Posted on 06/14/2006 8:05:55 AM PDT by NYer
We believe in the Blessed Trinity because we believe in Jesus, Who revealed the Trinity. God had prepared the Jews not only to welcome the Messiah, but to recognize through revelation what philosophers like Aristotle achieved through reason: that there is a God and there can only be one God.
Moses said to the Jews, “Acknowledge today and take to heart that the Lord is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other but to believe in God Who is the only God.” When the Messiah finally came, He revealed a huge mystery that went far beyond what the Jews were expecting: that the one God in Whom they believe is not solitary, but a unity, a communion of three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and that the Messiah is the Son.
He told them explicitly that the Father and He are one (Jn 10:30). He told them that He and the Father would send the Holy Spirit (Jn 14:26, Jn 15:26). And when He sent them out to baptize in the name of God, He didn’t give them instructions to baptize in the “names” of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit — as if they were three different gods — but in the “name,” for they are fundamentally a union of three persons. This is what the term Trinity means. It was devised by the early Church apologist Tertullian around the year 200 from the Latin words “unitas” and “trinus,” literally “unity” and “three.” It signifies that there is a unity of three persons in one God.
Since the beginning of the Church, theologians have spent their lives trying to penetrate this mystery and explain it to others. St. Patrick used the image of a three-leaf clover. St. Augustine used the image of the mind, with memory, reason and will. More recent minds have used the image of H20, which can exist as ice, water, or steam. But none of these analogies — though interesting and somewhat helpful — do justice to the reality of the mystery of how three persons can exist in the one God.
When St. Augustine was in the middle of his voluminous and classic study of the Blessed Trinity, he took a walk along the beach in northern Africa to try to clear his head and pray. He saw a young girl repeatedly filling a scallop shell with sea water and emptying it into a hole she had dug in the sand. “What are you doing?” Augustine tenderly asked. “I'm trying to empty the sea into this hole,” the child replied. “How do you think that with a little shell,” Augustine retorted, “you can possibly empty this immense ocean into a tiny hole?” The little girl countered, “And how do you, with your small head, think you can comprehend the immensity of God?” As soon as the girl said this, she disappeared, convincing Augustine that she had been an angel sent to teach him an important lesson: No matter how gifted God had made him, he would never be able to comprehend fully the mystery of the Trinity.
This, of course, does not mean we cannot understand anything. If we want to get to the heart of the mystery of the Trinity, we can turn to the most theological of the Apostles, who meditated deeply on all that Jesus had revealed and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, said simply and synthetically, “God is love” (1 Jn 4:16). For God to be love, He has to love someone. None of us can love in a vacuum; there must always be an object of our love. Who is the object of God’s love? It cannot be man, or the created world, or the universe, because all of these existed in time and God is eternal and therefore existed before time.
It’s also impossible to say that God merely loved Himself in a solitary way, because this would not really be love but a form of egotism and narcissism. For God to be love, there needed to be an eternal relationship of love, with one who loves, one who is loved, and the love that unites them. This is what exists in the Blessed Trinity: The Father loved His image, the Son, so much that their mutual and eternal love “spirated” or “generated” the Holy Spirit. They exist in a communion of love. The three persons of the Blessed Trinity are united in absolutely everything except, as the early Church councils said, their “relations of origin,” what it means to be Father, what it means to be Son of the Father, and what it means to proceed from the Father and the Son.
These theological insights about the blessed Trinity may seem theoretical, but they become highly practical when we reflect on the fact that we have been made in the image and likeness of God and called to communion with God. To be in the image and likeness of God means to be created in the image and likeness of a communion of persons in love. Our belief in the Trinity — the central teaching of the Catholic faith — has given the Church the deepest understanding available to human beings of the nature of man, the meaning of human life, and what it means to love.
Hmm . . . interesting. What is your position on female priests?
The same as St. Paul's!
Ok..went and looked at post #93. Is this what you are saying to me?"You are truly stupid! So get lost!"I think that CC was interpreting a certain 'lack of love' ... from that Catholic poster.
Please check post #93. I hope you made a mistake in your reference.
Correct me if I'm wrong, CC.
I would venture to say that not agreeing with infant baptism, or once saved, always saved, or faith and works, vs faith alone is more than inconsequential and is much more than mere differences in style. Not to mention the fact that the list that I showed depicts many differences in doctrine which you said that there weren't that many differences in doctrines among Protestants.
The truth is ... most of us (Protestants, non-Catholics, etc.) ... just don't regard it as all that significant that some other christians believe differently than we do ... on these issues.
We figure ... God's going to get all of His, anyway ... and that He'll get us all where we need to be got ... one way or another.
That's probably why we're content to have 33,000 (was it?) flavors of ourselves on the menu.
Now we know that that's not for everyone, ...
Now I'm confused. I thought there was neither male nor female in the Messiah Yeshua, per your quotes.
OOPS!!!! I meant #193 where me and Quester agree even though I don't know what denomination he is...or he knows mine.
I'll read the rest of your post now and respond in a minute.
In Luke, Mary is called "Blessed among women" and that means she must be the more blessed than other women. If Eve ever existed in a sinless state (and she did) then she would be superior to Mary. Logic would dictate that the Mother of our Lord must be superior in all ways to the mother of Cain.
When God make his promise for Salvation in Genesis, he says:
And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. (Gen 3:15, KJV)
This is very clear, the emnity will be between Satan and the woman (Mary) and the SAME emnity will be between Satan's seed and Mary's seed. The emnity between our Lord and Satan is eternal and nobody can question that; so, because this same emnity exists between Mary and Satan, it must also be eternal.
Aha...but which is more important? ,-)
I'm trying (but not always succeeding) in being sisterly and loving. I'm glad you could join us.
Thanks Quester. I didn't mean to type #93 I meant to post #193 (which was my initial post to you about how similar our different denominations can be.
I didn't mean to bring in that other topic, I'm sorry. I think we all struggle with emotions when we speak about our beloved Savior. I forgive instantly (well, almost instantly) anyone who questions my interpretation or my motive in these discussions. Our discussion can get very passionate (heated and ugly.) Please, I ask all whom I've offended to forgive me also.
That is your opinion and I respect it. In my opinion those differences are inconsequential....God will sort out our stupidities....(I think I already said that but I'm not going to venture on what post#...it might get me into trouble.) =:-O
While the OT has some interesting hints at the Trinity, the NT is what seals the deal.
Without God's revelation in scripture, the doctrine of the Trinity would not have become part of church teaching.
The point: scripture represents the words of the Apostles, and the Apostles have authority over the church.
No need to be confused. Anyone can be a follower of Jesus, but not all can be priests. Did Jesus ordain any female Apostles? Did the Apostles ordain any females?
Do you ordain females in your Messianic congregation? If you do, you're not following the Bible.
Hmm.. but you do have an issue with Catholic Christians. Interesting.
Well, even if you don't have an issue with other non-Catholics, what about what God thinks? Did not Jesus call for all to be one when he prayed in the garden? Where did He say that it was okay for all of you to have different doctrines and beliefs?
Oh ok..I didn't think you meant #93. One has to be sure though because as you said in a subsequent post, people's passions can get very ignited discussing their religious beliefs. I was hoping that I had not triggered such a response. I think our discourse has been very civil and pray that we can continue in that manner.
I try not to dip my toes in on threads like this. They get very contentious, and I'm afraid my knowledge isn't very deep. Most folks wipe the floor with me in a doctrinal argument. :-)
That's not to say that a Gentile (like myself) can't learn to understand the Jewish culture of the Scriptures (indeed, J.P. Holding over at the Tektonics website does an excellent job of doing just that)--but it does mean that an important step is to recognize that the Bible was not written in our language or to our culture, and that it is we who have to make the transition, in thought process if not necessarily in lifestyle. (Though I've found that living a Jewish lifestyle does aid in learning to "think Jewish" when reading the Scriptures.)
Where does it state in Scripture that you as a Gentile should live a Jewish lifestyle? Read the book of Acts, you aren't required to live a Jewish lifestyle.
Why should you "think Jewish?" Why don't you think Christian? Do you follow all 613 Mitzvot? Do you engage in Talmudic studies? Do you hold the OT to be superior to the NT?
Why do followers of Messianic Judaism refuse to be called Christians?
St. Peter:
"But if as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name." First Epistle of St. Peter the Apostle 4:16
St. Peter was a Jew and he called himself a Christian.
I'm not the deepest well as far as doctrinal knowledge goes. That's one reason I am here....to learn. I always seem to learn my lessons the hard way too. : )
I never said required, I said useful. You learn a language a lot faster by total immersion than you do by taking a thrice-a-week class in college. That doesn't keep you from learning the essential basics of a language part-time, of course. Learning a culture is no different.
If you don't feel called to learn the culture by immersion, fine. But you should learn it from a scholarly perspective at the least. The link I provided will give you a start on doing just that.
Why should you "think Jewish?"
Because those who wrote the Scriptures did, and thinking as they did makes their writings clearer.
Let's take a non-Biblical example: Dave Berry, in his book Dave Berry Does Japan relates a story in which his wife was driven nearly insane trying to book a flight between two cities. The conversation went something like this:
"Hi, I'd like to book a flight from point A to point B."Now as Dave points out, any Japanese person, or even a Westerner who has learned to think somewhat like a Japanese person, would pick up by the first, "I see . . ." that there is no plane going between those two points. It is a point of politeness that in Japanese culture you never say "no" directly if you can in any way help it, especially in a buisiness situation."I see. You'd like to book a flight."
"Yes."
"From point A."
"Yes"
"To point B."
"Yes!"
"Aha."
long pause
"Is that possible?"
"Perhaps you would like to book a train . . ."
"No, I'd like to book a plane, thank you very much."
"I see. You'd like to book a plane . . ." repeat until American goes insane
Now, I picked that example because I think it's funny, but also because there are a lot of parallels between Biblical culture and Japanese culture: Group-oriented identity and morality, an honor-based culture, a circular view of time, an emphasis on client/patron relationships, and the importance of ritual (and by extension, racial and cultural) purity. This stands in direct odds with our Western ideals of rugged individualism, guilt-based morality, linear view of time, an emphasis on free and equal friendships, an an egalitarian rejection of the notion of purity in any group. That's not to say that our culture is necessarily wrong on these points, but that it is so radically different from the culture the Bible was written from and to that we can very easily misunderstand the nuances of what it is trying to say or why the Apostles made certain rulings.
For example, when Yeshua went off on the Pharisees and scribes in Matthew 23, calling them vipers, or calling them sons of the Devil in John 8:44, that was pretty much standard rabbinic hyperbole. That's not to say that He wasn't calling them on the carpet, but the severity of the denounciations isn't nearly as bad as we tend to think it.
For another example, when He speaks of having a "good eye" and an "evil eye" in Mat. 6:22-23, He's simply using first-century Jewish slang for "generous" and "stingy," respectively.
And for the example at the heart of this thread, when a Jewish couple is married, it is assumed that they will be having sex. The idea that sex is too "icky" for the mother of the Messiah to have partaken in it is purely Platonic (I'm getting tired of typing that word, but there it is), and has no part in a Jewish context. Indeed, if Joseph and Miryam hadn't consummated their marriage, that would have to be spelled out and justified to Matthew's Jewish audience--as is, he felt the need to clarify that they didn't engage in sex until after Yeshua's birth (1:25)!
Incidentally, the same Platonism that says that having sex within marriage would degrade Mary also gave rise to the various Gnostic heresies that said that Yeshua couldn't be fully God and fully Man all at once, for surely God, being a pure Spirit, would never degrade Himself enough to become flesh! (Which was precisely the issue Yochanan worked to counter in his Gospel account and epistles, btw.)
To conclude: No, the Bible nowhere says that you must become Jewish to be a Christian. However, it does say that there is much advantage in being a Jew and being circumcised, because it was to the Jewish people--i.e., their culture and language--that the oracles of God were delivered. Therefore, if you want to understand the Scriptures to their fullest, you need at the least to learn how a first-century Jew thought, and train yourself to use the same thought-patterns when reading the Scriptures.
Otherwise, you may never know if there's a plane going from point A to point B or not. ;-)
You never heard? Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus had other siblings, and nowhere in the Bible does it say that Mary wasn't a Virgin... I don't believe you have read the Bible, but then again, my interests are more closely aligned with good solid arguments and, in this case, arguments based on scripture. So, do yourself a favor and stop posting to me.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.