Trinitarianism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Amorlinda
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Amorlinda

Guest
Why we Catholics are Trinitarians; how you explaind “God the Son” ;when is not in the Bible; were born out of political convinience of an historical development, during the 325 AD during the Nicaea Council by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Instead “Son of God” is 47 times in the Bible, and until the Council was the Oneness of God, for the Catholic Church.:confused:
And …please do not answer just because.
The Lord is asking us to get the Truth!!! We will have Salvation only with the TRUTH!!!
 
catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity

Tertullian (a.d. 216)

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25)
 
Amorlinda said:
Why we Catholics are Trinitarians; how you explaind “God the Son” ;when is not in the Bible; were born out of political convinience of an historical development, during the 325 AD during the Nicaea Council by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Instead “Son of God” is 47 times in the Bible, and until the Council was the Oneness of God, for the Catholic Church.:confused:
And …please do not answer just because.
The Lord is asking us to get the Truth!!! We will have Salvation only with the TRUTH!!!
Click to expand...
Gospel of John, Chapter 1 vs. 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. vs 14: And the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we saw His glory, the glory of God’s only Son, full of grace and Truth.

That’s pretty explicit about Jesus being God the Son, i.e., the Word of God made flesh. Besides, in the Passion in the Gospel of John, Jesus specifically uses the name reserved for God (“I AM”) as referring to Himself.
 
powerofk said:
Gospel of John, Chapter 1 vs. 1: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God. vs 14: And the Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us, and we saw His glory, the glory of God’s only Son, full of grace and Truth.

That’s pretty explicit about Jesus being God the Son, i.e., the Word of God made flesh. Besides, in the Passion in the Gospel of John, Jesus specifically uses the name reserved for God (“I AM”) as referring to Himself.
Click to expand...
I do not who answer me; but thank you thank you.
I had read, and I was nor sure I undestod, english is a very difficult language.
That is the easy part. The Trinity is my concern. I talk to many Priest no one answer my q??
Than you agai.
 
There are any number of terms which are not in the bible; that does not mean that they are not there is substance. The bible is replete with evidence of a triune God.
 
steymard said:
catholic.com/tracts/the-trinity

Tertullian (a.d. 216)

“Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent persons, who are yet distinct one from another. These three are, one essence, not one person, as it is said, ‘I and my Father are one’ [John 10:30], in respect of unity of being not singularity of number” (ibid., 25)
Click to expand...
The Father and The Son OK I do belive !! not have a problem with that, the question is about the:
Trinity, The teacing of The Lord should be in the Bible and not out of men.
Trinitariam is a Non-biblical Terminology;
Paracletes, as all Trinitariams are post-apostolic developments; they are many, actuly, the first person recorded in history to use the word ( Trinitas in latin) Trinity was Tertullian (150-225 AD) .
When the Arian-Athanasian controversy began to sweep across the Roman Empire, Emperor Constantine decided to intervene. Recently converted to Christianity and then making it the accepted religion he felt the need to protect the unity of Christendom for the welfare of the empire. Constantine was no paragon of Christianity. In 326 he killed his son, nephew, and wife. He purposely deferred baptism; and …this is not the end,A council held in Tyre in 335 actually reversed the Nicene doctrine. It was not until the Council of Constantinople in 381, then, that the modern doctrine of the trinity gained permanent victory.
These things worried me, not the Bible, these is purely out and political power .
I start asking this as a child. The priest posponed my first communion becaue I ask too many Q???
Than you for answer.
 
Just a curiosity - where in the bible does it say that onbly biblical terms can be used about matters in the bible?

It doesn’t. This sounds like some splinter Protestant group.

If you look at the early Church Fathers - those men who were trained directly by the Apostles, or trained by the first group who were trained by the Apostles, you will find discussions about the trinity.

Why is that? Because there was no bible at that time. The books in the bible were not agreed to until well into the 300’s. The writings of Paul, James, John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were circulated; but there was no bible per se. Early on there was agreement in large part of what we would eventually find in the bible, but the book itself didn’t exist except in its separate parts.

As questions came up which were not specifically answered in those writings, or what was eventually agreed upon as the bible, the Church answered those questions; and so later as there was a split in authority over what the Trinity meant, those questions were answered by the Church, which was given that authority by Christ.

And the root of many questions has been the failure of some people to accept that authority of the Church to define matters.

We have sola scriptura - bible only - which is a rejection of the Church to answer questions authoritively. The result of that is 30,000 divisions within Protestantism, give or take a few thousand. And nowhere in the bible does it say that the bible is the sole authority. In fact, it gives authority to Peter, which was acknowledged by the early Church (and reported in the bible) and the early Church, after Peter died, continued that authority on in the bishop of Rome - whom we call the Pope - or in the vernacular - Papa.
 
While it is true that the word “trinity” does not appear in the Bible, there are several instances in the Bible in which the Three Persons are included as a triplet. The first appears at the end of the Gospel of Matthew: “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.” (Matt. 28:19)

In addition, St. Paul uses the Three Persons as a triplet in the conclusion of his second letter to the Corinthians: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the holy Spirit be with all of you” (2 Cor. 13:13).

Using the Three Persons as a triplet puts each Person of the Trinity on an equal footing with the other two Persons. The only way each of the Persons can be on an equal footing is if they are all God. And yet, we are told in the OT that there is only One True God. In addition, in scripture, different attributes are given to each of the Three Persons, which means they must be distinct Persons, and not just different images of the One God. Since all three Persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) logically must be God, as they are treated as equals with each other, they are all distinct Persons, and yet there is only one God, we have the doctrine that we call the Trinity: One God, Three Persons.

As such, the Trinity is a doctrine that logically flows from scripture, even though the word “Trinity” is nowhere to be found.
 
otjm said:
Just a curiosity - where in the bible does it say that onbly biblical terms can be used about matters in the bible?

It doesn’t. This sounds like some splinter Protestant group.

If you look at the early Church Fathers - those men who were trained directly by the Apostles, or trained by the first group who were trained by the Apostles, you will find discussions about the trinity.

Why is that? Because there was no bible at that time. The books in the bible were not agreed to until well into the 300’s. The writings of Paul, James, John, Peter, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were circulated; but there was no bible per se. Early on there was agreement in large part of what we would eventually find in the bible, but the book itself didn’t exist except in its separate parts.

As questions came up which were not specifically answered in those writings, or what was eventually agreed upon as the bible, the Church answered those questions; and so later as there was a split in authority over what the Trinity meant, those questions were answered by the Church, which was given that authority by Christ.

And the root of many questions has been the failure of some people to accept that authority of the Church to define matters.

We have sola scriptura - bible only - which is a rejection of the Church to answer questions authoritively. The result of that is 30,000 divisions within Protestantism, give or take a few thousand. And nowhere in the bible does it say that the bible is the sole authority. In fact, it gives authority to Peter, which was acknowledged by the early Church (and reported in the bible) and the early Church, after Peter died, continued that authority on in the bishop of Rome - whom we call the Pope - or in the vernacular - Papa.
Click to expand...
 
Thank you for answering
Why protestant,??? I never been in any protestant group I am from a Catholic Country.
I been catholic all my life and I have a question.
We ask Q. nobody have to be offended, Is not personal; I want to know.I read the Bible a lot and nobody ever answer this.
I am studding history for years, and is very scarry that’s why I go to the Bible.
The Church OK but the Emperor Constantine was no a father of Christianity.
You did not answer my question.
Love Bliss Abundance witn The Lord
 
Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, but did not himself become a Christian until he was near death. He summoned the Council of Nicea, yes, but he didn’t make the decisions there; the bishops did. In fact, Constantine wasn’t particularly fond of the results of the Council, and backed the Arians on various occasions. Even that deathbed baptism of his was performed by an Arian. Despite all that, the truth of the orthodox Faith prevailed in the end.

It’s true that the full doctrine of the Trinity isn’t spelled out in the Bible, but the facts are all in there. Various passages refer to the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit each as God, yet Scripture is clear that there is only one God. Groups like the Arians emphasized the latter truth to the point of denying Jesus’ divinity, while other groups fell into error in the other direction, embracing effective polytheism. The bishops of the early Councils, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, had to take all the Biblical data into account and reconcile it; the fully articulated doctrine of the Trinity was the ultimate result.

Usagi
 
You have trouble with the terminology “Trinity” because it is not mentioned in the Bible.

Where in the Bible do you find the command to reject terminology not explicitly stated in the Bible? I can’t find it anywhere.

Where in the Bible do you find the command to accept the teachings of the Apostles as the words of Christ? I can find a place! It’s Luke 10:16, when Jesus is speaking to the Disciples: "The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” That means that when the appointed successors of the Apostles speak, we hear Christ. And when we reject the words of the Church that Christ founded, we reject the One who sent Christ - God the Father. The Church has spoken definitively on the Trinity, and so I accept its teaching as Christ’s teaching, because the Bible told me to.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top