Imagican said:
Fran,
No, my friend, it is not I that chooses to place God in 'a box'. It is YOU and those LIKE you that have chosen to DEFINE God in such a WAY that one MUST believe as they in order to KNOW God. I have NOT attempted to make God FIT into a mold of traits familiar to OTHER gods. Accuse as you will, all you are doing is heaping coals upon your OWN head.
You are forgetting something that I have clearly stated before on this board. I have stated that many people come to God, and none of them should be shortchanged. They are reaching to God with what God has given them. As I state in my signature, I believe I have been graced in this aspect. Thus, we Catholics do not (as our Catechism clearly states) erect unnecessary obstacles to people of good will.
My point of contention with you is NOT that you are trying to go to God the 'non-catholic way', but that you CLAIM to be doing it as the original apostles taught and YOU represent orthodox Christianity as taught by them. You are not. You certainly may be blessed with the Spirit, but I believe Muslims and Hindus are also blessed, in God's own way. But that doesn't mean that your "offerings" are any more correct than someone else's, CERTAINLY not more than orthodox Christianity's understanding.
Thus, when I say, "you put God in a box", that means your attempt to link your understanding of God to the orthodox, apostolic position, is false. THEY were much more open to RECEIVING something that was beyond their paradigm, while you are not. You EXPECT the Bible to say "God is a Trinity". Forget about the numerous verses that imply the divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
You MUST have THAT VERSE! This is exactly what the Pharisees did with Jesus. Jesus did not fit into their mold, so they rejected Him. I fear you are doing the same, and in your attempt to tell us how YOU are "guided by the Spirit", I feel it is my duty to correct you in this regard.
My defense of orthodox Christianity does not mean that your means of going to God is in complete error. I have already stressed that a "heretic" is not ALWAYS wrong. But you teach a false gospel, that Jesus is not God.
Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
They did not understand how the two propositions could be BOTH true. They accepted both propositions, admitting that the Son of God WAS God, with God, and was given everything of God's before creation. You misunderstand the premise. The premise is not whether everyone recited the Nicene Creed in 200 AD. The premise is whether the elements of Trinity were present among the believers. Whether the Rule of Faith was overturned by this explanation that we now call "Trinity".
Untrue. It's about time that you cease with offering such blatant alterations of the truth. NOTHING offered up in the words that have been posted make ANY SUCH indication. The TRUTH is that Tertullian has PLAINLY offered that those, (Majority of BELIEVERS), were SHOCKED to hear of this 'three in one' concept. Anyone that reads it KNOWS this.
I think it would take too much time to explain the history behind this. It would take a chapter from a book to describe how Christians (in the West) were especially keen to protect the "ONENESS" of God. The West were especially worried about the "nature" of God as one. One divinity. Monotheism must be protected. This was the mindset of Christians in the 2nd century. That was the primary belief on this issue. Again, we are speaking of the West, Tertullian's audience. The East was virtually the OPPOSITE in their prime "worry", the three persons or two sendings - the Economy. Thus, the Church (not relying on the internet) focused on different issues, dependent upon cultural paradigms.
At the same time as this Western background (focus on ONENESS), there WAS the understanding that Jesus was God. This is undeniable. Their liturgies, how they worshipped, make it clear that they prayed to Jesus and worshipped Him. The Fathers over and over note that Jesus, the Son of God, WAS God. This was WHY He was called "Son" in the first place. A relationship in where the divinity was given to the Lord and Savior. The Bible clearly speaks of the Father giving ALL to Jesus. EVERYTHING. Thus, Jesus had the Divine Nature.
Now. How does one explain this to "simple Christians" who focus on the ONENESS of God WITHOUT reverting back to polytheism? Thus, it was up to theologians to try to reconcile the REVELATION received from Scriptures and Apostolic teachings. If you read the writings of these first few centuries, you will find a number of attempts to explain the truisms of BOTH propositions - that God is ONE and God is a Divine Triad. Tertullian gives the first coherent and comprehensive treatise on this issue. As it turns out, the FORMER CATHOLIC gives an explanation that virtually mimics what will be defined 130 years later at Nicene. Interesting how a man in schism explains the Catholic faith so well - that God is One and God is Three...
Thus, I say that the first Christians were well aware of the independent propositions and the rule of faith. It was a matter of EXPLAINING how these revealed propositions (God is one and Jesus is God) did not necessary cancel each other out. The audience of Tertullian were shocked by his explanation, but no more shocked than Paul's audience when he taught that Jesus entered the Heavenly Temple and that the old covenant laws were abrogated...
Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
So what? That reflection ALWAYS comes later. Dogma is merely a reflection on what we ALREADY believe, not a new teaching that was never believed before. It is a definition that accurately and precisely defines a difficult teaching (usually instigated by false teachers).
So what? SO WHAT? So, once again, you would INDICATE that the apostles did NOT KNOW the identity of Christ. That it took those that nailed Him to a cross to 'come along' and FIGURE it out hundreds of years AFTER the death of Christ. You are a 'funny guy'.
No, I did not say that. Again, you misrepresent what I actually said...
Perhaps an analogy will help...
We know that women give birth to children. We know that this happens when a man place their "seed" within the woman. But HOW does this "seed" generate a child within the woman? Until recently, the biology behind this action was largely unknown. The Church Fathers have commented on this process and at what point the "child" is indeed a life. However, it was UNDERSTOOD or IMPLIED that as soon as the "seed" took "root", a person was formed and God gave this person a soul. Without understanding fully the biological process, the Fathers IMPLIED or UNDERSTOOD that at "conception", a child was formed.
TODAY, we know that this "conception" happens VERY soon after the copulation. Any effort to point to St. Thomas Aquinas' comment about "after a number of days, a child is conceived" is moot, since he implied that at conception, God came and created the soul. Thus, even though his biology was incomplete, his belief that God created the soul at conception and a life was formed (thus, making abortion completely unacceptable EVER, not just after the first month, as some pretend Catholics try to say).
I know this is not the greatest of examples to follow, but I hope you can understand that the "seed" of our current beliefs is found in the writings from long ago, even though THEY didn't know the specifics about human biology. The first Christians had not yet pondered how the "God is One" AND "God is Three" went together, but they did understand them independently of each other. It takes later reflection on these elements to later define "what do we believe on this matter". Whether it is further reflection on a matter or new discoveries in science, our knowledge of theology and our relation to God is always growing, and always based upon what came before...
There is nothing "funny" here. The apostles knew who Jesus was.
THEY are the ones who laid the foundation for the later pondering of the Trinitarian formulas. The SAME SPIRIT guided the Fathers as guided the Apostles...
Imagican said:
francisdesales said:
He does so subtly throughout. The problem is that you are like the Jewish Pharisees, expecting SOMETHING that must fit into YOUR paradigm. Otherwise, it is not so. Just like the Jews who would not accept Christ, because He didn't fit into THEIR plans of what the Messiah should be. You completely miss the point of the Gospels, that Jesus revealed Himself in HIS particular way and that it is the BELIEVER who must come to believe what is offered, NOT whether God fits into YOUR paradigm of acceptance...
I like that use of 'subtly'. Sounds like something straight out the mouth of the serpent in the garden.
Tell that to Mark and how he wrote his Gospel. Explain why Jesus throughout tries to keep His miracles silent, or the proclamation that He is the Messiah. Why only take three people to the Transfiguration, or the raising of Jarius' daughter from the dead? Numerous such examples of how God GRADUALLY revealed the NATURE of Who Christ was. What is "from the mouth of the serpent" is how God MUST do "x" a certain way, otherwise, it is not so... We don't need explicit mention that Jesus is God, although we do indeed have such statements from the Lord in John's Gospel.
Imagican said:
What I believe has been REVEALED to ME, Fran. NOT something that SOME-ONE taught me.
Which makes it virtually certain you are in error, since God promised the Spirit of Truth to His CHURCH, not to individuals who reject His Church...
Imagican said:
Whatever you WANT to call it. But the truth is that you have shown there is LITTLE in you.
Is this another example of how you do not judge me or my walk? Fortunately, I don't depend upon your acceptance or rejection of the truth of what I say.
Imagican said:
Fran has offer DELIBERATE deception throughout this conversation.
No, I have not. The problem is that you do not want to hear my explanations. You do not want to address them. They do not meet with your approval. You do not agree with them. But don't tell me I am deliberately deceiving anyone. That is uncalled for.
Imagican said:
and EACH time that it is pointed out, I am accused of NOT being a Christian, or acting like a six year old, or ranting. So, all I have done is OFFER TRUTH.
...according to your understanding. However, from your responses, it appears you do not even understand my point of view. I never said that Christians had a
complete Trinitarian understanding, a la Chalcedon, at 200 AD. I said the rule of faith, what the earliest Christians believed, contained the seeds, the elements for the belief of what would be called Trinity. It took some 150 years to hammer out the details, but Christians understood that God was One, and that Christian revelation went beyond Judaism - that Jesus was
God. That is clear from Christian litury (esp. Baptism), practice, architecture, hostile witnesses of the era, and the writings of the Fathers of the time. The issue was getting the two propositions to not cancel each other out.