Why Do We Believe in the Trinity?

Catholic Exchange ^ | June 14, 2006 | Fr. Roger Landry

[colorcountry]

All this spite because I don't agree with you? It was you who said that if you don't believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary that Christianity is a lie.

As a Christian, I can guarantee you, I have never heard that Jesus Christ was an only child or that Mary was a perpetual virgin. I posted valid reasons why this cannot be so. I assumed this was something you, as a Catholic were taught and you believed. I as a Christian was never taught that and I have never believed it.

So as you say...Spare me the victimhood game. Then cut the crap.

[Religion Moderator]

Discuss the issues all you want, but do NOT make it personal!

[nmh]

"And where did that Bible come from? Did it write itself? Did Jesus instruct His disciples to write down the events during His lifetime?"

I've already addressed that.

It was inspired by God and through various men and women written. IN a previous reply I cite the verses. It certainly wasn't inspired by the Catholic church! LOL!!!

God knows precisely what He is doing and what He wants us to do and believe. He doesn't need sinners thwarting eyes to fabricated beliefs that violate His teachings.

[colorcountry]

Thank you.

[phatus maximus]

With all due respect, I'd like you to list in great detail what tradition(s), not found in Holy Scripture, that are necessary for knowledge of how God has given us the gift of salvation through Christ.


I eagerly anticpate your response.

[nmh]

Me: Where's that in the Bible?

You: Right behind the section describing the Canon, the Immaculate Conception and the detailed description of the Trinity.


Me: Cute. I wasn't asking about that. In my FIRST reply I showed where the concept of the Trinity originated IN THE BIBLE itself.

What I was asking was

WHERE does the Bible state that Mary was SINLESS?

WHERE in the Bible does it state that Mary never had a PHYSICAL DEATH?

WHERE does it state that we should pray TO Mary?

WHERE does it state that Mary had NO OTHER children - a "perpetual virgin"?

Let me help you out.

NO WHERE!

[nmh]

I have looked at it VERY closely as well as studying the Greek and Hebrew when appropriate.

My interpretation is NOT out of context NOR is it an "interpretation issue".

I strongly suggest you do the same and remove the veil from your eyes. You have improperly applied the Greek to conveniently include other teachings that VIOLATE what is written in the Bible in other verses. Through selective defining of words you miss the point of the passage.

[phatus maximus]

So by your description in your answer there has NEVER been disagreement in what certain scripture means w/in the Catholic Church...most interesting...

[phatus maximus]

with all due respect, what traditions that are not found in Holy Scripture are necessary for salvation?

[nmh]

"Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus."

HUH? In NO way shape or form does

Ezek 44:2

[2] Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Have ANYTHING to do with MARY!!! That's insane to suggest that! That is such a leap - it's totally ridiculous!

"Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 1:31

[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Nothing about permanent virginity here.

Luke 1:34

[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin here!

Mary is questioning HOW she could be pregnant since she has NOT had sex with a man. She conceived with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is absolutely NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin stated here or even HINTED AT. NOTHING. It's rather straight forward what's going on here.

She took NO VOWS of VIRGINITY. No where does she state that or is it required by anyone. You have been fooled. Simply READ what she stated. There are NO hidden innuendos here. Her question makes perfect sense when she has NOT slept with a man. If I were her, I'd be asking too - how can I conceive when I haven't had sex with a man.

You're way off base on this one!


This is not an "interpretation issue". It's a reading and comprehension problem, by choice. Clearly it does NOT state what you chose to believe.

[nmh]

"Ezek. 44:2 - Ezekiel prophesies that no man shall pass through the gate by which the Lord entered the world. This is a prophecy of Mary's perpetual virginity. Mary remained a virgin before, during and after the birth of Jesus."

HUH? In NO way shape or form does

Ezek 44:2

[2] Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut.

Have ANYTHING to do with MARY!!! That's insane to suggest that! That is such a leap - it's totally ridiculous!

"Luke 1:31,34 - the angel tells Mary that you "will" conceive (using the future tense). Mary responds by saying, "How shall this be?" Mary's response demonstrates that she had taken a vow of lifelong virginity by having no intention to have relations with a man. If Mary did not take such a vow of lifelong virginity, her question would make no sense at all (for we can assume she knew how a child is conceived). She was a consecrated Temple virgin as was an acceptable custom of the times.

Luke 1:31

[31] And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS.

Nothing about permanent virginity here.

Luke 1:34

[34] Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

And nothing about Mary being a perpetual virgin here!

Mary is questioning HOW she could be pregnant since she has NOT had sex with a man. She conceived with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is absolutely NOTHING about being a perpetual virgin stated here or even HINTED AT. NOTHING. It's rather straight forward what's going on here.

She took NO VOWS of VIRGINITY. No where does she state that or is it required by anyone. You have been fooled. Simply READ what she stated. There are NO hidden innuendos here. Her question makes perfect sense when she has NOT slept with a man. If I were her, I'd be asking too - how can I conceive when I haven't had sex with a man.

You're way off base on this one!


This is not an "interpretation issue". It's a reading and comprehension problem, by choice. Clearly it does NOT state what you chose to believe.

[lastchance]

Thanks for the respect. I was speaking specifically of the Holy Trinity. A doctrine that is denied by some churchs. Such as Jehovah Witness, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals. They will use Scripture to prove that there is no Trinity, and/or that Jesus is not God.
But Christianity also has the witness of the Early Church and what they believed and taught. These writings defend against the Arian and other heresies. That is why I say that using the Bible alone to argue for the Trinity doctrine may be ineffective. I do think that the Trinity and Christ's divinity.can be shown to be scriptural. But why not use the witness of those who learned from the Apostles or their students.

I was not speaking about the gift of salvation through Christ. That I would argue is very clear in Scripture. Both in the NT and the OT Psalms and Prophets.

However it is good to have arguments from outside of Scripture when dealing with people who do not regard the Bible as inspired and inerrant.

[nmh]

"The reason it didn't take you hundreds of years to figure it out is because the Church had already defined it for non-Catholics."

Again, I speak for myself. It's CLEARLY in the Bible for ANYONE to read and accept. THAT is what I did. I didn't look to the "church". I simply read it in the Bible. I NEVER take the word of man to heart. I have to see the truth myself.

"It didn't take the Church hundreds of years to figure it out either. They already knew it, but had to set down definitions to combat heresies, such as the Arian heresy."

Heresies will happen regardless of what "is written". It is God who inspired the writing of the Bible by particular people - NOT the "church".

[nmh]

"The reason it didn't take you hundreds of years to figure it out is because the Church had already defined it for non-Catholics."

Again, I speak for myself. It's CLEARLY in the Bible for ANYONE to read and accept. THAT is what I did. I didn't look to the "church". I simply read it in the Bible. I NEVER take the word of man to heart. I have to see the truth myself.

"It didn't take the Church hundreds of years to figure it out either. They already knew it, but had to set down definitions to combat heresies, such as the Arian heresy."

Heresies will happen regardless of what "is written". It is God who inspired the writing of the Bible by particular people - NOT the "church".

[phatus maximus]

Respectfully...please help me understand when the Pope is NOT speaking on Faith and Morals...It would seem that anytime he speaks to what the faithful are to believe he is speaking to Faith or Morals...therefore he has to be"infalliable" virtually all the time. I am not asking to be incindiary but rather to understand this concept...thanks.

[phatus maximus]

With all due respect, Did not a pope tell us in ex cathedra that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Chruch, but today that same doctrine is not accepted? So which is right? Help me understand how error was not delivered in ex cathedra if the doctrine is not in force today?

I have no disagreement that Christ will NEVER let His Church be overtaken by Satan because it won't...what I am confused on is how did infallibility get into doctrine...What Church Fathers agree with this doctrine? I don't know and am curious to learn...

Blessings.

[ShandaLear]

Where did I say that? Individuals can certainly disagree, but the official doctrine of the church is certain.

[lastchance]

I found a good site called Darkness to Light which shows how the Church Fathers defended the doctrine of the Trinity. I think it is a site designed to answer challenges by JW's. It is non Catholic but I do not know if it is sponsored by any specific denomination.
You might find it interesting.

Here is the URL http://www.dtl.org/trinity/article/post-apostolic/pt-1.htm

[lastchance]

Phatus. http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt43.html

This link is to a rather long article about Papal Infallibility. It does take a bit to wade through but may give you some insight to the definition. The article is structured to conclude that the Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae meets the criteria for being considered infallible. An issue that is still debated by theologians within the Catholic Church.

God Bless.

[Campion]

Ah, this is so sad to me. We are all on the same side.

I honestly don't know whether I believe that anymore. The hatred, venom, and contempt expressed here for me and my co-religionists by a certain subset of (self-proclaimed) Christians leads me to believe that I have nothing in common with them, and am not on their side in any way, shape, or form.

I used to hope that conservative Catholics and Protestants could learn to work together to reverse the decline of our civilization.

I no longer expect that to happen, nor do I expect the decline to be reversed. Sorry.