WOW! JW have confused me more!

[KathleenGee]

Confused…I also note your pun on your spin on Latin…and I assume, please correct me, that you are part of a restorationist movement from America’s early 1800’s…?..I will wait to hear.

So there was no correct teaching until your founders arrived…what makes them the right ones? the true ones?

I am also noting out in my neck of the woods that there is this great discovery…that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism truly are based on paganism based on Constantine heading the Church in the 300’s…so we must be pretty dense to participate in a pagan church claiming to be Christ’s in this age of the internet.

Also, you mention the Trinity…what that simply means is ‘I am Who am’…God is,was, and always will be. And Christ is the means through which the universe was made through the Eternal Father…Christ is of the same substance as God, and from God and Christ, the Holy Spirit proceed.

Christ did say some times He is the Son of God. He said more times, He is the Son of Man…do you know what that means???

Is Christ your son??? You infer that every word of the Bible is true…so Christ has referred Himself to the Son of Man, so from what you demonstrate so far, you are missing your Bible quotes…and taking them literally…so the are you Christ’s Father???

Ah…the veil of language…we think we know everything,…especially when we look at faith in form we find in a book.

Why didn’t then, Christ make it very simple for everyone and pass out Bibles?

I also note that the JW’s always have something denigrating to say about the Catholic Church in just about every single issue…not a magazine goes by without something negative…so…

If you did not have the Catholic Church, half of your momentum would blow out that denigrating end.

Certainly your church has its beginnings…who were they…who are the prophets and founders of your church? Why did they come about so late? Why didn’t Christ make things clear so we all would not be so confus----ed…???

 

[KathleenGee]

Confused…

If you believe that Christ came after God, then Christ is not God and He has a beginning and thus an end.

If you believe that Christ is God, one with the Father…then what about the Holy Spirit…??..

One God, same substance…the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…consubstantiation…‘I am Who Am’…always am, no past, no beginning, eternal transcendent, no end.

To the carnate mind…meaning ours have a beginning and an end, to address the confines of our limited brains …Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

Considering these contexts…what is the issue of simply naming the dynamic of consubstantian instead as the Holy Trinity?..

 

[KathleenGee]

Confused…

If you believe that Christ came after God, then Christ is not God and He has a beginning and thus an end.

If you believe that Christ is God, one with the Father…then what about the Holy Spirit…??..

One God, same substance…the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit…consubstantiation…‘I am Who Am’…always am, no past, no beginning, eternal transcendent, no end.

To the carnate mind…meaning ours have a beginning and an end, to address the confines of our limited brains …Christ is the Alpha and the Omega.

Considering these contexts…what is the issue of simply naming the dynamic of consubstantian instead as the Holy Trinity?..a more respectful and defining way to help us name the as a Church the mystery of God in 3 persons.

 

[confusedius]

Confused…I also note your pun on your spin on Latin…and I assume, please correct me, that you are part of a restorationist movement from America’s early 1800’s…?..I will wait to hear. (1)

(2) So there was no correct teaching until your founders arrived…what makes them the right ones? the true ones?

(3) I am also noting out in my neck of the woods that there is this great discovery…that Catholicism and mainline Protestantism truly are based on paganism based on Constantine heading the Church in the 300’s…so we must be pretty dense to participate in a pagan church claiming to be Christ’s in this age of the internet.

(4) Also, you mention the Trinity…what that simply means is ‘I am Who am’…God is,was, and always will be. And Christ is the means through which the universe was made through the Eternal Father…Christ is of the same substance as God, and from God and Christ, the Holy Spirit proceed.

(5) Christ did say some times He is the Son of God. He said more times, He is the Son of Man…do you know what that means???

(6) Is Christ your son??? You infer that every word of the Bible is true…so Christ has referred Himself to the Son of Man, so from what you demonstrate so far, you are missing your Bible quotes…and taking them literally…so the are you Christ’s Father???

(7) Ah…the veil of language…we think we know everything,…especially when we look at faith in form we find in a book.

(8) Why didn’t then, Christ make it very simple for everyone and pass out Bibles?

(9) I also note that the JW’s always have something denigrating to say about the Catholic Church in just about every single issue…not a magazine goes by without something negative…so…

If you did not have the Catholic Church, half of your momentum would blow out that denigrating end.

(10) Certainly your church has its beginnings…who were they…who are the prophets and founders of your church? Why did they come about so late? Why didn’t Christ make things clear so we all would not be so confus----ed…???

KathleenGee-

I find myself enjoying our discussion. Permit me to answer rather in order (which for me is difficult as I like to take what we hillbillys call “didos”:

1. I am not part of any movement, rather a lonely soul trying to figure something out before it’s too late.
2. I do not think one needed to be there from the beginning to have discovered the truth. Many were “there from the beginning” who taught the earth was flat, witchcraft was rampant and bleeding was the cure for most illnesses. Thank God for those who came after and had better ideas!

Please understand that I am NOT implying the the JW faith has all the answers. Actually, one of the reasons I left the faith was an inability to believe ANYONE has all the answers.

1. I really do not understand the point of your third paragraph.
2. I understand what the Trinity means, I just do not believe it is correct. The question I asked had to do with how exactly the Catholic faith defines “heresy”.
3. I know what the Son of Man means. Actually two meanings, one the Jewish that this is the Messiah, the other and more common that Jesus was really, actually, in all ways, a man on earth rather than a superior being on earth. That He felt what we feel, was susceptible to temptation, knew pain and sorrow, feared death in a way God would not.
4. Do not understand this.
5. Thanks for the “we” - how true!
6. Good idea, except the printing press was a long way off. Guess that means there was no other way to do it, no?
7. Agreed. That was one of the things I had real issues with- what is the need to pick away at other faiths? How can any person or group have that hubris? I felt a sort of “chip on the shoulder” that I believe has no place in the realm of belief. I find this forum to be a breath of fresh air!
8. Yes, that is one of my biggest questions. Why make this so difficult? Why not do a few more tablets and bypass those human “leaky vessels” who likely salted the Bible with their own take on what they had been given? Why choose that particular time to roll all this out? It would have been so much better received in the 60’s! Definitely gives me pause.

Have a wonderful weekend, KathleenGee…

James

 

[Tom66]

Check out where people actually paid Jesus HOMAGE and WORSHIPPED him in the following bible verses. Matt 28:17, Matt 8:2, Matt 14:33, Matt 15:25, Matt 20:20, and Matt 28:9. God is a jealous God, and we shouldn’t worship any other gods.

If Jesus is just a creature, for example, Michael the Arc Angel, Jesus would have told these people not to pay him homage and worship him.

Peace and God Bless…

Tom

 

[InspiritCarol]

"There is no perfect explanation of “Trinity” but in order to deny Christ’s divinity one has to overlook vast mountains of data points not only in the Gospels, but in the Epistles, throughout history (we’re talking TONS of miracles here) AND his very real presence in our lives today.

To ask a person to suspend disbelief to THAT degree is not just foolishness, it is sheer madness."

So, it is fooloish to question something for which “there is no perfect explanation?” Something that, at one time, many if not most believed in, and that many find at odds with some of the words of Christ?

Oh dear, I ask you to actually read what I said.

To ask a thinking human being to not question, is like asking him to stop breathing. Couch potatoes have found a way to do this but they sacrifice some of their humanity for it… I digress.

We are always questioning and seeking a better understanding of God and our relation to Him, His expectations of us, etc. We really are a pilgrim people.

No, what I take exception to is your arrogant expectation that we believe your view of reality when you can’t even get reality straight from a few lines in a post.

I do not believe in the Trinity other that it was man-made and carries no purchase of proof. I believe it came from necessity- the necessity to hedge bets if an angry God took us to task for worshiping other than He.

I have read the Bible cover to cover (had to skip most of the begats, though) with special attention to the words and actions fo God and Christ. I find the differences in their “personalities”, if you will, their reactions to the foibles of humans,their words and actions,strikingly different.

~sigh~ I hear this all the time: I read the Bible cover to cover … yadda yadda … therefore I KNOW God… therefore I know … whatever…
Oh my goodness, people disagree upon the author’s intent in a poem or even something as straight forward as a novel like “Gone With the Wind”. How much more complicated, therefore, is the Bible? It is the height of arrogance to assume a relationship with the author when all you have done is read the book. Is it not better in order to understand intent, to ask the author directly? If that’s not possible for you, perhaps looking at the writings of the Saints, those who have walked and talked with Our Lord, could be of some assistance.

In any case it sounds like you were reading the “King James Version” which has been shown to be flawed. Wouldn’t it be more sound reasoning of someone truly interested in obtaining answers, to look to at least one good study Bible; at best several?

I have a secular study Bible. One that likes to give the side of “why we shouldn’t take anything in the Bible at face value”. I don’t recommend this as a starting place, because it takes keen discernment to see how biased it is being; but I revel in the fact that, for me, the secular arguments hold no water, whatsoever.

I mean, if you’re sincere in your quest and not just applying your JW founded expectations to everything you read (not calling you a JW – just your perspective of origin), you should step back and not be afraid to ask: what if the “Trinity is real”? “What if it’s all true that God is present in our lives TODAY… HERE ….NOW?

He is … James, he can be for you too if you let him in.

…continued…

 

[InspiritCarol]

If augmented with no more than the words of a dying Christ to God I feel grounded in my belief.

James

What if someone’s dying words were “a wretch like me”? Would you take those words at face value and conclude that that person was condemning themselves to hell; or would you more correctly understand the reference to the song “Amazing Grace” wherein the profound implications if that phrase are that the person knows themselves to be saved despite all?

Just the same the Jews knew their psalms so it was very obvious to them, that Jesus’ words were a victory cry:
Psalm 22
For the director of music. To the tune of “The Doe of the Morning.” A psalm of David.
1 My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?
Why are you so far from saving me,
so far from my cries of anguish?
2 My God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer,
by night, but I find no rest.**
3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One;
you are the one Israel praises.[c]
4 In you our ancestors put their trust;
they trusted and you delivered them.
5 To you they cried out and were saved;
in you they trusted and were not put to shame.
6 But I am a worm and not a man,
scorned by everyone, despised by the people.
7 All who see me mock me;
they hurl insults, shaking their heads.
8 “He trusts in the LORD,” they say,
“let the LORD rescue him.
Let him deliver him,
since he delights in him.”
9 Yet you brought me out of the womb;
you made me trust in you, even at my mother’s breast.
10 From birth I was cast on you;
from my mother’s womb you have been my God.
11 Do not be far from me,
for trouble is near
and there is no one to help.
12 Many bulls surround me;
strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13 Roaring lions that tear their prey
open their mouths wide against me.
14 I am poured out like water,
and all my bones are out of joint.
My heart has turned to wax;
it has melted within me.
15 My mouth[d] is dried up like a potsherd,
and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth;
you lay me in the dust of death.
16 Dogs surround me,
a pack of villains encircles me;
they pierce[e] my hands and my feet.
17 All my bones are on display;
people stare and gloat over me.
18 They divide my clothes among them
and cast lots for my garment.
19 But you, LORD, do not be far from me.
You are my strength; come quickly to help me.
20 Deliver me from the sword,
my precious life from the power of the dogs.
21 Rescue me from the mouth of the lions;
save me from the horns of the wild oxen.
22 I will declare your name to my people;
in the assembly I will praise you.
23 You who fear the LORD, praise him!
All you descendants of Jacob, honor him!
Revere him, all you descendants of Israel!
24 For he has not despised or scorned
the suffering of the afflicted one;
he has not hidden his face from him
but has listened to his cry for help.
25 From you comes the theme of my praise in the great assembly;
before those who fear you[f] I will fulfill my vows.
26 The poor will eat and be satisfied;
those who seek the LORD will praise him—
may your hearts live forever!
27 All the ends of the earth
will remember and turn to the LORD,
and all the families of the nations
will bow down before him,
28 for dominion belongs to the LORD
and he rules over the nations.
29 All the rich of the earth will feast and worship;
all who go down to the dust will kneel before him—
those who cannot keep themselves alive.
30 Posterity will serve him;
future generations will be told about the Lord.
31 They will proclaim his righteousness,
declaring to a people yet unborn:
He has done it!

Jesus was not denying his oneness with God here. He is proclaiming God’s victory… His victory to all who could understand.

James, lost one, HE HAS DONE IT!

The only way to find what you seek is to start seeking it.

May the Grace of God, like Bartemeus, open your eyes, James (and mine also - I am not perfect). Jesus, Lord, I want to see. Let us see.**

 

[confusedius]

"James, lost one, HE HAS DONE IT!

The only way to find what you seek is to start seeking it."

Fair enough, my friend! And let us start seeking it with a careful reading of the 27 books of the New Testament. I will commit to reading the entire New Testament by April 1, 2011 IF you will do the same.

Then, let us discuss the whole of the scripture rather than hurl verses that support our predestined opinions. Anyone else is welcome to join!

What say? Who is in??

James

 

[KathleenGee]

Hello James, I would rather call you that than confused…and God bless you lonely soul in humanity…God wants more of you…to be in His church…we all feel that … like we are a piece of sand along a beach…

But we keep putting ourselves before the Lord…and with each other…

God bless and come back later!

Kathleen

 

[InspiritCarol]

"James, lost one, HE HAS DONE IT!

The only way to find what you seek is to start seeking it."

Fair enough, my friend! And let us start seeking it with a careful reading of the 27 books of the New Testament. I will commit to reading the entire New Testament by April 1, 2011 IF you will do the same.

Then, let us discuss the whole of the scripture rather than hurl verses that support our predestined opinions. Anyone else is welcome to join!

What say? Who is in??

James

Yay!

IMHO it’s new to me EVERY time I read it.

That’s because I am different and - gosh - we always bring *something *to it, don’t we?

I mean, we are defined by moments and happenings in our lives that are undeniable. Still, that’s one of the reasons I engage Protestants so much, I don’t preach, I listen (you wouldn’t know that from here - lol - but it’s true). I do try to see the Bible through their eyes, and honestly, having been through what I’ve been through, it makes me physically ill to try to see Jesus as anyone other than what he is: God. I’m game to try again, though IF you get a decent study Bible. Or at least a better translation.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Justin Martyr:
“For next to God, we worship and love the Logos who is out of the unbegotten and ineffable God, since also He became man for our sakes, that, becoming a partaker of our sufferings, He might also bring us healing” (Second Apology, 13).

"There is, and that there is said to be, another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things who is also called an Angel, because He announces to men whatsoever the Maker of all things, above whom there is no other God, wishes to announce to them… I shall endeavour to persuade you, that He who is said to have appeared to Abraham, and to Jacob, and to Moses, and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all things, I mean numerically, not in will. (Dialogue with Trypho, 56).

You have snipped a few sentences out of context. Read the entire texts. There is no doubt that Justin Martyr understood who GOD IS.

“And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God, and appearing
formerly in power as Man, and Angel, and in the glory of fire as at the
bush, so also was manifested at the judgment executed on Sodom, has
been demonstrated fully by what has been said.” Then I repeated once
more all that I had previously quoted from Exodus, about the vision in
the bush, and the naming of Joshua (Jesus), and continued: "And do not
suppose, sirs, that I am speaking superfluously when I repeat these
words frequently: but it is because I know that some wish to anticipate
these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all
which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob, is called an Angel
because He came to men (for by Him the commands of the Father have been
proclaimed to men); is called Glory, because He appears in a vision
sometimes that cannot be borne; is called a Man, and a human being,
because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases; and
they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to
men: but maintain that this power is indivisible and inseparable from
the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is
indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens; as when it
sinks, the light sinks along with it; so the Father, when He chooses,
say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He
makes it return to Himself. In this way, they teach, He made the
angels. But it is proved that there are angels who always exist, and
are never reduced to that form out of which they sprang. And that this
power which the prophetic word calls God, as has been also amply
demonstrated, and Angel, is not numbered [as different] in name only
like the light of the sun but is indeed something numerically distinct,
I have discussed briefly in what has gone before; when I asserted that
this power was begotten from the Father, by His power and will, but not
by abscission, as if the essence of the Father were divided; as all
other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as before
they were divided: and, for the sake of example, I took the case of
fires kindled from a fire, which we see to be distinct from it, and yet
that from which many can be kindled is by no means made less, but
remains the same.

 

[confusedius]

Yay!

I’m game to try again, though IF you get a decent study Bible. Or at least a better translation.

Cool! As to the version, I just received a “Giant Font” NIV Bible from Amazon yesterday- my eyes told me I needed to. Hope that works for your IF, yes?

Away we go- and what a fun journey!

James

 

[johnpauls]

Well now, let me get this straight. Some mook decided “independently” that the Trinity is a farce and we’re all supposed to drop our faith and bow to the almighty BeDuhn? Dude, I gotta know: what are you smoking?

BeDuhn does not comment about the Trinity itself, just the translation of the words many churches use to support the doctrine. He brings out in his book that many of the bible translations out there have skewed scripture to support the trinity. If he is right, and the bible does not support the trinity, then can the church teach a doctrine like that without scriptural support?? That is a dangerous thing.

Lets get one other thing straight. I am not a JW - nor am I suggesting that they have the “truth” (as they say). I am simply commenting on the trinity issue, to which there are many groups who do not believe in the trinity.

It has always amazed me how willing people are to believe in the trinity based upon such small and skewed evidence. In Jesus’ words you can plainly - YES PLAINLY - see that Jesus gives greater authority and worship to Almighty God the Father. The fact that trinitarians take a few scriptures to definitively prove otherwise amazes me.

I present this basic question. Without prior dogma on the subject, do you think someone reading the bible for the first time would come away with Jesus being the same person as God the Father? Though it might be an experiment never able to occur, I would say you need a lot of predisposition on the subject to read scripture and come away with the belief Jesus is God the Father. After all, it flys in the face of simple logic and understanding.

Also, let us not forget. The very body of bishops who set the dogma of the trinity as an official church teaching was called together and presided over by a non-christian Roman Emperor. Not a great start to doctrine if you ask me.

 

[johnpauls]

You have snipped a few sentences out of context. Read the entire texts. There is no doubt that Justin Martyr understood who GOD IS.

I realize it is not good for the church to have Justin Martyr not believe in the trinity, so you must try to show he does “understand who GOD IS”. So, when he talks about Jesus being an Angel, how do you show that I am missing what he is saying about “who GOD IS”???

This is the exact problem with the trinity doctrine. You can read the same words and think it supports the trinity - when it doesnt. The trinity has been defined in such a way that it can be defended in almost any text. In the end, it is referred to as “the mystery of the trinity”.

Who can explain it?

 

[RebeccaJ]

I realize it is not good for the church to have Justin Martyr not believe in the trinity, so you must try to show he does “understand who GOD IS”. So, when he talks about Jesus being an Angel, how do you show that I am missing what he is saying about “who GOD IS”???

This is the exact problem with the trinity doctrine. You can read the same words and think it supports the trinity - when it doesnt. The trinity has been defined in such a way that it can be defended in almost any text. In the end, it is referred to as “the mystery of the trinity”.

Who can explain it?

And that Christ being Lord, and God the Son of God

is called an Angel because He came to men

is called Glory, because He appears in a vision sometimes that cannot be borne

is called a Man, and a human being because He appears arrayed in such forms as the Father pleases

and they call Him the Word, because He carries tidings from the Father to
men:

Yet, we are still speaking about Christ being Lord, and God

 

[T_More]

I realize it is not good for the church to have Justin Martyr not believe in the trinity, so you must try to show he does “understand who GOD IS”. So, when he talks about Jesus being an Angel, how do you show that I am missing what he is saying about “who GOD IS”???

This is the exact problem with the trinity doctrine. You can read the same words and think it supports the trinity - when it doesnt. The trinity has been defined in such a way that it can be defended in almost any text. In the end, it is referred to as “the mystery of the trinity”.

Who can explain it?

Why do you insist on evading the fact that Martyr keeps calling Christ God? The “exact problem” with non trinitarian’s is that if they can’t put God “into a box” and come up with a human way of understanding God’s infinicy, they discard it. Can you explain the “mystery” of God never having a beginning? That he has always been? We as human’s cannot fathom that, but I’m guessing that you don’t have a problem with accepting this, correct?

You won’t accept the Holy Trinity because you read something differently, whereas the Church affirms the teaching. Who has the right to interpret sacred scripture, johnpauls? Think long and hard about that. Sacred Scripture was recognized and canonized by the Catholic Church, after it had defined the Trinitarian doctrine in 325. If the teaching of the Church is unorthodox and was departure from what true teachings were, would that not mean that the Church had apostatized before discerning what made up the bible? If you accept the table of contents of the bible as determined by the Catholic Church, would that not mean you are drinking milk from an apostatized cow?

 

[InspiritCarol]

BeDuhn does not comment about the Trinity itself, just the translation of the words many churches use to support the doctrine. He brings out in his book that many of the bible translations out there have skewed scripture to support the trinity. If he is right, and the bible does not support the trinity, then can the church teach a doctrine like that without scriptural support?? That is a dangerous thing.

Lets get one other thing straight. I am not a JW - nor am I suggesting that they have the “truth” (as they say). I am simply commenting on the trinity issue, to which there are many groups who do not believe in the trinity.

It has always amazed me how willing people are to believe in the trinity based upon such small and skewed evidence. In Jesus’ words you can plainly - YES PLAINLY - see that Jesus gives greater authority and worship to Almighty God the Father. The fact that trinitarians take a few scriptures to definitively prove otherwise amazes me.

I present this basic question. Without prior dogma on the subject, do you think someone reading the bible for the first time would come away with Jesus being the same person as God the Father? Though it might be an experiment never able to occur, I would say you need a lot of predisposition on the subject to read scripture and come away with the belief Jesus is God the Father. After all, it flys in the face of simple logic and understanding.

Also, let us not forget. The very body of bishops who set the dogma of the trinity as an official church teaching was called together and presided over by a non-christian Roman Emperor. Not a great start to doctrine if you ask me.

Aw, johnpauls, I have to apologize, I was moderately cranky when I wrote that. Hope I didn’t upset you too much.

Anyway you and I agree about one thing, it IS amazing at what people are willing to believe on very little evidence. However, that is where our concordance ends. I’ll refrain from repeating what I said earlier in the more charitable part of the post, (if you bothered to read it). Suffice it to say you may not include ma in the category of one who has not thought about “Trinity” from a very cynical perspective for many decades. I got that you’re not JW, but your position on this matter is copacetic with theirs, am I wrong? Anyway, I guess what I was trying to say (and did so VERY poorly - I admit) is that, as wonderful and convincing as any brilliant scholar may be (now I’m only *slightly *sarcastic), we should still consider the thousands of other brilliant scholars that have an opposing viewpoint and, IDK, maybe take that into account?

The fact that trinitarians take a few scriptures to definitively prove otherwise amazes me.

It’s a lot more than a “few”; but even so – an understanding of Jesus as God and God as one God and the Holy Spirit as God and God still as One God, alone – goes way beyond theory and Biblical interpretation. I’m sorry you have not encountered Jesus as Lord, but maybe if you stopped telling Him he doesn’t exist, you might find a personal relationship a little more possible. IDK – maybe…

It occurs to me that the words “clearly” and “plainly” are used waaaay to often in reference to God and the Bible. Is anything really so? I was in a conference with several Lutheran Ministers (I was the only RC present). We were discussing the real presence. I simply said there is no question about what Jesus was saying: this IS my body. Clear enough? Plain enough? It took the charity of the Presbyterian pastor present to keep me from getting lynched. … We still have a little way to go in our re-formation efforts.

 

[johnpauls]

Why do you insist on evading the fact that Martyr keeps calling Christ God? The “exact problem” with non trinitarian’s is that if they can’t put God “into a box” and come up with a human way of understanding God’s infinicy, they discard it. Can you explain the “mystery” of God never having a beginning? That he has always been? We as human’s cannot fathom that, but I’m guessing that you don’t have a problem with accepting this, correct?

You won’t accept the Holy Trinity because you read something differently, whereas the Church affirms the teaching. Who has the right to interpret sacred scripture, johnpauls? Think long and hard about that. Sacred Scripture was recognized and canonized by the Catholic Church, after it had defined the Trinitarian doctrine in 325. If the teaching of the Church is unorthodox and was departure from what true teachings were, would that not mean that the Church had apostatized before discerning what made up the bible? If you accept the table of contents of the bible as determined by the Catholic Church, would that not mean you are drinking milk from an apostatized cow?

The cannon of the bible that was endorsed by the church, was in fact directed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Beyond the adoption of the trinity, the council of Nicaea approved the cannon that Constantine had put together. Also, other books that were considered to be added to the bible were ordered burned.

I have no problem thinking of God without a beginning. The term beginning is relative to time. God lives outside the stream of time -hence there is no beginning and no end. Obviously no one can even begin to understand God - yet who is trying to define him more?? Trinitarians or non-trinitarians? Its my opinion that trinitarians attempt to define God, but then fall short in explanation or support of such explanation.

 

[T_More]

The cannon of the bible that was endorsed by the church, was in fact directed by the Roman Emperor Constantine. Beyond the adoption of the trinity, the council of Nicaea approved the cannon that Constantine had put together. Also, other books that were considered to be added to the bible were ordered burned.

I have no problem thinking of God without a beginning. The term beginning is relative to time. God lives outside the stream of time -hence there is no beginning and no end. Obviously no one can even begin to understand God - yet who is trying to define him more?? Trinitarians or non-trinitarians? Its my opinion that trinitarians attempt to define God, but then fall short in explanation or support of such explanation.

Once again, you evade the issue of Christ being called God.

With all due respect, you are woefully misinformed about Constantine’s role at Nicaea. Perhaps you should read this and become enlightened as to what actually happened there.

catholic.com/thisrock/2009/0902tbt.asp

Is it that Trinitarians fall short? Or is it the bias against the Church who defined it that convinces you not to accept it?

I’m curious, how do you get around Thomas calling Christ God in John 20:28?

 

[KathleenGee]

James,

Catholics approach the Scripture from the whole of salvation, not drawing out parts separate from the whole…so I always back off from Scripture myself in debating it by quoting verses…focus on the intent of passage and how it relates to whole…alot to work with…and talk about.

We are having our English updated in the US and Canada…would think Australia would be included…the Nicene Creed will say Christ is consubstantiated with the Father…meaning Jesus has the same substance (God) as the Father…and the Holy Spirit proceeds…

Holy Trinity is a church name we use to simplify saying all the time, Father, Son and Holy Spirit…