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.
Frank, I've read the Bible....it's not in there. Christ built his Church upon Peter's confession.
Nice try though.
I used to be a Mormon....oh the stories I could tell you about proper authority and keys, ordinances and covenants!
Christ's Church has him at the head. The final priest in the order of Melchizadek. He is all I need, my authority is found in Him and Him in me, and a body of His followers to fellowship with.
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.
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.
It's all there, dear friend.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock." This was an extraordinary thing for Jesus to do, because "rock" was not even a name in Jesus' time. Jesus did this, not to give Simon a strange name, but to identify his new status among the apostles. When God changes a person's name, He changes their status.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Matt. 16:17 - to further demonstrate that Jesus was speaking Aramaic, Jesus says Simon "Bar-Jona." The use of "Bar-Jona" proves that Jesus was speaking Aramaic. In Aramaic, "Bar" means son, and "Jonah" means John or dove (Holy Spirit). See Matt. 27:46 and Mark 15:34 which give another example of Jesus speaking Aramaic as He utters in rabbinical fashion the first verse of Psalm 22 declaring that He is the Christ, the Messiah. This shows that Jesus was indeed speaking Aramaic, as the Jewish people did at that time.
Matt. 16:18 - also, in quoting "on this rock," the Scriptures use the Greek construction "tautee tee" which means on "this" rock; on "this same" rock; or on "this very" rock. "Tautee tee" is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”
Jesus did not leave us orphans. He entrusted His Church to Peter and his successors and promised that "the gates of hell would not prevail against it". In its 2000 year history, there have been some questionable popes yet not one has ever erred in doctrine, further testimony that the Holy Spirit continues to guide the Church established by Christ on earth.
I am not illiterate. I've read and heard all of this before. There is ample evidence that Jesus is the stone (rock) referred to Biblically especially in the OT. Cephas (kepha) Peter (Petras/petros) is the pebble.
I think the Catholic reading of Peter as the rock is probably it's first and biggest mistake. Jesus Christ is the Rock.
Talk about shameless use of Hebrew Scriptures. This takes the cake.
It almost sounds like the punchline of a bad joke.
I also wondered how Mary could have been a avowed celebate since whe was espoused to Joseph.
Ah, this is so sad to me. We are all on the same side.
And by the same rhetoric, shouldn't that Infinite God destroy men and created a better one? It is so easy for Him, right?
It's not God doing something for Him, but for us. It is because of His love for us that He was born from a woman and suffered and died as a man and not as God. His suffering and death redeemed us all. Why didn't God made us just and good so we wouldn't commit sin? Because He gave us a mind of our own with the freedom to choose between good and evil. God didn't create a sinless vessel, He picked a sinless woman... it wasn't a magic wand that made Mary, but it was her devotion and high morality that was the determining factor in her selection.
And why would Mary need to have other children, prone to sin, after giving birth to the Savior of the world?
Mary didn't have other children. Jesus was the ONLY one.
We know that Jesus was an only child, but some people disagree. The reason they disagree is that they deny the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, something that has always been believed by Christians.
Here's a proof that Jesus was an only child:John 19:26-27 When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, "Woman, behold thy son!" Then saith he to the disciple, "Behold thy mother!" And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home. If Jesus had brothers and sisters, there would be no need to put His mother under the care of John. In fact, it would probably be an insult to His siblings. On the other hand, if we assume Jesus had no siblings, the way He provided for the care of His mother makes perfect sense.
More here, if you are interested.
That's how you've been told to read it. Just another "bone of contention," that removes the true purpose of His Church. That purpose is to worship Him.
"Is this not the carpenter, the son of Mary, and brother of Jacob (James), Jose (Joseph), and Judah (Jude) and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us?"
Mark 6:3 from Codex Sinaiticus
"How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?" (Lk 1:34) is also interpreted as a vow of life-long virginity. All Mary is quoted as saying is that she was, according to Jewish custom and requirement, virgin until her marriage.
Starting with Clement, the bishop of Alexandria (150 - 215 CE), who confirms in Outlines, Bk. VI, "Peter, James (bar Zebedee) and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem."
.Eusebius (263 - 339 CE), Historia Ecclesia ii,23.4:
".....turned their attention to James, the Lord's brother, who had been elected by the apostles to the episcopal throne at Jerusalem."
(JK) Hmmmm! That's funny, Eusebius seems to agree with Clement.
Hegesippus (c. 100 - 160 CE), Bk 5:
"Control of the Church passed to the Apostles, together with the Lord's brother James...."
(JK) Now Hegesippus was a first generation member of the Jerusalem Assembly of Jesus’ disciples and family. He knew the folks.....how could he have gotten so confused??
Origen (185 - 254 CE), quoting early Josephus:
"These things happened to the Jews in requital for James the Righteous, who was a brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Josephus (37 - c. 100 CE), Antiquities xx:
"So he assembled a counsel of judges and brought before it James, the brother of Jesus, known as Christ."
Clement:
"When James the Righteous had suffered martyrdom like the Lord and for the same reason, Symeon, the son of his Uncle Clopas, was appointed bishop. He being a cousin of the Lord."
Eusebius:
"A group of heretics accused the descendants of Jude...the brother, humanly speaking, of the Savior...on the ground that they were of David's line and related to Christ himself."
(JK) The brother, HUMANLY SPEAKING???? Now what do you suppose he meant by that??
Hegesippus:
"...and these still survived of the Lord's family, the grandsons of Jude, who was said to be His brother, humanly speaking."
Luke:
Acts 1:14 "These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication, with the women and Mary the mother (MHTHR) of Jesus and with his brothers (ADELFOI)."
(JK) The Greek usage (in parentheses) that LUKE so"incorrectly" used, just to confuse all of us, is mine.
Paul:
1 COR 9:5 "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the Brothers of the Lord? (ADELFOI TOU KYRIOU).
(JK) Ahhh! So poor old Paul falls under this delusion too, huh?
GAL 1:19 "But other of the Apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother." (IAKOBWN TON ADELFON TOU KYRIOU)
(JK) No, No Paul! Your confused again. That means, "fellow-villager" er...no..."cousin"....uh..."kinsmen" Yeah, that's it!
http://www.historian.net/jesfam.html
No bone of contention, but believing otherwise is to believe that Christianity is a lie, and that for 2,000 we've been told a lie.
And where did that Bible come from? Did it write itself? Did Jesus instruct His disciples to write down the events during His lifetime?
God in the Person of the Holy Spirit instructed the Apostles to write the NT writings after Jesus' lifetime (and perhaps during ... we don't really know).2 Timothy 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
__________________________________________________________
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
You are truly stupid! So get lost!
Yes, I already posted my ignorance of Catholic doctrine. You exemplify a true Christian.
Yes, your ignorance and arrogance are on display, that's for sure, and such I don't need, thanks.
***Jesus left the first Pope (or Prime Minister, if you will) when He called Peter the rock and "upon this rock I will build MY Church." I didn't make that up; Jesus said it. Look it up! He used the same principle in Isaiah 22:22 to create the one who "holds the keys." ***
So, why did God then call out another Apostle separate from the twelve, with a different commission and send him to the Gentiles?
Not only separate but one who was willing to debate and defend his position against others that believed, who was told in a vision in the Temple to get out of Jerusalem because,"They will not regard thy testimony concerning ME!
But what is important is Pope Peter, James and John gave to Him the right hand of fellowship and divided the ministry, the twelve limiting themselves to the "circumcision" and Him to the "uncircumcision".
Of course, I am refering o PAUL, the Apostle to the Gentiles.
As the old proverb says,
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Do you always get away with calling people names? I thought that was disallowed on FR. Oh well, the beautiful often behave petulantly.
As for me, I am here to learn. You have taught me a valuable lesson.
I like a good debate and someone who can debate the facts, but once you start throwing insults then, you are not worth my time. Quite simple.
You want to learn? Then cut the crap.
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.