with all due respect just because you dont trust Bible passages where the Pharisees are putting Jesus on trial doesn’t negate what they accused Jesus of
 
“I am” is not the name of God in Exodus. It is " I am who Am." Not the same.
 
It’s not that I don’t trust the Bible passages. The opposite is true.
The Pharisees saying something in the Bible does not mean that is the truth.
 
whyeyeman said:
Catholic interpretation is that this is referring to confirmation. They have only been baptized, and now are being confirmed.
Click to expand...
From the Catechism:
THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM

1213 Holy Baptism is the basis of the whole Christian life, the gateway to life in the Spirit (vitae spiritualis ianua), and the door which gives access to the other sacraments. Through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ, are incorporated into the Church and made sharers in her mission: “Baptism is the sacrament of regeneration through water in the word.”

I. WHAT IS THIS SACRAMENT CALLED?

1214 This sacrament is called Baptism, after the central rite by which it is carried out: to baptize (Greek baptizein) means to “plunge” or “immerse”; the “plunge” into the water symbolizes the catechumen’s burial into Christ’s death, from which he rises up by resurrection with him, as “a new creature.”

1215 This sacrament is also called “the washing of regeneration and renewal by the Holy Spirit,” for it signifies and actually brings about the birth of water and the Spirit without which no one "can enter the kingdom of God."

1226 From the very day of Pentecost the Church has celebrated and administered holy Baptism. Indeed St. Peter declares to the crowd astounded by his preaching: "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit."
1241 The anointing with sacred chrism, perfumed oil consecrated by the bishop, signifies the gift of the Holy Spirit to the newly baptized, who has become a Christian, that is, one “anointed” by the Holy Spirit, incorporated into Christ who is anointed priest, prophet, and king.41
Click to expand...
You are throwing out the baby with the baptismal water!

Reread your cited passage from Acts in light of this one:
And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 2:38)
Click to expand...
Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent to them Peter and John, who came down and prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, for he had not yet fallen on any of them, but they had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands on them and they received the Holy Spirit. (Acts 8:14-17)
Click to expand...
Clearly, these people in Samaria had not received the “gift of the Spirit.” Why not?

Perhaps because they had ONLY been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus?

By the way, the Church affirms the authenticity of Matthew 28:19 in the Catechism:
1276 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20).
Click to expand...
So is it the Church or Wikipedia (or text critics) that you are trusting?
 
Last edited:
So unless Jesus denies something the Pharisees say we are to assume it’s true? Rather faulty logic.
 
whyeyeman said:
So unless Jesus denies something the Pharisees say we are to assume it’s true? Rather faulty logic.
Click to expand...
he affirmed he was the Messiah and the son of the blessed one

“Are you the Messiah, the son of the Blessed One?” Then Jesus answered, “I am; and ‘you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of the Power and coming with the clouds of heaven.’”
 
“He had not yet fallen on them.”

What do you think this means? It’s quite simply saying that they haven’t received the holy spirit through confirmation yet.

This passage is always the go to in order to defend confirmation in the early church. Either it is about confirmation, or it about baptism. It can’t be both.
 
“Messiah” means anointed one. King David among other received the same title. Does that make King David God?
 
whyeyeman said:
You are clearly misunderstand this verse. The sentence structure has nothing to do with the phrase

“The spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead.”
Click to expand...
Not true… it has everything to do with it.

The structure is “if X, then Y”. The type of statement literally means that Paul is assuming that X is true. What’s X, you ask? It’s the phrase “the Spirit of the one having raised up Jesus from the dead dwells in you.”

Now… if Paul assumes that the Spirit dwells in you, and if he asserts that this Spirit is the one that raised Jesus from the dead, then clearly, Paul believes that the Spirit raised Jesus!
 
whyeyeman said:
“Messiah” means anointed one. King David among other received the same title. Does that make King David God?
Click to expand...
did King David say he would sit on the right hand of the power coming with the Clouds of Heaven?
 
I KNOW HE IS ASSUMING X IS TRUE. That is literally besides the point. Actually read what the passage says and try to comprehend it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top