parated2K posts:

kfc posts:

Your discussion about "Jehovah God" brought me back to Suhay's opening statement...

I always thought that the term "Jehovah God" came from the Jehovah Witnesses'.

In the Old Testament, the name of God held most sacred among the Jews during their priest and Temple days, was JHVH designated as a the tetragramon by Josephus. It was uttered once a year by the High Priest on Yom Kipper day and when he offered amale lamb for sacrifice, as an atonement for the sins of Isreal. Individual Jews were forbidden to utter the sacred JHVH.

As far as the term or word "Jehovah", it originated in the 1500s from Petrus Galtinus who  got that by punctuating  JHVH with vowels creating a hybrid word, Je-Ho-Vah. Which let's be crystal clear....is not the Hebrew lost name of the God of ancient Isreal.

But what do we know for sure....from Exodus 3:14,  the most exact and comprehensive name of God is "I AM WHO AM".

The meaning of "I AM WHO AM" is I am being itself, eternal, self-existent, infinite, without beginning,end or change, and the source of all other beings.

Scripture also tells us that "I AM WHO AM" is the term by which Jesus designated Himself when He told the Jews of His existence before Abraham was born. So, there you have it.

God is "I AM WHO AM" and Jesus said He is "I AM WHO AM".

Do the math, ah er, do the language....

Lulapilgrim, so take what you said and reconcile it with the fact that Jesus Christ also said things like, "not me, be Him who sent me" and prayed to The Father in the Garden of Gethsemane, and above all else, cried out on the cross, "My God My God Why hath thou forsaken me"?

The Holy Bible is ours to understand.  It isn't a book of mysteries meant to be contradictory or confusing.  If we find it contradictions or confusions it is because we lack understanding.

For us to understand the nature of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost, we can't pick and choose what scriptures support our "undestanding" and ignore the ones that don't.   Through the Holy Bible, God wasn't us to understand His messages and His will for us.  He wanted us to know Him through the words of scripture, through prayer and through the gift of the Holy Ghost. 

So, if you don't think Jesus and The Father are separate, why do you think Jesus said so many things that showed them as separate?

Please explain your understanding of how Christ could forsake Himself.  I don't ask this to be facetious or to challenge your beleifs, I ask to better understand where you are coming from with your belief in the doctrine of the Trinity.

PARATED2K POSTS:

What I said is that God revealed that He is One, not three Gods and that Catholics believe in but One God, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; but that He functions as Three distinct Persons, ----Father, Son and Holy Ghost.

I also quoted the Scriptural passage in which we learn that with God all things are possible. In theological language, God is One Divine Being possessing One Divine Nature as God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.

God the Father possesses a Divine Nature. Jesus, the Christ, in virtue of His Divine Nature possessed in union with and equally with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit.  Jesus is not only the Eternal Son of God; He is God the Eternal Son.

We cannot take a verse or passage from here or there and conclude that Jesus and the Father are separate Gods. The Blessed Trinity permeates the NT. When the whole Scripture is taken into account, we can come to the conclusion that Jesus is God.

This is found in St.Matt. 27: 46.  It, as the other passages, do not prove that Christ is a separate God from God the Father.  

In light of the Trinity, how do we understand St.John 14:28, when Christ said, "The Father is greater than I"?

Here, the Eternal Son of God after the Incarnation, possesses two natures, the uncreated Divine Nature (that I've described above) and the human nature born of the Virgin Mary. When Christ said, "I and the Father are one", He referred to His Divine Nature. When He said, "The Father is greater than I" He referred to the human nature.

All those expressions that Christ said: for example, "I came to do the will of the MY Father." or "The words I speak are not mine, but His that sent Me", were proper to Christ in His Mission on earth and in the virtue of His human nature in which He fulfilled that mission. And interestingly, they do not exclude Christ's Divine Nature, nor His claim to be God.

Parated2k posts:  

 Remember God is Infinitely and Perfectly Just.  And remember too, that after crying out these words, Christ died.

Since mankind had forsaken God by sin, it was Perfect Justice that mankind should be forsaken by God. But the Eternal Son of God took a human nature in which to expiate man's sin. On the Cross, ladened with the sins of the world, He allowed Himself to experience the bitter sense of dereliction by God, therefore, from the human point of view, He cried "My God, My God, Why hath Thou forsaken me"? This sense of dereliction and anguish ended from the confidence in our Lord's later words, "Father into Thy hands I commend My Spirit." 

This was an experience Christ went through in His human nature and it had to be.  God could have exercised His Mercy only and condoned our sins without extracting expiation on the part of the human race. But if God wished to satisfy the claims of Perfect Justice even while exercising His mercy, the the Incarnation and death of Christ were necessary.  Jesus freely chose to offer Himself in sacrifice (as the Lamb of God), and that sacrifice was the logical necessity consequent upon His choice.

Perfect Justice can only be satisfied by Perfect Atonement. Christ's sacrifice was not purely a purely human sacrifice. The atonement was made by God becasue the Person, whose human nature was nailed to the Cross was God. The Person, and not the nature under the control of that Person, is the terminus of attribution. The human nature which who was nailed to the Cross  was His Who was and is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. What's that mean? Well, the sacrifice though directly involving the death of human nature, derived its dignity from the Person to whom it belonged. It was therefore, an atonement of infinite value derived from the infinite dignity of the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity.  

One may or may not agree with my explanation, I say my, but really mean the Catholic Church's explanation.

Well let's go over what we know Scripture does say. 

1.  God is one (shema).  There are not three gods. 

2.  Jesus is God.

3.  Jesus and the Father are not the same

4.  The Holy Spirit is also God and is not the same as either the Father or The Son.

The way these facts were put together was thru the doctrine of the Trinity.  The actual word didn't come into being until about 200 A.D. first coined by Tertullian.  The core of this teaching is a mystery so any human attempt to come to terms with this teaching is beyong us.   Try as we will we can never completely understand the divine depth of this truth. 

The NT does not give us a clear explanation but does give us data which was later used to make an explanation of how there can be three beings but only one God.   The one God is the bottom line. 

We need to understand that not all of God became incarnate.  The Father did not become incarnate in Jesus.  This is the data which the NT gives us but it does not tell us how to explain it.  We have facts, but not a theory to explain the facts. 

Hey Leauki...tried to sign up today for a  learn to read Hebrew class but didn't work out.  Ended up signing up for dance lessons instead.  Going to learn the Foxtrot and Cha Cha along with other dances.  Should be fun. 

There are different ways to get closer to G-d.

Lula posts: 14

lula posts: 25

LULA POSTS 26

#50

#51

PARATED2K POSTS:

Really? Hmmmm...interesting....I thought I was clear.  

Well, just to be clear...In God there are three Persons in one Divine Essence, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, really distinct, equal, and of one substance.  The Father is Unbegotten, the Son Begotten of the Father, and the Holy Ghost Proceeds from the Father and the Son.

The dogma of the Trinity was revealed by Jesus Christ Who alone could teach us concerning the intimate life of God. St.Matt. 11:27. It is taught throughout the New testament, and has been handed down together with the INcarnation, by the Catholic Chruch's Aposotlic Divine Tradition as a doctrine which distinguishes Christianity from all other religions.

The Trinity is set forth explicitly in the Christian Baptismal formula given by Christ, and handed down by the Apostles and their legitimate successors as per the Book of Acts. Therefore the Trinity was known as early as the time of Christ and His Apostles and their successors, and in all the early Fathers especially of the 3rd and 4th centuries when the doctrine was denied and attacked from every possible viewpoint.

Hence, the Council set the doctrine once for all.

Is there anything in actual Christian scripture (excluding here the Book of Mormon) that defines it?

In Jewish scripture we have this very repetitive "G-d is one", "G-d is one", "G-d is one", "G-d is one" going on. It really looks as if somebody was trying to say: "Dudes, G-d is one. Not two, not three, not 4096, ONE. Get that into your heads, dudes!".

Is there anything in Christian scripture that makes it at least equally clear, where the author CLEARLY wanted to convey the message: "Dudes, G-d is three. Not one, not two, not 2048, THREE. Accept it, dudes!".

I accept that the Church defined at the Nicean Council that G-d is three. But where does scripture say so?

Lula is right on this Leauki.  The council never said there were three gods. The Christians never believed that.  There has only been one God revealed in three  but not three Gods.   Did you read my answer back in #58 when I put down what scripture does say? 

Where I do disagree with Lula is when she said this: 

That was never called a "Catholic Council" that I'm aware of but always called the "Jerusalem Council."  It's just another RCC deception.  This council was made up of all Jews.  Not one Roman or Gentile was there or at least as far as we know. 

KFC posts:

Acts 15:6 has it that the Apostles were there...St.Luke was not a Jew was he? Anyway, those who were there had been converted and baptized into the one Christian Faith...the one Christian Faith of the New and Everlasting Covenant is known as Catholicism.

Going back to 9:31, we read "So the Chruch throoughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was built up; and walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it (ie the Chruch) was multiplied."

Notice the singular Chruch, not churches which points to the singular quality of the ekklesia our Lord had established on St.Peter. St. Matt. 16:18. Christ did not an amorphour collection of believers who are not united in faith or doctrine. No, Christ established a particular Chruch that is the one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church....the only Church  that fits Epshesians 4:3-6 to a "T".   

lula posts:

kfc posts 66

There is no deception...from me or the Church. I clearly called it the Council of Jerusalem .....and that it was the first Catholic Council is true. History bears this out.

In 49AD, Jerusalem is where the first Council was held.  The Council settled the matter that the Gentile converts were no longer bound by the Old Mosaic Law.  The Book of Acts 15 describes who was there; the purpose of the meeting and how it was conducted as well as how the matter was settled.

There are 21 Catholic Councils that followed. The Council of Nicea 325,  The First Council of Constantinople 381, the Council of Ephesus, 431, the Council of Chalcedon in 451; one hundered years later, the Second Council of Cnstantinople; Third Council of Constantinople in 680; Second Council of Nicea 787; Fourth Council of Constantinople in 869; First Lateran Council in 1123; Second Lateran Council in 1139; Third Lateran Council in 1179; Fourth Lateran Council in 1215; First Council of Lyons in 1245; Second Council of Lyons in 1274; Council of Vienne in 1311; Council of Constance in 1414; Council of Florence in 1447; Fifth Lateran Council 1512; Council of Trent 1564; First Vatican Council in 1869 and Second Vatican Council in 1962.

...Men claimed that the Son of God was a mere man (Arius; Arianism)? In 325, in Nicea a Council is called to settle the matter...the Chruch proclaims the Divinity of the Word made Flesh.

....Men claimed that there are two separate persons in Christ? ( Nestorius; Nestorianism) In 431,  in Ephesus, a Council is called to settle the matter....and the Chruch declares that Jesus Christ is one Divine Person.

.....Men claimed that the Human Nature had been absorbed into the Divine (Eutyche;) In 451, in in Chalcedon, a Council is called to settle the matter...and the Chruch declares that Christ possessed both a Human and Divine Nature, not confused, changed, divided or separated.

.....fast forward to the 16th century....Men claimed false views of the Holy Bible, denied Divine Tradition, the Holy Mass, the Seven Sacraments, and the Chruch as authority and guardian of Revelation of God and established  their own doctrines.....Wycliffe, Luther, et al; Protestantism)...and the Chruch at the Council of Trent 1545-1563 condemned these errors.

kfc posts 66

Verse 6 tells us the Apostles and ancients were there. The Council may have been made up of all Jews, but they were now followers of Christ for they had been converted and now members of the one true Church and one Faith of Christ.

#2.... No. But so what? You are trying to make a meaningless point.

You are forgetting or ignoring the fact that the Holy Bible is only one authentic source of the one Christian Faith. The Bible itself says that "the Church is the pillar and ground of truth"...and that means there is another authentic source of the one Christian faith which St.Paul calls Tradition. The word Catholic comes from Apostolic or Sacred Tradition. And Apostolic Tradition commands our obedience for this is commanded of us by God through St.Paul.

"Therefore, brethren, stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or by our letter." 2 Thess. 2:14-15.

Here we can see that there is a distinction between what is taught by word of mouth and what is taught by letter. From this passage, it's clear that Christians are commanded to hold fast not only to what was written but also what was handed down to us by way of oral teachings (Tradition). Can any honest Christian deny this?

The name "Catholic" is not found in the Bible although the idea of the Chruch in the mind of Christ and the Apostles is clearly set forth by the Greek word meaning "universal". The early Fathers often declared that the Chruch is Catholic becasue it is spread over the whole earth and teaches every where "Universally and completely all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge."

Again, the word Catholic comes from Apostolic or Sacred Tradition. St.Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, writing to the Christians of Smyrna in 110, is the first to use the name "the Catholic Chruch". He writes: "Where the Bishop is, there let the multitude of believers be; even as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Chruch." (Ad Smyr., viii. 2.).

The Matyrdom of St.Polycarp (155) mentions the Catholic Chruch in 3 passages viii.1; xvi., 2; xix., 2.

At the beginning of the 3rd century, Fr. d'Herbigny wrote, "The dogmatic sense of the word "Cathollic" is evident; the true Chruch is the Chruch that is called "Catholic". (De Ecclesia ii., 72.).

He cites Clement of Alexandria, (Strom. vii., 18); Origen, (In Jos., ix., 8); and Tertullian (Adv. Marcion, iv., 4; De Pres. xxx.).   In this last passage Tertuillian speaks of the "Catholicia" when he means the Chruch. St.Augustine uses the same word as a synonym of the Church 240 times in (Revue Benedictine,  1900, 109.).  

I'm interested in this answer as well. 

Lula, I'll just leave this ...you are adding to scripture.  I've already warned you.  You know what the scripture says about adding to the scriptures right? 

I'll say again, there is NO such thing as a Jerusalem Catholic Council.  While you're in Acts 15...take a good look at v16 and notice the wording..."after this."