Denying the divinity of Jesus is heresy, in that the divinity of Jesus is a well-defined concept, thekid345 understands this concept, and thekid345 does not accept it as truth. This is what is meant by 'obstinate' in the text.

I am not so concerned about heresy as what it means when thekid345 says he is Catholic. It is nothing more than a technicality as he is not a Catholic in good standing, and therefore the kid345 saying he is Catholic is meaningless. thekid345 attempts to use the fact that he is technically Catholic to give weight to his reasonings concerning Christianity, but this is absurd because his Catholicism is in name only.

Technically, an atheist could be a Catholic. Would we take this atheist's viewpoints as Catholic viewpoints?

I actually feel sad for you, you're really a sad human being, aren't you? It's not enough to have no faith yourself, but you have a huge need to destroy the faith of others. I really hope you get help for your low self esteem.

Not that i think thats what he was doing. But does this go for theists who try and instill faith or is this one of those one way streets?

How do you know a Priest or Bishop would not accept me as a "Catholic in good standing" You cant definitively say I'm a Catholic not in good standing based on a few codes of human law created God knows when, there is far more to the process then this, especially if it merely comes down to the trinity.

I think that YY is just carrying over some anger from another thread where he is being pulled up for his 'unorthodox' views on certain matters. Best ignored.

Yeah.

Fun thread. He should post here more and enlighten the RGT with his logic and big brain.

the idea of the Trinity goes against all the discussions of GOD in the Old Testament

It wouldn't matter what a particular priest or a particular bishop would say. What matters here are definitions and regulations spelled out in the Code of Canon Law. It is uninteresting to converse with you because your talking points involve 'redefining' words to suit you or looking at a particular person's viewpoint that differs from a well-established norm. It is not a difficult exercise to figure out what a Catholic in good standing is and to see that you do not fit into that category. You should try it.

In terms of your views on both the trinity and the divinity of Jesus, there are cases where people have been excommunicated ferendae sententiae for holding one or both of these views. I am sure you are aware of this.

Additionally, it does not matter when certain dogma is adopted. The only thing relevant to whether or not you are guilty of heresy is whether or not that dogma applies today. In fact, it does.

It seems that the Gospel of John(NT) and Gospel of Matthew(NT) suggests Jesus is separate from God, but does not suggest that Jesus is or is not the Son of God.



John 14:28 "You heard me say, 'I am going away and I am coming back to you.' If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.


Matthew 12:28 But if I by the Spirit of God cast out demons, then is the kingdom of God come upon you

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

253 The Trinity is One. We do not confess three Gods, but one God in three persons, the "consubstantial Trinity". The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire: "The Father is that which the Son is, the Son that which the Father is, the Father and the Son that which the Holy Spirit is, i.e. by nature one God." In the words of the Fourth Lateran Council (1215), "Each of the persons is that supreme reality, viz., the divine substance, essence or nature."

254 The divine persons are really distinct from one another. "God is one but not solitary." "Father", "Son", "Holy Spirit" are not simply names designating modalities of the divine being, for they are really distinct from one another: "He is not the Father who is the Son, nor is the Son he who is the Father, nor is the Holy Spirit he who is the Father or the Son." They are distinct from one another in their relations of origin: "It is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds." The divine Unity is Triune.

255 The divine persons are relative to one another. Because it does not divide the divine unity, the real distinction of the persons from one another resides solely in the relationships which relate them to one another: "In the relational names of the persons the Father is related to the Son, the Son to the Father, and the Holy Spirit to both. While they are called three persons in view of their relations, we believe in one nature or substance." Indeed "everything (in them) is one where there is no opposition of relationship." "Because of that unity the Father is wholly in the Son and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Son is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is wholly in the Father and wholly in the Son."

--------

The more people who read the bible, the more readings of the bible there will be.

I really don't understand the trinity thing at all

It's been mentioned as a point against it, but one of the more interesting things about the doctrine of the trinity is the fact that the Church was so adamant in it's formulation, given that the fundamental intuition behind the Trinity is nowhere expressly given in scripture. Which is all the more surprising given that it doesn't really fit either with the Greek philosophy of the time (would have ended up with something more like Plotinus' One, i.e a pantheism) or with the Hebrew theology (a dualism between an absolutely transcendent God and creation).

They go to such great pains to try to avoid either direction really. It seems to be driven by an intuition of what must follow from the reality of the Incarnation as God, made physically manifest. that a fully Transcendent God does not allow for an Incarnation, and that the reality of the Incarnation is central to a Christian understanding.

And then of course after all that, in practice much of Christian understanding has sort of avoided the Trinity as a sort of paradoxical and inexplicable oddity, so that many modern Christians have a view that is more like the Hebrew duality anyway. I think that attitude owes somewhat to an idea that the Trinity is only an arcane theological description of some internal "structure" of God, very removed from other elements of Christian understanding, but I think that's because the links with Christology are overlooked and a juridical interpretation of the Incarnation is favored over a more mystical one. That is, it was even a question in the middle ages whether Christ would have incarnated if there were no sin? Is the incarnation only about sin? But in adopting the Trinity and the orthodox Christology the Church of that time understood it as something more than that, as something having to do with the "divinization" of the whole of reality, the "God became Man so that Man might become God" of Athanasius or the "so that God may be All in All" of 1st Corinthians.

The following gives a more accurate description of the nature of Yeshua and YHWH Elohim ( noteworthy are the pitfalls after about the 10:00 mark on this video ):

The Malakh YHWH, Yeshua and the "Trinity", part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mU3g0mZQktw

I think the interesting question isn't why the Church was so adamant about the Trinity formulation (I think this can be well enough explained by the Arian controversy), but rather its persistence, especially in Reformation and post-Reformation theology. After all, this is not a doctrine found in the Bible, and so for those who reject a role for Church tradition in God's revelation, you would expect to see more widespread deviation than you do.

Or perhaps we do see this deviation, but the Mormon, liberal, Pentecostal, and other groups that do just don't get included in the group of those recognized as true Christians by those who still accept the Trinity.

Also, for what it is worth, we do see some hint of the Trinity in Plotinus' doctrine of the One, the Intelligence, and the Soul. www.iep.utm.edu/plotinus/

In the New Testament there are references to Christ Jesus stating "I and the Father are One" or "I come forth from the Father" denoting some type of identification of the two principles. There is the third principle "I will send you the Holy Spirit".


Now the thinkers of the Church didn't live in a vacuum ,were educated ,and could reason to the inner connections of the Three Principles. They not only reasoned but attempted and succeeded in having the "inner experience" of "truth" in manifestation.

Plato, Aristotle and other philosophers were not unknown to the writers or "livers" of the Trinity just as you and I might know of Kant or Hume or Whitehead. Some might deny the influence of past philosophers on the Church exegesis as a fault bu to learn of Calculus doesn't make one a Newtonian nor does Logic make one a Aristotelian

The past lives within us and in this we are co creators of the future.

To have this "Trinity" thing laid out in the New Testament for all to see is only an appeal to a thought process which demands absolute rigidity. And so, unless someone says "there is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit", written in stone on page 1248 of the Bible it can't exist, in this type of thinking, or lack thereof.

OrP: I had forgotten about the One/Soul/Intellect. Thanks for that. As far as arianism, I get that the councils were originally a response to it, but that doesn't explain exactly why Arianism was perceived to be so problematic in the first place, given the lack of scriptural clarity. Although I haven't considered non-religious factors, i.e I have no idea if it might have been motivated at all by some political opposition between arians and others.

The question of the doctrine's persistence is interesting. I don't really know. I suspect maybe it's mostly that a lot of modern Christians don't even think very much about it at all.

First, the idea of scriptural clarity, as an authoritative source for theology, was of course different at that time than it is now. Part of the debate (not necessarily with Arianism, but certainly with other heresies) included acceptance of alternative canons. Furthermore, without the foundational creeds that have guided basic Christian theology since the patristic era, there was less agreement about what constituted the main line of Christian thought.

I do think that the Trinity is an important doctrine in sophisticated forms of Christian theology. It was often an important implication of the doctrines of christology (the claim that Jesus is fully divine) and salvation (the claim that only an infinite sacrifice--i.e. a sacrifice by a divine being--could save). However, I do suspect that as a historical matter that the Trinity doctrine became part of the creeds more due to outside factors--especially the drive of the secular governments to unify the Christian churches behind a single theology.

I think the gospels are pretty clear that Jesus and the Father should not be identified with each other. The third principle here--that Jesus will send the Holy Spirit--has basically no implication about the Trinity.

Sure. I haven't claimed that because the Trinity doctrine isn't in the New Testament that it is false.

There is an idea of a minimal Christian theology, sort of the minimum amount necessary for a belief system to be Christian. It is often claimed, at least by Protestants, that this minimal amount is found clearly in the Bible. The Trinity doctrine is often included in this minimal amount, and so if it is not found clearly in the Bible, this claim would have to be given up.

OK, I'm trying not to make this argumentative and so I'll bow out by John, Chapter 20, Verse 22

"And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:"

Thus, if one is Christian oriented, rightly or wrongly, the Holy Spirit came from the Christ Being as the Son came from the Father.

NOw, I am sure that this can be and has been seen in a lesser light, but there are some who see it as the Trinity, stated clearly in the New Testament.

The question still has to be asked:how is it that the Trinity concept came to the individual man if he didn't see it in the Bible? The answer is that it came from within the individual man and of course modified within his particular countenance.

I know this will essentially muss up the fuss but the Egyptian myth of Osiris, Isis and Horus speaks to the Trinity as seen through the eyes of the Egyptian seer. We were there and brought forth, within our being, the fruits of this supersensible comprehension as the early Church Fathers brought forth the same but changed, in new light.

Hides and runs....

This is a long lecture which speaks to your question as to why Arianism is perceived to be problematic. Somewhere a knowledge of Anthroposophy with respect to the being of Man is necessary( later in the lecture) but the consideration of the Celts, Russians and the Roman Church is readable without Anthroposical prerequisite.

http://www.rsarchive.org/Lectures/GA...181103p01.html

Of course you are right that there are some who think that the Trinity doctrine can be found either explicitly or implicitly in the Bible. My view is just that they are wrong. Rather, I think the Trinity doctrine is an attempt to make sense of several seemingly contradictory commitments of Christian thought. However, there are other ways of making sense of these commitments (better ones in my view, but as a non-Christian my opinion isn't worth much) that are at least as Biblical as the Trinity doctrine.

For instance, the above verse could be understood as saying that God (understood as a single person) would indwell these disciples rather than that some separate person called the "Holy Spirit" that is also the same being as God would indwell them. Alternatively, the Holy Spirit could be understood as a sort of emissary as it were that comes from God, without itself being God.