Did Jesus teach that? I don't think so.
Woke Christianity
- Thread starter Faithfulservant
- Start date
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
Paul taught this and he was the apostle to the gentiles visited by Jesus on the road to Damascus if you didn't know that? Would you like verses? It's easy enough to Google.
Yes, Paul taught something like that, and I think it is often misunderstood.
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
It's ok to voice your opinion. You however cannot convince me otherwise.
Yes, good for you and your belief, tis the nature of the beast
That is where we disagree.
I agree with the first statement, however if I get compelling evidence I am always open to change my mind with new information.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 63
In my experience, every person I have physically met who has read the Bible and believes it to be the word of God does NOT believe in any trinity doctrine. Yet almost every single one believed that the book made the claim that Jesus was God. But that is my experience.
Interesting. What was the majority denomination, d'you know?
@moralorel idk where you are from but US gallop poll:
"Of Christians surveyed, three-fourths (75%) expressed a strong belief in the Trinity -- that "the God of the Bible is one in essence, but distinct in person -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."Aug 19, 2003
https://news.gallup.com › poll ›
"Of Christians surveyed, three-fourths (75%) expressed a strong belief in the Trinity -- that "the God of the Bible is one in essence, but distinct in person -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."Aug 19, 2003
https://news.gallup.com › poll ›
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 63
Most aren't from any denomination. Like I said, it's just my experience. I actively seek out people who think outside the box. I'm sure that has affected my experiences. Those who were from any denomination were still quite different. For example, I had a professor who had an amazing amount of knowledge about religions and the Bible itself. He never told us what his religious beliefs were. I found out he was Catholic. But he kept the Holy Days and Saturday Sabbath. Odd. But he told me that he followed the original doctrines of the Catholic church. So he claimed to be Catholic, yet I've never met a Catholic like him.
- Messages
- 12,254
- Reaction score
- 4,171
- Points
- 108
Yes, but John said that he was not worthy to unlace the sandal of Jesus. Islam believes Jesus was of virgin birth and sinless. It's not valid to compare Jesus with John the Baptist, imo
LOL, it always seems to me that the Trinity is thinking outside the box!
We're a largely anonymous lot.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 63
I suppose it depends on the person. But if someone believes something just because they were told to, that is definitely not thinking outside the box. Religion reminds me of politics. Many people will just repeat what they heard from their minister/priest without questioning it. Likewise many will take a political stance on something simply because they heard it on the news or even heard it on a political ad. So if a person simply believes in the Trinity because they were told to, I don't view that as thinking outside the box. Especially seeing as it's such a common belief.
My Catholic professor didn't believe in the Trinity doctrines. Although we both talked about the original trinity. The 3 most powerful angels used to be Gabriel, Michael, and Lucifer. I would think that would qualify as thinking outside the box, because I don't know of many people who talk about that trinity. Trinities in non-Christian religions tend to be 3 equal beings. We both felt that those 3 characters qualified.... at one time. Obviously they're not united anymore.
Oh sure, if we're pointing at people, then yes.
OK, but I was referring to people who actually do think about the Trinity ... you can't really base a view about thinking, based on people you know don't think.
I meant outside the box because the Trinity doesn't fit into conventional triune boxes critics like to fit it into. If you're seriously going to contemplate the Trinity, you acknowledge that your box – and everybody's got a box – is not going to be big enough.
And thinking outside that box is not going to be big enough either ... the box is not the problem. The limits of the human intellect is the problem. People – even some very intelligent people – find that very hard to accept, it's unsettling ...
Then he's not really Catholic. Probably clinging on because he's got nothing else ... but Trinity-Incarnation, really that's what Catholicism is all about.
Well ... there are seven, not three ... Gabriel is never spoken of as an archangel ... and Lucifer is even more dependent on popular fable than any Scriptural reference. The emergence of Lucifer is well discussed. I'm not doubting the three, just pointing out they're commonly seven, and that Scripture evidence is very scant.
I don't know anyone. I don't see any reason why.
In the OT and NT, there is a war in heaven, and Michael throws down the fallen angels, but their leader is never identified as Lucifer, and whoever he is, Michael is immensely more powerful, so it wasn't a battle of equals.
Then you're putting them in a common box, aren't you?
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 63
My professor followed the original doctrines of the Christian Catholic Church. The original doctrines were nothing like they are today. So there was no trinity doctrine, no Easter, no Christmas, no purgatory, no baptism of children, no depictions of heavenly objects, no praying to saints, no lent, no good Friday etc. Get your hands on some of those old Catholic encyclopedias. You'll see how much the church changed over the last couple thousand years from its original doctrines.
There are only 2 archangels mentioned in the Bible. But the dragon (who we can assume is Lucifer) took a 3rd of the angels with him, most likely his charge of angels. The other 2/3rds would be the angels under Gabriel and Michael. But if we want to add the book of Enoch to the Bible.... then you have 7. But then you have to admit that Gabriel is an archangel because he's listed as such in the book of Enoch. And then you'd be thinking outside the box as a Catholic because the book of Enoch is not canon for the Catholic church. Now if you include Tobit, which is canon for Catholics, then you have 3 archangels. Raphael is mentioned. So now we have ANOTHER trinity. However the Catholic church states the following definition of archaengel : “The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael, whose names are contained in Holy Scripture.” So another trinity? You shouldn't be mentioning more than those 3 I guess. The Catholic dictionary states: "In its wider meaning, any angel of higher rank, thus all the higher orders of angels. Saint Michael, therefore, is called Archangel although he is the prince of the Seraphim. In its more restricted sense, the archangels are those blessed spirits who compose the second choir of the lowest order in the angelic hierarchy (see angel). As distinct from the guardian angels, the archangels are God's messengers to man in matters of graver moment, e.g., Gabriel to the Virgin Mary, Raphael to Tobias; and to the archangels God entrusts the care of persons of exalted rank or sanctity." So if you don't believe Gabriel to be an archangel, maybe you're not Catholic?
Michael was leading the charge against the dragon. I'm pretty sure we can assume that Satan is that dragon, seeing as he is named as the dragon that Michael fights in Revelations 12:7-9. The website Catholic.org claims that Michael was fighting Lucifer/Satan. They refer to Michael and Gabriel as archangels there too.
My point with mentioning this old trinity is that it is pure speculation. Yet I don't see any more evidence for Christian trinity doctrines than I do see for Satan's old trinity. But that is how I see it. Maybe one day someone can convince me otherwise. But even then, they'd have to convince me that believing in the trinity AS a trinity (if that makes sense) is actually important. I honestly don't see the importance in any trinity doctrine. Jesus lists off all sorts of requirements for entering His kingdom. Never seen the mention of having to believe in a trinity doctrine.
And no, I'm not putting trinities in a common box. I'm taking the examples of trinities in religions, applying them to the Bible, and getting different results from most people. That's applying definition. If something doesn't fit the definition of a trinity, then it's something else.
Might I ask what YOU define as a trinity? That might clear up some things.
OK. Did he say what doctrines? Where recorded? Because faith in:
The Incarnation and
The Triune God
are pretty well the most basic beliefs of Catholicism.
I rather think there was.
Which encyclopaedias? The oldest I can find is 1902?
Well, technically, only one – Michael. Gabriel is never spoken of as an archangel, just an angel.
But Michael is always seen acting alone?
No, i don't accept the Book of Enoch as inspired. It's a conflation of Greek and Hebrew mythologising. It can be dated to an era because of its literary conventions.
No, I'd be ignoring informed scholarship and following, at best, popular but misplaced piety. Neither the Jews nor the Catholic regard the books as canonical for sound reasons.
That's not a definition of an archangel, and nothing to do with archangels – I think you've been misled. The full quote says:
Popular Piety and the Liturgy para 217.2:
"when the daily events of life, which have nothing or little to do with our progressive maturing on the journey towards Christ are read schematically or simplistically, indeed childishly, so as to ascribe all setbacks to the devil and all success to the guardian angels. The practice of assigning names to the Holy Angels should be discouraged, except in the cases of Gabriel, Raphael and Michael whose names are contained in Holy Scripture."
No mention of archangels.
And note too this is 'popular piety'.
A dictionary is not the measure of faith. Check the Catechism:
Para 335:
"In her liturgy, the Church joins with the angels to adore the thrice-holy God. She invokes their assistance ... "May the angels lead you into Paradise ... " Moreover, in the "Cherubic Hymn'' of the Byzantine Liturgy, she celebrates the memory of certain angels more particularly (St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and the guardian angels)."
I feel no obligation to accept or believe unreliable sources.
Sorry, but that's simply nonsense. Look in your dictionary under the term "Trinity', for a start.
Actually, you seem to be doing what everyone does, which is assuming because there's a three, the axioms are the same, that they all fit in the same boxes. They don't.
Fine me a trinity that's the same as the Holy Trinity.
Any three-part thing is a trinity.
The Holy Trinity is something in particular – One God, Three Persons.
Last edited:
Faithfulservant
Well-Known Member
God's thoughts and ways are higher than ours. I feel like a lot of our doctrines are veiled in mystery so that we seek it out for ourselves. God blesses those that seek Him out in earnest with revelation and conviction of truth. I feel like this is why so many don't "get" it because the intent of their heart is not aligned with Gods intent of mystery. I very much appreciate you Thomas for your patience as it is a beautiful fruit of the Spirit.
moralorel
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 525
- Reaction score
- 483
- Points
- 63
1. Open up your Catholic encyclopedia from 1902 (I don't have a 1902 copy). You most likely won't find any of today's Catholic doctrines before 130 AD. Might not even have any before 200 AD. My old professor has since passed away, so I can't ask him for any proof he had of the original doctrines of the Catholic church. I recently moved and have no clue where my religious books are. But it's actually not too hard to discern what the original Catholic church believed. According to the Catholic church, Peter was the first pope, correct? The apostles would therefore follow his lead. The apostles observed the Sabbath and the Feasts. Therefore early Catholics would have done the same. Sunday worship wasn't even instituted until 364. The Council of Laodicea in A.D. 364 decreed, “Christians shall not Judaize and be idle on Saturday but shall work on that day; but the Lord’s day they shall especially honour, and, as being Christians, shall, if possible, do no work on that day. If, however, they are found Judaizing, they shall be shut out from Christ”
2. Michael biblically is mentioned as an archangel, but never said to be the only one. But your church claims that Gabriel is an archangel. So take it up with your church. Here is a quote from the current pope from the Vatican news:
VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- "The archangels Michael, Gabriel and Raphael help encourage and accompany Christians on life's journey and defend them from the devil", Pope Francis said.
"While the three archangels serve the Lord and contemplate his glory, God also "sends them to accompany us on the road of life," the pope said in his homily at morning Mass in the Domus Sanctae Marthae, Sept. 29, the archangels' feast day.
3. Unreliable sources? I'm literally quoting sources from the Catholic church. Faith? Don't you have faith that the Catholic encyclopedias are the truth? Could you please let me know which Catholic writings, popes, cardinals, bishops, dictionaries, encyclopedias, etc. that I can't quote? It would be beneficial to all Christians and Catholics to know which writings should be avoided.
4. Merriam-Webster's second definition of a trinity: a group of three closely related persons or things.
Lucifer, Gabriel, and Michael were closely related persons or things. Gabriel, Michael, and Raphael (according to the Catholic church) are three closely related persons or things. But I don't think you understand. I'm not trying to put things into a box. I'm telling you that I DO NOT SEE anything worthy of a doctrine of a trinity in the Bible. That's not putting something in a box. Not... even.... close.... I also can't find any trinity that consists of two powerful beings, one (Jesus) being subservient to the other (the Father), and another who isn't even its own person (the holy spirit).
Oh, and the Catholic Church doesn't mention 7 archangels. YOU did. Since you don't believe in the authenticity of the book of Enoch (which we both basically agree on that one), then you agree (with the Catholic church) that there are only 3 archangels?
Believe it or not, I am NOT trying to convince you to abandon your beliefs about the trinity. But I'm confused that you are arguing with me about statements that come from the Catholic church and even Pope Francis himself.
Yes. But that didn't stop Paul challenging him.
Gets tricky here. The apostles and most Catholics, yes, because they were Jewish and saw no contradiction. Many gentiles also did, a practice that's been noted before the church. But many gentiles equally did not, and asked why they should, and should they follow all the Jewish laws and customs, for example ... so a dialogue is ongoing ...
But it was the common practice long before then, it didn't begin then. It was always the practice to fulfil their Sabbath obligations and then meet on the Lord's Day.
Which is a shame, and to our cost.
OK. Just the only scripturally named.
Catholic tradition calls Michael, Gabriel and Raphael archangels, but Scripture only named Michael. The Eastern Catholic Churches also venerate Uriel, Selaphiel, Jegudiel, Barachiel and Jerahmeel.
Traditionally, seven Angels were considered to be of special significance, who stand before the Throne of God. Michael is called a prince of the seraphim, but again, that's a late (13th c) tradition of St Bonaventure, whereas his contemporary, St Thomas Aquinas, says he ain't. You takes your pick.
Christian art often portrays archangels together. Michael and Gabriel accompany Mary in a Byzantine icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary that has been the subject of widespread Catholic devotions for centuries.
I don't have to, it's not dogmatic. I'm not obliged to believe either way – it's a traditional opinion, that's all.
My fault here, I was referring to the Books of Enoch. The 2nd and 3rd books are 2nd century, I think.
Not infallibly, no. Like any encyclopaedia, many of the articles are out-dated.
OK. Catechism of the Catholic Church. That's the go-to reference. Stick to that and you won't go wrong.
When I did my degree, The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Dr. Ludwig Ott was the advised resource for a quick reference, gives a brief background, then you proceed from there.
Popes, cardinals, bishops, theologians, etc., are a matter of taste.
Some of my references were orthodox, some debatable. Some not even Catholic. For example Karl Rahner wrote a must-read work on the Trinity for scholars, but he was questionable in other areas. N T Wright, an Anglican, was a common reference for Pauline studies.
Again, we were required to read 'condemned' or refuted materials to understand the arguments. You can't, as a scholar, write an essay on the Eucharist in the modern era without reference to Edward Schillebeeckx, who had some very controversial opinions.
OK
OK - in as much as they were angels.
OK
OK. Then I have to say, you missed it, because the doctrine is founded on Scripture.
What you mean is you can't find any other trinity, surely?
And regarding the Scriptural Trinity, two points:
1: The Son is not subservient to the Father. He fulfills the Father's will, but as you know as a parent, (and I wish you every good thing in your upcoming arrival) the last thing we parents want is our children to be subservient to us.
2: The Holy Spirit is 'his own person' – he might be 'the anonymous one' as one of my tutors liked to call him, but he has his function and mission. Again, his personhood is argued from scripture.
To be honest, I've never given it much thought. Angelology was never a topic of mine. The tradition no doubt says seven, somewhere. I'm closer to Orthodoxy than Roman Catholicism on some aspects, and they list seven ... as I said, it's not a deal-breaker.
I didn't think you were. Nor am I trying to convince anyone to believe in the Trinity.
All I do here is defend the emergence of doctrine against errors and assumptions. You know @muhammad_isa and I have had a long slog over Arius. I actually think he was nowhere quite as bad as the histories would have us believe. And he believed what he believed in good faith. I will defend his doctrine against erroneous assumption, as much as I disagree with it.
+++
I did not mean to defame the memory of your professor. I see I was a bit heavy-footed there, I meant no offence, but when it comes to calling oneself Catholic, then some beliefs are simply a matter of choice, others are non-negotiable – and unfortunately the Doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity are two non-negotiable doctrines. If you don't believe that, you are not recognisably Catholic – or if one says when is, then what to be Catholic actually means becomes nebulous, if not meaningless.
With regard to the heart, that's not for me to say.
When I was doing my degree, we had a Professor of Catholic Moral Theology – OMG, he could be difficult, and more than once simply cut the discussion dead with, "Well then, you're a heretic and that's the end of it." One of the toughest men to argue with, one of the nicest to know. He had a parish in a very run-down part of the country, and was loved even by those who never set foot in a church, because he lived the Christian message, and they knew they could trust him. He might judge what they did, buit they saw he saw passed that, to look and speak to them.