The Holy Trinity...

kelly1

Hello all, just a quick question aimed at non-catholic Christians.

Why do you believe in the Holy Trinity (assuming you do)?

Specifically, why do you believe the Holy Spirt to be one Person of the Trinity. Why isn't it just Father and Son?

God bless,
Noel.

getz

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, just a quick question aimed at non-catholic Christians.

Why do you believe in the Holy Trinity (assuming you do)?

Specifically, why do you believe the Holy Spirt to be one Person of the Trinity. Why isn't it just Father and Son?

God bless,
Noel.

the word trinity is not found in the bible

Soul Winner

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, just a quick question aimed at non-catholic Christians.

Why do you believe in the Holy Trinity (assuming you do)?

Specifically, why do you believe the Holy Spirt to be one Person of the Trinity. Why isn't it just Father and Son?

God bless,
Noel.

The Triune nature of God is beyond our comprehension and as such is pointless to debate. Paul says we see through a glass darkly but then face to face, so until that face to face time comes the dark glass rules unfortunately.

Soul Winner

getz wrote: »

the word trinity is not found in the bible

And your point when you're ready please.

kelly1

Soul Winner wrote: »

The Triune nature of God is beyond our comprehension and as such is pointless to debate. Paul says we see through a glass darkly but then face to face, so until that face to face time comes the dark glass rules unfortunately.

OK but do you believe in a Triune God, and if so, why?

prinz

However, the Bible also mentions three individuals, "persons," or spirit beings, each of whom is called "God," or other such terms used for God.
The Heavenly Father - Matt. 16:16,17; John 6:27,44,45; 20:17; Rom. 1:7; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Eph. 1:3; etc.
Jesus, the Son - John 1:1,14; 20:28,29; Phil. 2:6-8; Heb. 1:8,9; Col. 2:9; Isa. 9:6.
The Holy Spirit - Acts 5:3,4; Eph. 4:30; 1 Thess. 4:8.

It's all through the Bible that there are three 'beings' so to speak.As Soul Winner pointed out, IMO beyond our comprehension how this comes about or manifests itself.

http://www.gospelway.com/god/persons_godhead.php

Soul Winner

kelly1 wrote: »

OK but do you believe in a Triune God, and if so, why?

Yes I do. I believe there is the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. I believe that the three are of the same essence and are One. I believe that the Eternal Word was always facing the Eternal God and the Eternal Word was the agent through Whom the Eternal God created the universe. I believe that the Eternal Word became flesh and dwelt amongst us and was called Jesus of Nazareth. Like I said it is all very incomprehensible using English words and thus pointless debating. I fully believe in the trinity but I don't fully understand it, but when I get over there I will know as I am known.

JimiTime

I hate the term 'trinity'. I think it reduces God to some sort of equation. I think I'm pretty much in agreement with SW on the nature of God, but i think calling God 'the holy trinity' etc just sounds so disrespectful and cheap though. None of the bible authors did, Jesus didn't, the prophets didn't. Man oh man, its such a horrid cheap term for our Father, our King, and The spirit of God.

kelly1

prinz wrote: »

It's all through the Bible that there are three 'beings' so to speak.As Soul Winner pointed out, IMO beyond our comprehension how this comes about or manifests itself.

http://www.gospelway.com/god/persons_godhead.php

Acts 5:34 3 But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? 4 Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God.

Eph 4:30 And grieve not the holy Spirit of God: whereby you are sealed unto the day of redemption.

1 Thes 4:8 Therefore, he that despiseth these things, despiseth not man, but God, who also hath given his holy Spirit in us.

The first verse, I think, is the only one that comes close to showing that the Holy Spirit is divine. That really isn't a whole lot to go on. Are there other supporting verses?

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yes I do. I believe there is the Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit. I believe that the three are of the same essence and are One.

In the case of the second Person or Word, it can be shown that Jesus is one God with the Father. But how does Scritpure prove that the Holy Spirit is divine?

JimiTime wrote: »

I hate the term 'trinity'. I think it reduces God to some sort of equation. I think I'm pretty much in agreement with SW on the nature of God, but i think calling God 'the holy trinity' etc just sounds so disrespectful and cheap though. None of the bible authors did, Jesus didn't, the prophets didn't. Man oh man, its such a horrid cheap term for our Father, our King, and The spirit of God.

The Holy Trinity sounds very respectful to me!

prinz

kelly1 wrote: »

The first verse, I think, is the only one that comes close to showing that the Holy Spirit is divine. That really isn't a whole lot to go on. Are there other supporting verses?

The Holy Spirit comes from God and is God, therefore is by it's very nature divine I didn't realise there was a separation of powers going on here. God is divine, however He chooses to reveal Himself.

JimiTime

kelly1 wrote: »

The Holy Trinity sounds very respectful to me!

Not to me. Its objectifying God IMO. Jesus didn't use it, the apostles didn't use it, so I certainly wont use it. It has no value IMO.

getz

Soul Winner wrote: »

And your point when you're ready please.

just where do i start ?-well the word holy trinity did not appear untill the year 325, saint athanasius who was participant in the council stated ;the bishops were forced to uses this terminology[which is not found in the scripture] the word paraclete[trinity] has been a unending dispute with the eastern orthodox church, they believe from the second century on that the holy spirit/holy ghost is lesser than the father and son but above the angels.it was the catholic church 100 years later that up graded him/her.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

Hello all, just a quick question aimed at non-catholic Christians.

Why do you believe in the Holy Trinity (assuming you do)?

Specifically, why do you believe the Holy Spirt to be one Person of the Trinity. Why isn't it just Father and Son?

God bless,
Noel.

Sorry kelly1, I need to ask you a question here:

Why do you think Catholics have a better reason to believe in the Holy Trinity than non-Catholics?

The Trinity as a concept is seen in the Scriptures, there are quite a lot of Trinitarian references in the New Testament. We should have about the same justification for it. Bear in mind many Reformed Churches see the Council of Nicea as a legitimate council where the Holy Spirit was present.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Sorry kelly1, I need to ask you a question here:

Why do you think Catholics have a better reason to believe in the Holy Trinity than non-Catholics?

I don't.

Jakkass wrote: »

The Trinity as a concept is seen in the Scriptures, there are quite a lot of Trinitarian references in the New Testament.

I looks like I'm mistaken about the amount of proof for the Trinity in the NT. This article is convincing.

It's not that I don't believe in the Trinity, I certainly do. I was basically trying to find a means to support the validity of Sacred Tradition. I have big issues with sola scriptura.

Jakkass wrote: »

We should have about the same justification for it. Bear in mind many Reformed Churches see the Council of Nicea as a legitimate council where the Holy Spirit was present.

That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But if that is the case, when did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and start teaching error according to the reformers?

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But if that is the case, when did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and start teaching error according to the reformers?

I personally think a good pinpoint would be the introduction of the sale of indulgences. This is clearly in error to Holy Scripture if we look to Acts 8 spiritual gifts are not meant to be bought or sold. Scripturally salvation is a gift that we have not earned in any way of our own.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Reformers personally, but I also have quite a lot of respect for the Early Church.

Anglicans adopt the Nicene Creed, and many many other elements of the Roman Catholic tradition. However it also saw that much of church practice needed to be Reformed. Likewise Lutheranism retained a lot of Catholic practice.

It was only really with the Puritans that there was a complete and utter opposition to retaining Catholic practice and Catholic rites. Many Puritans were persecuted in the UK, like many Catholics, and Dissenting Protestants were and fled to the United States where they had a huge influence particularly in New England.

Edit: If you are really interested in seeing how the Church of Ireland compares to Catholicism the Book of Common Prayer (2004) is a good place to start. Our layout of services and everything is contained in here. Differences with Catholicism are likely to be found in the "Articles of Religion".

This link contains the entire Book of Common Prayer.
http://www.ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=12

peakpilgrim

Jakkass wrote: »

I personally think a good pinpoint would be the introduction of the sale of indulgences. This is clearly in error to Holy Scripture if we look to Acts 8 spiritual gifts are not meant to be bought or sold. Scripturally salvation is a gift that we have not earned in any way of our own.

I have a huge amount of respect for the Reformers personally, but I also have quite a lot of respect for the Early Church.

Anglicans adopt the Nicene Creed, and many many other elements of the Roman Catholic tradition. However it also saw that much of church practice needed to be Reformed. Likewise Lutheranism retained a lot of Catholic practice.

It was only really with the Puritans that there was a complete and utter opposition to retaining Catholic practice and Catholic rites. Many Puritans were persecuted in the UK, like many Catholics, and Dissenting Protestants were and fled to the United States where they had a huge influence particularly in New England.

Edit: If you are really interested in seeing how the Church of Ireland compares to Catholicism the Book of Common Prayer (2004) is a good place to start. Our layout of services and everything is contained in here. Differences with Catholicism are likely to be found in the "Articles of Religion".

This link contains the entire Book of Common Prayer.
http://www.ireland.anglican.org/index.php?do=worship&id=12

The Sale of Indulgences was a scandal in The Catholic Church in the sixteenth century, carried out by certain parties with vested interests, and was never part of Church policy.

This abuse was condemned by Pope Pius V in 1567.

An Indulgence is a remission before God of a temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven.

For instance: if you steal someone's car its not enough to be sorry you also have to give it back and make amends.

This subject is another example of a Catholic Church policy which has received continued bad publicity; some of which was merited; most of which isn't.

smcgiff

As someone raised as a Catholic, but nominally Agnostic, although closer to being an Atheist (unless I'm ever in a foxhole) - I see the concept of trinity as an-insider attempt to get around polytheism. I don't see Christians as monotheists and Catholics are close to having four gods if you include Mary.

Of course it's for Christians to state their beliefs as they see fit, but in my mind it's polytheism.

PDN

getz wrote: »

just where do i start ?-well the word holy trinity did not appear untill the year 325, saint athanasius who was participant in the council stated ;the bishops were forced to uses this terminology[which is not found in the scripture] the word paraclete[trinity] has been a unending dispute with the eastern orthodox church, they believe from the second century on that the holy spirit/holy ghost is lesser than the father and son but above the angels.it was the catholic church 100 years later that up graded him/her.

Probably better to start by reading up on the subject.

The word 'Trinity' was coined around 213 AD by Tertullian, but the doctrine was obviously held before then as Tertullian was defending the doctrine against attacks from a guy called Praxeas.

The word 'paraclete' does not mean Trinity. It means 'advocate', 'counsellor', or 'comforter' and is used by Jesus in John's Gospel.

The Eastern Orthodox Church does not hold to a lesser view of the Holy Spirit, but subscribes to the Nicene Creed and teaches that He is the Third Person of the Trinity and co-equal with the Father and Son in power and glory.

The Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches did not exist as separate entities until centuries after Athanasius was dead and buried.

Athanasius' dispute was certainly not with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Athanasius was the Bishop of Alexandria (that is in the eastern part of the Empire) and he is considered one of the four Doctors of the Church in Orthodox Christianity. His dispute was with a heretic called Arius.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered. But if that is the case, when did the Holy Spirit abandon the Church and start teaching error according to the reformers?

Just to clear this up a bit further:

I don't consider the Church = Catholic Church.

There were numerous churches before the Catholic Church ever existed. The Jewish church (James and Peter), the Indian church of Thomas, the Armenian Apostolic Church (Barnabas and Jude), and of course the Gentile church of Paul.

The church to me involves all Christian believers. It doesn't refer merely to Catholicism.

The Reformers were men who stood up to preserve Christianity from Catholicism and to allow the people to hold their priests and ministers to account by being able to see the Biblical text in their own tongue.

ocianain

Jakkass wrote: »

Sorry kelly1, I need to ask you a question here:

Why do you think Catholics have a better reason to believe in the Holy Trinity than non-Catholics?

The Trinity as a concept is seen in the Scriptures, there are quite a lot of Trinitarian references in the New Testament. We should have about the same justification for it. Bear in mind many Reformed Churches see the Council of Nicea as a legitimate council where the Holy Spirit was present.

Why was the Council of Nicea called?

ocianain

Jakkass wrote: »

Just to clear this up a bit further:

I don't consider the Church = Catholic Church.

There were numerous churches before the Catholic Church ever existed. The Jewish church (James and Peter), the Indian church of Thomas, the Armenian Apostolic Church (Barnabas and Jude), and of course the Gentile church of Paul.

The church to me involves all Christian believers. It doesn't refer merely to Catholicism.

The Reformers were men who stood up to preserve Christianity from Catholicism and to allow the people to hold their priests and ministers to account by being able to see the Biblical text in their own tongue.

There is One True Church and it's The Catholic Church. The Churches you named were all part of the Catholic Church established by Christ with Peter at it's head (see Matt 16). The Bible existed in the vernacular well before the Reformation (which by the way gave us many poor translations, see the Britches Bible), saunter on over to the British Museum sometime and see them. The Bible in the vernacular was also redundant. Most people were illiterate and could not read either Latin or the vernacular; if they could read, the could also read Latin. The Reformers did not set out to preserve Christianity, they wanted power and wealth. Ever wonder what happened to the English farmers the Russells and Cecils kicked of the land? And how old do you think the Christian Bible is?

robindch

ocianain wrote: »

Why was the Council of Nicea called?

In broad terms, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to have as many of the Empire's bishops as possible agree upon a single interpretation of the religious stories of the NT so that he could neutralize the threat to the stability of the Empire and the authority of the Emperor that derived from the divisions caused by, or threatened by, the interpretation of the bible produced by Arius, aka the Arian Heresy. Constantine would have been well aware of how much trouble uncontrolled religious groupings could cause and appears to have been familiar with the Platonic notion of the Noble Lie as a means of asserting state-wide control of a disparate population.

In political terms, in asserting a single interpretation with the backing of the Emperor, the Council marked the end of the period of relative religious tolerance that had been characteristic of the Roman Empire up to that point, and the start of a rather long period of much more formal state control of people's individual religious beliefs.

Which unfortunately didn't ultimately do much to preserve the integrity of the Empire, though the religion itself benefited quite handsomely.

Fanny Cradock

I think the concept of the Trinity is scripturally sound. For example, I believe that Paul would have had no problems with the concept of a triune God. Therefore I believe in a connection between the Father Son and Spirit, albeit a strange and mysterious one.

philologos

ocianain wrote: »

There is One True Church and it's The Catholic Church. The Churches you named were all part of the Catholic Church established by Christ with Peter at it's head (see Matt 16).

How come the Mar Thomas Church in India remained separate from the Catholic Church for it's entire existence. The Pope never had any authority over that Church. When the Portuguese came to Kerala for the first time, they were shocked to see that there were already Christians there! However, they were disappointed that they weren't Catholics, so they persecuted them quite heavily. Today the Mar Thomas Church is a part of the Anglican communion.

Catholicism didn't exist officially until it was tolerated in the Roman Empire. These churches are all pre-Catholic.

What about the Celtic Church that existed in Ireland, and Britain for a long time before Catholicism even arrived?

You're really not doing this true justice.

ocianain wrote: »

The Bible existed in the vernacular well before the Reformation (which by the way gave us many poor translations, see the Britches Bible), saunter on over to the British Museum sometime and see them.

Why were William Tyndale and Thomas Cranmer put to death for?

ocianain wrote: »

The Bible in the vernacular was also redundant. Most people were illiterate and could not read either Latin or the vernacular; if they could read, the could also read Latin.

Many people were illiterate yes. Hence why many in the churches protested and read the Bible in English when the priest was speaking in Latin.

ocianain wrote: »

The Reformers did not set out to preserve Christianity, they wanted power and wealth.

I think you'll find Martin Luther was appalled at the Pope's lavish livestyle when he visited Rome in 1510. I don't think anyone could have beaten the Pope in the quest for power and wealth at that time.

ocianain wrote: »

Ever wonder what happened to the English farmers the Russells and Cecils kicked of the land? And how old do you think the Christian Bible is?

I'm aware that people persecuted Catholics and Dissenters in Britain for many years. Overall the Protestant Reformation was the most progressive thing that had happened in Christianity in years.

As for the Christian Bible, the texts vary in age. The Jewish Tanakh was compiled in 450BC, books such as Genesis were written circa 900BC, The youngest book of the New Testament was written around 90AD. The Bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea in 325.

Fanny Cradock

Jakkass wrote: »

The youngest book of the New Testament was written around 90AD. The Bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea in 325.

Humm... it should be noted that First Thessalonians is dated by some to around about 50AD. Again, the traditional view would put Mark, for instance, at about 65 AD.

My understanding is that while Council of Nicea officially compiled and rubber-stamped the books of the Bible, these books had largely been recognised as authoritative and used before canonisation. Admittedly this is again the traditional view and it should be noted that sceptics tell their own version of the truth.

Joe1919

This forum is called 'Christianity'. What does 'Christ' mean and how does 'Christ' differ from God? How does the 'Christian God' relate to the Jewish God of the old testament and to the philosophical idea of God?
Now, afaik, early Christians were followers of Jesus Christ but was Jesus a man or was he a God ?

Now, 'Unity' is an important philosophical concept, (Unity is a property of Being) and even the pagan Aristotle argued that there can be only 'one' first cause etc.

Hence, the only philosophical and viable explanation (that a Christian can give if they don't want to be accused of heresy) is that Christ is the incarnated God, the God made flesh, the particularisation of the universal God, the realisation of the concept.
i.e. I presume 'Christ' could also not be considered as different than 'God' as this would run the risk of polytheism or of Christians being accused of being pagan by putting 'Christ' above God or been accused of following 'the man' Jesus Christ.

I think the Holy Ghost is an interesting idea as it adds continuity or keeps God alive or incarnated so to speak. The incarnated God, according to Christians was crucified and ascended into heaven yet he is still alive or incarnated in the individual minds of his followers as a 'Grace' (or the religious consciousness of the incarnated God ) that sustains Christians and give them strength and happiness once they have this religious consciousness or 'Grace'.

Finally then, it can be argued that the Christian concept of the Trinity in terms of a relationship between the 'idea' and the 'one' God in terms of Universal/Particular/ Individual instances of that 'idea' is perfectably logical and coherent.

philologos

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Humm... it should be noted that First Thessalonians is dated by some to around about 50AD. Again, the traditional view would put Mark, for instance, at about 65 AD.

Indeed, I was giving a range between roughly 900BC - 90AD for the complete Bibles authorship. 1 Corinthians is 55AD as far as I know.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

My understanding is that while Council of Nicea officially compiled and rubber-stamped the books of the Bible, these books had largely been recognised as authoritative and used before canonisation. Admittedly this is again the traditional view and it should be noted that sceptics tell their own version of the truth.

The New Testament books were selected on their basis due to the fact that they were used by the Church Fathers from the earliest dates. Let me pluck out a video for you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_f_veY11k

getz

the early [not yet corrupted ]christain church believed the holy spirit was god, in acts 5;3 ananias is said to have lied to the holy spirit, but in the next verse peter says that ananias lied to god, to peter and all the early church believed the holy spirit was god.the holy spirit in the new testament is identified with yahweh[jehovah] of the old testament.

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

Catholicism didn't exist officially until it was tolerated in the Roman Empire. These churches are all pre-Catholic.

When do you believe the Catholic Church was formed? As early as 110AD, St. Ignatius started using the word catholic.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

When do you believe the Catholic Church was formed? As early as 110AD, St. Ignatius started using the word catholic.

Context is key. I personally say I belong to the catholic and apostolic church when I say the Nicene Creed at church.

The word catholic on it's own means universal. Which is ironic considering that it became a word to describe a denomination.

The Roman Catholic Church is a very very different thing altogether than referring to the church as catholic or universal. I don't consider the Catholic Church to have an unique claim on Christianity, or that it is the only legitimate form of Christianity or even that it is superior to other denominations.

The idea of of Roman Catholicism as the only truly legitimate form of Christianity is just plain redundant for me. If we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we are a part of the church. That's it for me.

kelly1

First let me say that my original question re the biblical basis for the Holy Trinity, has to my mind, been settled and thank to all who contribuited.

Now to digress a little if I may...

Jakkass wrote: »

The idea of of Roman Catholicism as the only truly legitimate form of Christianity is just plain redundant for me. If we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ we are a part of the church. That's it for me.

I would argue that following Christ faithfully involves submitting to the authority and teachings of the RCC. I would support this with the following verses:

John 10:16 He that heareth you [the apostles], heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.

Matthew 18:17. And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Matthew 28:18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

2 Thes. 2:15 So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Tim. 2:2 And what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. 9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

1 Timothy 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Acts 20:28 Take heed to yourselves, and to the whole flock, wherein the Holy Ghost hath placed you bishops, to rule the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I'm not at all saying that non-Catholic Christians aren't Christian. I'm saying that there is a certain disunity with the faithful Church because people have chosen to reject doctrines revealed by the Holy Spirit and people rejected the validity of Sacred Tradition to different degrees. Sola scriptura is very flawed.

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

I would argue that following Christ faithfully involves submitting to the authority and teachings of the RCC. I would support this with the following verses:

You would as a Roman Catholic yourself. However the RCC is not explicitly mentioned as being synonymous with the Church in Scripture. I don't believe that is what Church means in the Biblical text.

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not at all saying that non-Catholic Christians aren't Christian. I'm saying that there is a certain disunity with the faithful Church because people have chosen to reject doctrines revealed by the Holy Spirit and people rejected the validity of Sacred Tradition to different degrees. Sola scriptura is very flawed.

I don't agree that the Catholic Church is any more faithful than the rest. People often listen to their own corrupt desires and these have seeped into the church over the ages.

The facts are, other churches existed before Roman Catholicism, even if we take the 110AD date, my date would be in the 4th century.

ocianain

robindch wrote: »

In broad terms, Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to have as many of the Empire's bishops as possible agree upon a single interpretation of the religious stories of the NT so that he could neutralize the threat to the stability of the Empire and the authority of the Emperor that derived from the divisions caused by, or threatened by, the interpretation of the bible produced by Arius, aka the Arian Heresy. Constantine would have been well aware of how much trouble uncontrolled religious groupings could cause and appears to have been familiar with the Platonic notion of the Noble Lie as a means of asserting state-wide control of a disparate population.

In political terms, in asserting a single interpretation with the backing of the Emperor, the Council marked the end of the period of relative religious tolerance that had been characteristic of the Roman Empire up to that point, and the start of a rather long period of much more formal state control of people's individual religious beliefs.

Which unfortunately didn't ultimately do much to preserve the integrity of the Empire, though the religion itself benefited quite handsomely.

Largely incorrect. There was no Bible, no NT. The Arian heresy you mention was the cause of the council. Constatine called the council to address the Arian Heresy

kelly1

Jakkass wrote: »

You would as a Roman Catholic yourself. However the RCC is not explicitly mentioned as being synonymous with the Church in Scripture. I don't believe that is what Church means in the Biblical text.

I think scripture shows that the Church must have the following four "marks":

One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

I don't really want to get into a big debate, but just ask yourself, does belief in Jesus alone make a person a member of the Church as defined above?

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't agree that the Catholic Church is any more faithful than the rest. People often listen to their own corrupt desires and these have seeped into the church over the ages.

I would argue that the Church's traditions and teachings are more faithful. The sinfulness of its members is an entirely different matter!

Jakkass wrote: »

The facts are, other churches existed before Roman Catholicism, even if we take the 110AD date, my date would be in the 4th century.

If you read the writings of the Church fathers, you'll find that Peter was the head of the entire Church. Of course there were schismatic/heretical groups (e.g. the Gnostics) but they weren't part of the mainstream Church.

See http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

The truth had to exist somewhere!

ocianain

Jakkass wrote: »

How come the Mar Thomas Church in India remained separate from the Catholic Church for it's entire existence. The Pope never had any authority over that Church. When the Portuguese came to Kerala for the first time, they were shocked to see that there were already Christians there! However, they were disappointed that they weren't Catholics, so they persecuted them quite heavily. Today the Mar Thomas Church is a part of the Anglican communion.

Catholicism didn't exist officially until it was tolerated in the Roman Empire. These churches are all pre-Catholic.

What about the Celtic Church that existed in Ireland, and Britain for a long time before Catholicism even arrived?

You're really not doing this true justice.



Why were William Tyndale and Thomas Cranmer put to death for?



Many people were illiterate yes. Hence why many in the churches protested and read the Bible in English when the priest was speaking in Latin.



I think you'll find Martin Luther was appalled at the Pope's lavish livestyle when he visited Rome in 1510. I don't think anyone could have beaten the Pope in the quest for power and wealth at that time.



I'm aware that people persecuted Catholics and Dissenters in Britain for many years. Overall the Protestant Reformation was the most progressive thing that had happened in Christianity in years.

As for the Christian Bible, the texts vary in age. The Jewish Tanakh was compiled in 450BC, books such as Genesis were written circa 900BC, The youngest book of the New Testament was written around 90AD. The Bible was compiled at the Council of Nicea in 325.

The Bible was not compiled at Nicea in 325, there was also no agreed upon Jewish Canon of Scripture till the 2nd century AD when Akiba banned the reading of Christian scripture because, the Christians would not worship bar Kochba as Messiah. Even then there was no declared canon, just books that "should not defile the hands." There were 20 some different Jewish sects with different scriptures (some in common).

The Reformation set back Western Civilization some 200 years, it was a regression, not an advance.

Luther contracted syphilis in Rome, his aversion to Rome was in reaction to this, Luthers revolution was all about sex, if you read anything other than hagiography you would know this. See, Luthers own, Bondage of the Will, here he argues yo are an animal unable to control your passions, hence you are not responsible for them.

Got to go

philologos

kelly1 wrote: »

I think scripture shows that the Church must have the following four "marks":

One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

I don't really want to get into a big debate, but just ask yourself, does belief in Jesus alone make a person a member of the Church as defined above?

I'm not entirely sure where you are coming from here. I don't see why the Church can't be regarded as one. One in Christ. Not one under the Pope.

As for believing in Jesus. If you believe in Christ, and believe in Biblical teachings, you are saved and you are one of the elect. The Church to me is the fellowship of believers. We who believe are His body on this earth.

kelly1 wrote: »

I would argue that the Church's traditions and teachings are more faithful. The sinfulness of its members is an entirely different matter!

I don't think it is any more faithful than any other church that exists in the world. That's where we differ

kelly1 wrote: »

If you read the writings of the Church fathers, you'll find that Peter was the head of the entire Church. Of course there were schismatic/heretical groups (e.g. the Gnostics) but they weren't part of the mainstream Church.

Yes, Peter was the head of the Church even if we look to the end of the Gospel of John. However, we have no evidence that Peter was buried in Rome. Others have claimed he was buried outside Jerusalem. Peter was also in charge of the Jewish church not the Gentile church. His letters are titled to the Diaspora of Israel.

kelly1 wrote: »

See http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

The truth had to exist somewhere!

The truth exists, I just don't believe that there is one true church. Rather that the Christian church is what it is. Even if it was Jesus in Mark chapter 9 recognised the efforts of others preaching in his name who were not of the 12 disciples preaching.

wolfsbane

ocianain said:

The Reformation set back Western Civilization some 200 years, it was a regression, not an advance.

Hmm. So the continuing dominance of a thoroughly corrupt RCC would have led to better things? The Inquisition as an instrument of enlightenment?

Luther contracted syphilis in Rome,

Proof?

his aversion to Rome was in reaction to this, Luthers revolution was all about sex, if you read anything other than hagiography you would know this.

Right, nothing to do with abuses such as indulgences to start with, and Justification by Faith latterly?

See, Luthers own, Bondage of the Will, here he argues yo are an animal unable to control your passions, hence you are not responsible for them.

Again, I'm amazed. Care to point out where Luther says we are not responsible for our sins of passion?

Is it Luther or you who have sex on the brain?

wolfsbane

kelly1 said:

I think scripture shows that the Church must have the following four "marks":

One
Holy
Catholic
Apostolic

I agree. That rules out the RCC then - it is neither holy nor apostolic. It is riddled with immorality, and lacking in several apostolic teachings. Oppression and greed characterise it, and man-made traditions have usurped the teaching of the Bible.

The true church is found in all nations, wherever sincere believers in Christ meet together. The gospel has continued from the hands of the apostles down to this generation, despite all the efforts of men to burn it or lock it away.

I don't really want to get into a big debate, but just ask yourself, does belief in Jesus alone make a person a member of the Church as defined above?

Yes, if we understand that belief to be genuine - the sort that results in good works.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkass
I don't agree that the Catholic Church is any more faithful than the rest. People often listen to their own corrupt desires and these have seeped into the church over the ages.
I would argue that the Church's traditions and teachings are more faithful. The sinfulness of its members is an entirely different matter!

The RCC's traditions and teachings can be compared to the Bible to see if they are faithful or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jakkass
The facts are, other churches existed before Roman Catholicism, even if we take the 110AD date, my date would be in the 4th century.
If you read the writings of the Church fathers, you'll find that Peter was the head of the entire Church. Of course there were schismatic/heretical groups (e.g. the Gnostics) but they weren't part of the mainstream Church.

See http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

The truth had to exist somewhere!

Peter had his leadership role, as did Paul and James. You will note from Paul's writings that he did not acknowledge Peter as any sort of pope. That error gradually entered the churches, as did later even worse ones.

The truth remained in the Scriptures, and was carried by faithful men to each succeeding generation. Sometimes it was only a small and despised remnant who kept the faith; at other times God saved multitudes and gave the gospel great freedom to spread.

getz

ocianain wrote: »

The Bible was not compiled at Nicea in 325, there was also no agreed upon Jewish Canon of Scripture till the 2nd century AD when Akiba banned the reading of Christian scripture because, the Christians would not worship bar Kochba as Messiah. Even then there was no declared canon, just books that "should not defile the hands." There were 20 some different Jewish sects with different scriptures (some in common).

The Reformation set back Western Civilization some 200 years, it was a regression, not an advance.

Luther contracted syphilis in Rome, his aversion to Rome was in reaction to this, Luthers revolution was all about sex, if you read anything other than hagiography you would know this. See, Luthers own, Bondage of the Will, here he argues yo are an animal unable to control your passions, hence you are not responsible for them.

Got to go

the reformation was predicted by waldenses,lollards, and hussites in the 12th century ,and it was set off by martin luther in 1517, the main reason was because of these five popes -[and nice people they were] -sergius111[897-911]--stephen[896- 897]--honorius111[1216-1227]--pius11[1458-1464]- alaxanderV1[1492-1503] corruption in the church was so bad it was bound to happen

prinz

getz wrote: »

the reformation was predicted by waldenses,lollards, and hussites in the 12th century ,and it was set off by martin luther in 1517, the main reason was because of these five popes -[and nice people they were] -sergius111[897-911]--stephen[896- 897]--honorius111[1216-1227]--pius11[1458-1464]- alaxanderV1[1492-1503] corruption in the church was so bad it was bound to happen

Lollardy and Hussite were 14th and 15th Century.

peakpilgrim

wolfsbane wrote: »

kelly1 said:

I agree. That rules out the RCC then - it is neither holy nor apostolic. It is riddled with immorality, and lacking in several apostolic teachings. Oppression and greed characterise it, and man-made traditions have usurped the teaching of the Bible.

The true church is found in all nations, wherever sincere believers in Christ meet together. The gospel has continued from the hands of the apostles down to this generation, despite all the efforts of men to burn it or lock it away.


Yes, if we understand that belief to be genuine - the sort that results in good works.


The RCC's traditions and teachings can be compared to the Bible to see if they are faithful or not.


Peter had his leadership role, as did Paul and James. You will note from Paul's writings that he did not acknowledge Peter as any sort of pope. That error gradually entered the churches, as did later even worse ones.

The truth remained in the Scriptures, and was carried by faithful men to each succeeding generation. Sometimes it was only a small and despised remnant who kept the faith; at other times God saved multitudes and gave the gospel great freedom to spread.

St. Paul was a prolific writer and wrote a large part of the New Testament; but he was also sensitive to the fact that he had, previously, persecuted The Church and was not one of the original Twelve Apostles (I Tim 1:13)

That didn't stop him having words with Peter over Peter's hypocrisy with regard to circumcision, and other items, (Gal.2) which Peter agreed with; this served to show that there was rigorous discussion between them, nothing more, which was healthy; it certainly didn't mean that Paul didn't respect Peter's position as head of The Church.

In I Corinthians 15:5 Paul recognises that Jesus appeared to Peter first after his resurrection as the leader of The Apostles.

ocianain

wolfsbane wrote: »

ocianain said:

Hmm. So the continuing dominance of a thoroughly corrupt RCC would have led to better things? The Inquisition as an instrument of enlightenment?


Proof?


Right, nothing to do with abuses such as indulgences to start with, and Justification by Faith latterly?


Again, I'm amazed. Care to point out where Luther says we are not responsible for our sins of passion?

Is it Luther or you who have sex on the brain?

I'm pressed for time, so this will be short, see Luther's Bondage of the Will for his famous/infamous horse analogy, "You are a horse, if the devil gets on and rides you, you do bad, if God gets on and rides you you do good." Luther's whle theology was centered around justifying wrong behavior. The title f the cited book implies his belief of compelled vs free will, if ones actions are compelled, one is not responsible.

wolfsbane

peakpilgrim wrote: »

St. Paul was a prolific writer and wrote a large part of the New Testament; but he was also sensitive to the fact that he had, previously, persecuted The Church and was not one of the original Twelve Apostles (I Tim 1:13)

That didn't stop him having words with Peter over Peter's hypocrisy with regard to circumcision, and other items, (Gal.2) which Peter agreed with; this served to show that there was rigorous discussion between them, nothing more, which was healthy; it certainly didn't mean that Paul didn't respect Peter's position as head of The Church.

In I Corinthians 15:5 Paul recognises that Jesus appeared to Peter first after his resurrection as the leader of The Apostles.

Paul gives no indication anywhere that he regarded Peter as head of the Church. In fact, he apportions the main leadership between himself and Peter, with Peter leading the outreach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles:
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul was indeed conscious of his unworthiness to be an apostle - but equally certain that God by His grace had made him one:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.

There is no papacy in the NT. The first apostolic letter comes from the apostles as a whole, not Peter, or Peter and the apostles:
Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

wolfsbane

ocianain wrote: »

I'm pressed for time, so this will be short, see Luther's Bondage of the Will for his famous/infamous horse analogy, "You are a horse, if the devil gets on and rides you, you do bad, if God gets on and rides you you do good." Luther's whle theology was centered around justifying wrong behavior. The title f the cited book implies his belief of compelled vs free will, if ones actions are compelled, one is not responsible.

Luther did not justify wrong behaviour, nor did he say the sinner is not responsible for his actions. You say they are not responsible if they are unable to do otherwise. Luther did not. The Bible does not. Sinners are guilty, even though they only act according to their wicked hearts.

Being slaves to sin arose from our original fall with Adam - we are fallen men, and our wills are free to do only what our sinful nature desires. It takes God to overrule them if we are to choose righteousness.

Luther:
That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own "free-will" - though that very "free-will" is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no "free-will", but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.

ocianain

Wolfsbane, I'm at a loss as to why you want to make my arguement for me, but, thanks! As your own citation proves, Luther did not believe in free will.

peakpilgrim

wolfsbane wrote: »

Paul gives no indication anywhere that he regarded Peter as head of the Church. In fact, he apportions the main leadership between himself and Peter, with Peter leading the outreach to the Jews and Paul to the Gentiles:
Galatians 2:6 But from those who seemed to be something—whatever they were, it makes no difference to me; God shows personal favoritism to no man—for those who seemed to be something added nothing to me. 7 But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter 8 (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), 9 and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Paul was indeed conscious of his unworthiness to be an apostle - but equally certain that God by His grace had made him one:
Galatians 1:1 Paul, an apostle (not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father who raised Him from the dead),

2 Corinthians 11:5 For I consider that I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.

There is no papacy in the NT. The first apostolic letter comes from the apostles as a whole, not Peter, or Peter and the apostles:
Acts 15:22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas, and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this, letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,

To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:

Greetings.

24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”—to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.

Farewell.

I disagree with you here, Wolfsbane, while I respect your right to your opinion.

In I Cor 15:8 Paul says: '...for I am the least of the Apostles that am not meet to be called an Apostle; because I persecuted the Church of God...'

Also Peter is seen as the recognised leader of the Apostles on several occasions and often spoke on their behalf including Luke 9:20: ‘... Who do ye say that I am (Jesus to Apostles) Peter answered: ’The Christ of God’
The Apostles are sometimes described as; ‘... Simon (Peter) and his companions...’ (Mark 1:36)

Also: when Jesus was arrested he, alone, tried to intervene (John 18:10); as the leader.

There was division of labour in that Paul looked after the Gentiles and Peter the Jews; but that was delegation of responsibility by Peter, like any good Project Manager would do.

But in Acts 15:7 at The Council of Jerusalem, where both Peter and Paul were present:’...and when there was much disputing Peter rose up and said to them: ’Brethren you know that a good while ago God made choice amongst us that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear The Word of the Gospel and believe'...'

We know that there was much debating between the Apostles but this is a healthy thing; authoritarian Project Management is rarely effective Project Management.

Peter gets his ultimate mandate as Leader of the church in Mathew 16:18 From Jesus himself.

Slav

peakpilgrim wrote: »

In I Cor 15:8 Paul says: '...for I am the least of the Apostles that am not meet to be called an Apostle; because I persecuted the Church of God...'

For me it looks to be perfectly in line and following the spirit of Matthew 20:25-26: "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you, but whoever desires to become great among you shall be your servant."

There was division of labour in that Paul looked after the Gentiles and Peter the Jews; but that was delegation of responsibility by Peter, like any good Project Manager would do.

It's pity that some Christians downgrade St. Peter from Apostle to Project Manager. Hopefully this view is not supported by Scripture or Tradition.

Peter gets his ultimate mandate as Leader of the church in Mathew 16:18 From Jesus himself.

And also in Matthew 16:23.

postcynical

JimiTime wrote: »

I hate the term 'trinity'. I think it reduces God to some sort of equation. I think I'm pretty much in agreement with SW on the nature of God, but i think calling God 'the holy trinity' etc just sounds so disrespectful and cheap though. None of the bible authors did, Jesus didn't, the prophets didn't. Man oh man, its such a horrid cheap term for our Father, our King, and The spirit of God.

Its objectifying God IMO. Jesus didn't use it, the apostles didn't use it, so I certainly wont use it.

Curious about this perspective. Does the Incarnation of the Word not objectify God (while raising the objective status of a human person)?

Some Jewish bloggers use G-d to avoid trivialising God by putting a word to the concept. Do you feel the use of the word 'God' trivialises Him?

togster

Body, mind and soul.

getz

i still find it hard to believe that the holy trinity lie, is still believed by anyone, there is enough proof that it dosent exist,unless you re making out that god is a liar,isa 44.8 is there any other god but me...i know of none.isa 44.6 i am the first and last...there is no other god besides me, The first christian get together was the council of jerusalem in 50 AD the so called trinity was not mentioned then ,the first trinity idea came with the intervention of contantine[who by the way before converting, worshipped a three headed god] and his new christian church persecuted the old jewish/gentile [jesus followers]faith, in my eyes jesus was god,holy spirit,and son[one]who came to earth to spread his love,i like other posters could print out many other passages to push my point out but i wont bore you with them. the apostles would turn over in there graves,if they could see just how their teachings are being abused

Fanny Cradock

"Proof" that the trinity doesn't exist? Your post seems to suggest that acceptance of the trinity means we accept 3 separate Gods: God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. I suggest that you turn back to "Trinity 101" and then match your verses in Isaiah against that.

Though open to correction on the finer details, I believe that Constantine worshipped the pantheon of gods, chief amongst them was Sol Invictus. I've not seen any suggestion that these gods were triune in nature.