mortify Posted December 24, 2008 Share Posted December 24, 2008 [quote name='bonkers' post='1734791' date='Dec 24 2008, 12:48 PM']But it is said the God IS love, but for love to be really love it has to be a choice. The Father didn't choose to love the son, the son didn't choose to be loved, and the love didn't choose to... love, therefore it's not really love.[/quote] God's Love is infinite and perfect, where would such a Love be targeted? Sure, humans can receive it but we are finite and imperfect, and so there is a certain injustice. But the love between the Father and Son is justified since both are infinite and perfect. The marvelous reality is that this Love is a Divine Person, the Holy Spirit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selah Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1734592' date='Dec 23 2008, 09:46 PM']Not happening. Seriously. This is my Serious Faic. [/quote] [img]http://is1.okcupid.com/users/410/202/4102022445444324283/mt156454367.jpg[/img] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 Well I clicked on this thread really confused as to what argument can be thrown at the Trinity. Now that I see it is an open ended question with no supporting evidence for this conspiracy theory...I see I have wasted three minutes of my life. ---------------- ---------------- Now playing: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/alvin+%26+the+chipmunks+(with+david+seville)/track/the+night+before+christmas"]Alvin & The Chipmunks (With David Seville) - The Night Before Christmas[/url] via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [indent]Three years ago, I was banned in another web forum because of a topic I started, ‘Holy Trinity- the Devil’s Scheme’ and I regret it not in a view I was banned, insulted and received unwelcome remarks but because, I pulled them up to their limit of being good as if I seduce them into it and thus, our efforts are wasted. In the course of our discussion, I did not use harsh or contemptuous words but still, it hurts them although it is not my intention, and maybe I made a mistake in setting aside the thin gap of their goodness and faith by trusting them too much as lover of truth. That time, I dismissed the idea that religious people are too sensitive, and I am hoping to the openness of their heart and readiness of their mind to entertain and see the truth of the presented arguments but their sensitivity was triggered by my tortuous inquiry in improper time thus I admit it is my fault and not theirs, and I will take this opportunity to say sorry for whatever I have done. Now, I want to make it clear before we continue our discussion since I have no intention to humble myself with the same reason I had since it is not to my loss if I did not discuss it or it is to my gain if I did. A simple message, ‘Christ is the mystery of God and not the Holy Trinity’ is enough reason for me to be freed from any obligation, though unwarranted by Christians who looked at this historical Jesus as the core figure of faith, which I always explained as a lie and not a historical reality, and I will leave the rest for your own judgment whether you will seek the truth or not notwithstanding whatever feelings you might have for me. All of us demand love and respect but we differ on how we show and accept it. We all know the royal law of Christ ‘love your neighbor as yourself’’; now, do we let either of us to live in erroneous doctrine by withdrawing from each other’s criticism simply because we do not want to hear challenging arguments? Do we need to accede to useless agreement of two arrogant but ignorant opposing parties who are competing, not listening and never conceding to each other’s argument, and thus agreed to cut their show of concern by shouting ‘respect my faith and I will respect yours’? This kind of attitude is unlikely from the royal law of Christ since Christ’ love means to bear with someone if you see him under the devil’s craftiness to correct him in order to walk on the right tract, to rebuke him with all gentleness even to the point of being insulted since a deceived and fooled believer is weak, self centered, and unaware of his true condition, and to win him over by giving your reasons on that hope you enjoy and to whom and why you entrust your soul. If you can do it then you will win our respect. But, if you just say ‘believe it because I say so’ more likely than not, Christ’s love is not in your heart and much more you have to be careful because I will no longer wait to be insulted again and again without a fight. An insult you will give to me, I will return it to you twice and I do expect that I will be expelled again in this forum but, it is not my fault anymore because I tell it to you ahead of time and it will be a sign to you of having this false teacher’s itchy ears mentioned by Apostle Paul said in 2 Tim 4:3-5. And before it becomes too late – thank you cmotherofpril for inviting me here and I hope you are always in good health. I hope it is clear now, brothers. ----------------------------- Now, who started to say that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the mystery of God? Why then Apostle Paul never wrote about it? But, instead he said in Col 2:2-4 ‘Christ is the mystery of God’. (meaning, Christ is the mystery of God and not the Holy Trinity).[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1734727' date='Dec 24 2008, 09:09 AM']If God is truly Love - ontologically speaking - then there must be some communion of true Persons within God's Be-ing. Love - most specifically the highest form of love, charity - is a communion between persons. A single, isolated person cannot experience, let alone give (least of all [i]be[/i]) love. This is precisely why the Old Testament does not reveal that God is Love itself; without the revelation of the Trinity God can only be expected to - at the absolute most - be lov[i]ing[/i] once the universe is created. And indeed that is just the picture of God we get in the Old Testament. Although in retrospect we can read the Trinity into various passages of the Old Testament, although we can see hints of the revelation to come, until Christ came and revealed this deepest and most essential mystery of our faith there was no conception of God [i]being [/i]Love itself.[/quote] [indent]If I get it correctly, the revelation of the meaning of God which is Love was proven by the revelation of the trinity. Can you please explain it futher?[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='desertwoman' post='1734642' date='Dec 24 2008, 01:05 AM']The only protestants that I know of that do not believe in the trinity are the oneness Pentecostals. Are you a Oneness Penetecostal rey?[/quote] [indent]Pentecostalism is a renewalist religious movement within Christianity that places special emphasis on the direct personal experience of God through the baptism of the Holy Spirit.[1] The term Pentecostal is derived from Pentecost, or the Jewish Feast of Weeks, which commemorates the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the followers of Jesus Christ as described in the Book of Acts, Chapter 2.[2] (see [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal)"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentecostal)[/url] No, I am not a member of Pentecostalism. [/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1735006' date='Dec 25 2008, 12:29 AM']Well I clicked on this thread really confused as to what argument can be thrown at the Trinity. Now that I see it is an open ended question with no supporting evidence for this conspiracy theory...I see I have wasted three minutes of my life. [/quote] [indent]In Scripture there is as yet no single term by which the Three Divine Persons are denoted together. The word trias (of which the Latin trinitas is a translation) is first found in Theophilus of Antioch about A.D. 180. He speaks of "the Trinity of God [the Father], His Word and His Wisdom (To Autolycus II.15). The term may, of course, have been in use before his time. Afterwards it appears in its Latin form of trinitas in Tertullian (On Pudicity 21). In the next century the word is in general use. It is found in many passages of Origen ("In Ps. xvii", 15). The first creed in which it appears is that of Origen's pupil, Gregory Thaumaturgus. In his Ekthesis tes pisteos composed between 260 and 270, he writes: (see [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm)[/url] -------------------- Obviously, this doctrine needs greatest scrutiny because if this doctrine truly comes from God, it is more likely that Apostle Paul may say something about it. On the other hand, if this is not an ‘Apostolic teaching’ then hundred of millions of souls are lost and are losing even to this day just because of ‘negligence’. Now, why we need to discuss it anyway? Because you said, Catholics are Christ’s disciples, having the love of Christ in your heart in bringing 100 of millions of souls into salvation therefore at least, you must have a little care to us if it is not into destruction. Again, you are not guiding us with ‘careful instruction’ by just saying ‘It is true because we say it is’. Who really started this doctrine?[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='LouisvilleFan' post='1734524' date='Dec 23 2008, 06:47 PM']Only if it's not taken seriously. [/quote] [indent]Brother, this is a serious matter unless of course, you really do not care. So please let us discuss this issue not only for ourselves but also for the others.[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggamafu Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 (edited) [quote name='reyb' post='1735074' date='Dec 25 2008, 07:09 AM'][indent]If I get it correctly, the revelation of the meaning of God which is Love was proven by the revelation of the trinity. Can you please explain it futher?[/indent][/quote] I don't know that I can explain it further. If you merely believe that God is loving - not Love itself - then you have no problem with the rejection of the Trinity (except that God could only be loving upon creation). If you believe that God is Love itself then you must believe in something that is at least similar to the Trinity; one God in which there is shared an inner communion of Persons. Again, this is why it was only after Christ's revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that the Christians immediately developed the theology that God is Love itself. If the Trinity had not been revealed, 1 John would have likely not been written (or at least would have been written quite differently). God is an eternal Family, which is why Man was not a complete "image of God" until Eve was created with the command to be fruitful and multiply. Edited December 25, 2008 by Ziggamafu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 You started off on the wrong foot, and apparently didn't learn from your previous experience. Your intent is obviously to offend, so don't pull the civility card now; it's too late for that. [quote]Now, who started to say that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is the mystery of God? Why then Apostle Paul never wrote about it? But, instead he said in Col 2:2-4 ‘Christ is the mystery of God’. (meaning, Christ is the mystery of God and not the Holy Trinity).[/quote]If he never wrote about it, then he didn't write about it. That means your parenthetical note is preposterous. He wasn't refuting anything, which is what you (dishonestly) imply. How referring to Jesus as the mystery of God contradicts the Trinity is unclear, apart from a simple (in all senses of the word) statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='Winchester' post='1735104' date='Dec 25 2008, 09:52 AM']You started off on the wrong foot, and apparently didn't learn from your previous experience. Your intent is obviously to offend, so don't pull the civility card now; it's too late for that. If he never wrote about it, then he didn't write about it. That means your parenthetical note is preposterous. He wasn't refuting anything, which is what you (dishonestly) imply. How referring to Jesus as the mystery of God contradicts the Trinity is unclear, apart from a simple (in all senses of the word) statement.[/quote] [indent]Obviously, Apostle Paul did not mention anything about this mystery of the Trinity and it is possible that he is not refuting it when he said ‘Christ is the mystery of God’ but one thing is sure. He did not give any hint about this mystery of triune God. It only shows that this idea is a new one. Otherwise, he must have something to say about it. Of course, that is the way I look at it. When there is prophesy, then it can be fulfilled and when there is ‘mystery’ then it can be ‘revealed’. If a mystery comes from God then only God can reveal it. Now, we know that Christ is the mystery of God and therefore, God reveal it to them (for example like to Apostle Paul and to all witnesses). But suppose, just for sake of argument, let us consider an idea which is actually a lie and then we call it the ‘mystery of God’ do you think God can reveal it? [/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reyb Posted December 25, 2008 Author Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1735101' date='Dec 25 2008, 09:50 AM']I don't know that I can explain it further. If you merely believe that God is loving - not Love itself - then you have no problem with the rejection of the Trinity (except that God could only be loving upon creation). If you believe that God is Love itself then you must believe in something that is at least similar to the Trinity; one God in which there is shared an inner communion of Persons. Again, this is why it was only after Christ's revelation of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that the Christians immediately developed the theology that God is Love itself. If the Trinity had not been revealed, 1 John would have likely not been written (or at least would have been written quite differently). God is an eternal Family, which is why Man was not a complete "image of God" until Eve was created with the command to be fruitful and multiply.[/quote] [indent]While it is true that the writer of the book of 1 John said ‘God is love’ (in 1 John 4:8) but he never mentioned that the revelation of the trinity causes him to say ‘God is love’. But rather he said ‘[color="#FF0000"]Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love’. [/color](1 John 4:7-8). Meaning, he give emphasis or conclusion to the first statement -for example we can say, 'if you know how to love then you know God because ‘God is love’. Thus, I may say when he said ‘God is love’ it has nothing to do with the idea of the trinity.[/indent] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salterrae Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 JM + JT [quote name='reyb' post='1735203' date='Dec 25 2008, 11:32 AM'][indent]While it is true that the writer of the book of 1 John said ‘God is love’ (in 1 John 4:8) but he never mentioned that the revelation of the trinity causes him to say ‘God is love’. But rather he said ‘[color="#FF0000"]Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love’. [/color](1 John 4:7-8). Meaning, he give emphasis or conclusion to the first statement -for example we can say, 'if you know how to love then you know God because ‘God is love’. Thus, I may say when he said ‘God is love’ it has nothing to do with the idea of the trinity.[/indent][/quote] I must disagree. If you know that God is love then you know how to love because God is the perfect example of love. How is He the perfect example of love? The Trinity. (He can only BE love if He was ALWAYS love so He had to be love even before creation.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='reyb' post='1735182' date='Dec 25 2008, 09:42 AM']Obviously, Apostle Paul did not mention anything about this mystery of the Trinity and it is possible that he is not refuting it[/quote] [i]It is possible.[/i] You're still working on the assumption that he is when there is no evidence that he is. He doesn't mention it at all, according to you, but you've picked out a line in one book in the entire Bible and since it happens to use the word 'mystery,' you pretend it has something to do with refuting the "new" idea of the Trinity. If it's newer than the quote in question, then Paul isn't refuting it. Thank you for making my argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted December 25, 2008 Share Posted December 25, 2008 [quote name='Socrates' post='1734597' date='Dec 23 2008, 09:01 PM']"Going therefore, teach ye all nations: baptizing them [b]in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.[/b]" ~ Matthew 28:19[/quote] Bears repeating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts