The trinity in the Gospels

  • Thread starter Thread starter whyeyeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whyeyeman said:
“all authority under heaven and earth has been given to me”
Click to expand...
Ok…

28:18. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

All power, etc… See here the warrant and commission of the apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ’s church. He received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, he sends them (even as his Father sent him, St. John 20. 21) to teach and disciple, not one, but all nations; and instruct them in all truths: and that he may assist them effectually in the execution of this commission, he promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years only, but all days, even to the consummation of the world. How then could the Catholic Church ever go astray; having always with her pastors, as is here promised, Christ himself, who is the way, the truth, and the life. St. John 14.

Doesn’t disprove the Trinity. Also how do you explain what Jesus was saying when he said “I and the Father are one” in John 10:30?
 
Last edited:
My argument is how can Padre Pio be your hero if you are relying on your own opinion and sola scriptura?
 
Saying “people use this argument too much” is not a counter-argument. If there’s another possible interpretation I’m all ears.

It’d have been better (debate-wise) if you called John a liar. At least that would have been something.
 
I’m not relying on sola scriptura - in fact I am doing the exact opposite. I’m saying I don’t think the trinity is in the Bible.
 
The fact that I already responded to this was my point.

Saying “the word was God” is not the same as saying the Man Jesus is a coequal and coeternal member of the trinity. It is my point that the trinity is a product of later doctrinal development.

Everyone seems to think I’m a Unitarian. Not so.
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
Hence why I said “some may call me a heretic”
Click to expand...
Nevertheless you are still claiming that your interpretation is correct and that the Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church had made an error in one of its most fundamental teachings
 
Not really. Is there any teaching that says you have to believe the trinity is taught in the first three gospels?
 
Last edited:
Hmm… The only part where I struggle with this is the three witnesses verses that have been changed over time…

I honestly prefer my rosary to my bible but if I didn’t know the stories i’d be kinda lost.

I’m not saying you’re right…

But the scripture still doesn’t teach us everything about God in an explicit sense. A lot of things are discovered through progress of understanding.

Like I don’t think there are werewolves in the bible but they are in cases of the inquisition trials.

Concepts like the immaculate conception are true.

There used to be unicorns in scripture and I’d rather believe in them than call them a rhino. Or call leviathan a whale. Or behemoth a hippopotamus.

Idk.

What is your point?

There are other things about God and life that are not explicit in scripture but it does not mean they do not exist or are not in there in a spiritual way if you look hard enough.

Idk everything about bible code but that might be real.
 
Also I think belief in the trinity these days is a requirement of being Catholic.
 
The word trinity isn’t in the bible at all. But it is still what it teaches.
 
Thank you - you’re the only person who’s taken me seriously and not taken grave offense at my view.

What I want to know is whether it is possible for me to operate in the church with such a belief.

I firmly believe that Jesus did not give the Bible as our guide to Life, but gave us the gift of the spirit which will guide us in all things.
That is why it makes more sense to me to say that the trinity is a natural development which occured in the early church rather than try to stretch verses to mean things they don’t mean and pluck things out of context.
 
Last edited:
I see. We are always learning. It’s a process of discovery though rather than any fabrication at least that’s how I see it.
 
Pope Dionysius:

“Next, then, I may properly turn to those who divide and cut apart and destroy the most sacred proclamation of the Church of God, making of it [the Trinity], as it were, three powers, distinct substances, and three godheads. . . . [Some heretics] proclaim that there are in some way three gods, when they divide the sacred unity into three substances foreign to each other and completely separate” (Letter to Dionysius of Alexandria 1 [A.D. 262]).

“Therefore, the divine Trinity must be gathered up and brought together in one, a summit, as it were, I mean the omnipotent God of the universe. . . . It is blasphemy, then, and not a common one but the worst, to say that the Son is in any way a handiwork [creature]. . . . But if the Son came into being [was created], there was a time when these attributes did not exist; and, consequently, there was a time when God was without them, which is utterly absurd” (ibid., 1–2).

“Neither, then, may we divide into three godheads the wonderful and divine unity. . . . Rather, we must believe in God, the Father Almighty; and in Christ Jesus, his Son; and in the Holy Spirit; and that the Word is united to the God of the universe. ‘For,’ he says, ‘The Father and I are one,’ and ‘I am in the Father, and the Father in me’” (ibid., 3).
 
Have you actually read any of this conversation? I’m willing to believe in the trinity as a natural development in the early church, if such a view is tolerated in the church.

I’m not denying the trinity, so these quotes are irrelevant.
 
whyeyeman said:
Have you actually read any of this conversation? I’m willing to believe in the trinity as a natural development in the early church, if such a view is tolerated in the church.
Click to expand...
So then what is your claim? Did you think the Apostles, including the early Church didn’t believe in the Trinity first hand?

Please read this:

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/trinity#III._PROOF_OF_THE_DOCTRINE_FROM_TRADITION.

And please read proof of the doctrine from tradition. That is section 3
 
Last edited:
whyeyeman said:
I’m not relying on sola scriptura - in fact I am doing the exact opposite. I’m saying I don’t think the trinity is in the Bible.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between “being in the Bible” and being explicitly in the Bible.

The Trinity is in the Bible, but not explicitly. It doesn’t say, “God is a Trinity of Persons,” anywhere in the Bible, but the Old Testament, the Gospels and New Testament writings all imply that God is a Trinity of persons.

In effect, you aren’t doing “the exact opposite,” you ARE endorsing Sola Scriptura by requiring that the Bible explicitly say something before you accept that it implies that something. You are requiring that the Bible be taken literally or you reject it. That is not the Church’s stance on the Bible.

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.

In effect, you are nullifying the value of Scripture by insisting it has to be read literally in every instance and since it can’t you opt for the Church position over the Bible because you think the Bible doesn’t support the claims of the Church.

This is taking a Sola Scriptura position vis a vis the Bible and then rejecting that position AND the Bible altogether. Baby meets bathwater.
 
whyeyeman said:
The Pharisees are hardly known to be correct interpreters of Jesus are they?
Click to expand...
Perhaps… yet, they certainly understood when He was claiming to be God! 😉
whyeyeman said:
It doesn’t say that. No translation even attempts to suggest such.
Click to expand...
That’s because it’s a translation, not a grammar manual. 😉
whyeyeman said:
And I trust translators more than you.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. I think I trust translators more than you trust them. 🤣

Seriously, though… what you have here is a “first-class conditional”. Google “Koine Greek first class conditional”, if you wish. You’ll find that the construct in Romans 8:11 matches this kind of conditional – the protasis (i.e., the “if” part) and the apodosis (the “then” part) match the definition of a first-class conditional (and, more to the point, does not match any of the other classes of conditional.

What’s a first-class conditional, you ask? Glad you asked. 🙂

Wallace, in his “Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics”, says that a first-class conditional "indicates the assumption of truth for the sake of argument. The normal idea, then, is “if – and let us assume that this is true for the sake of argument – then…”.

So, let me repeat: the analysis of this verse which you encountered – the one you discount because you find it ‘dishonest’ – is an analysis that takes into account what translators know: it’s a first-class condition, which means that it really does presume that the “if” is true.

Hope this helps.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top