The Trinity

[ad_orientem]

I have repeatedly answered it in this thread. Rose seems to think that someone one day woke up and made up the Trinity because the Church didn't define it until Nicaea. I replied on numerous occasions that she obviously doesn't understand how the Church defines its dogmas, which is nearly always in response to heresy and even that would have been difficult before the Edict of Milan. So yes, I was just showing what I thought of the post.

Firstly, that's a reasonable response - certainly more respectful than what you put.

Secondly, that completely fails to recognise those sections of the Christian faith for whom the Trinity isn't orthodoxy - the Mormons Christian Scientists etc. Your orthodoxy is their heresy, and vice versa, so to depict it as 'declared heresy' is simply to pick a side, it's not to explain why.

O.

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

[ad_orientem]

So when was Jesus' birthday, please?

I firmly believe that it is at or around the 25th of December. Both the scriptures and creation mystically point to midwinter. We know that St. John the Baptist was born six months before our Lord and in the Gospel he says of Christ "He must increase, but I must decrease". Creation also testifies to this, for the Church celebrates the Nativity of St. John the Baptist on midsummer after which the Sun decreases, and the Nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ on midwinter after which the Sun increases. Both the liturgical calendar and the cosmos are in harmony and of that we should not be surprised for creation speaks of him through whom all things were made.

[ad_orientem]

So nothing to do with taking over a pagan festival or Winter Solstice celebrations, then

Nick

More coincidence, in my opinion, or alternatively pagans were merely worshiping something they were ignorant of.

[ad_orientem]

Indeed I am, I might very well be inclined to view it much as the Apostle viewed the Athenian altar to the Unknown God.

"But Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are too superstitious. For passing by, and seeing your idols, I found an altar also, on which was written: To the unknown God. What therefore you worship, without knowing it, that I preach to you"

[Outrider]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

[~TW~]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

 It does mean that the Trinity concept is correct because it is found in scripture.

         ~TW~

[Outrider]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.

O.

[Outrider]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

 It does mean that the Trinity concept is correct because it is found in scripture.

         ~TW~

And the non-trinitarian concepts are to be found in scripture, as well. It's almost as though it's such a loosely scripted and translated book that you can find just about anything you want in it - anyone would think that's why it's survived as long as it has.

O.

[ad_orientem]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.

O.

I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.

[jakswan]

Mormons? Christians Scientists? Where they there from the beginning? No. Nuff said! In fact I would say they're not even Christians. Not all claims are equal.

No they weren't there from the start, but there were non-Trinitarian sects and cults - that's why there was a need to adopt Trinitarianism as creed at Nicea, otherwise no-one would ever have needed to raise it at the council.

The fact that the majority opinion at one point in time was in favour of Trinitarianism doesn't mean that it's right.

You could say they're not Christian - given they believe that Christ is divine, I'd suggest that they are, but I can see how there'd be discussion.

Not all claims are equal in the grander scheme of things, perhaps, but on matters of religious doctrine, given the sparsity of the evidence, there's not a great deal to help choose between them.

O.

Of course there were all kinds of weird sects but they died out, as all weird sects do. Only orthodox faith has survived from the Apostles to this day and until the last day.

To you they're weird sects - to us you're all weird sects. Weird is not a measure of right or wrong, it's a measure of popularity. This is - albeit probably not deliberately - just an argumentum ad populum dressed up. The fact that people support your interpretation isn't what will make it right, if it is right.

O.

I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.

Because they are popular they must be right?

[Outrider]

I would say that it's proof that orthodoxy is of the Holy Spirit. In the same way we recognise certain councils as being holy and ecumenical, having been received by the whole Church and thus of the Holy Spirit.

I'd say it's proof that it's popular - X-Factor gets millions of viewers, does that make it 'inspired by the Holy Spirit'?

Equating popularity with right is the argumentum ad populum.

O.

[ad_orientem]

I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.

[Outrider]

I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.

I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, and that 'heresy' hasn't won? The 'heretical' claims that were rejected were based on the same source material, they're supported, it's all just opinion anyway in the absence of anything to corroborate any of it.

O.

[~TW~]

I'm saying orthodoxy won the day precisely because it was, well, orthodox and thus of the Holy Spirit. That why all the heterodox sects died out. Of course, new heterodox sects appear all the time but only orthodoxy has been from the beginning with the Apostles.

I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, and that 'heresy' hasn't won? The 'heretical' claims that were rejected were based on the same source material, they're supported, it's all just opinion anyway in the absence of anything to corroborate any of it.

O.

 
I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, 

 well I find reading the scriptures and studying them and then re-checking does the job,and applying honesty to what you read.

 ~TW~

[Outrider]

baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~

Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...

O.

[Outrider]

I know that's what you're saying, I understand that it's a possibility, but how would you demonstrate that it's the right interpretation, 

 well I find reading the scriptures and studying them and then re-checking does the job,and applying honesty to what you read.

 ~TW~

Other people read the same scripture and come to a different conclusion. Some people read the same scripture and say 'Jesus was merely a prophet, he never said he was God, and Mohammed says he was just a prophet'...

For instance.

O.

[Outrider]

baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~

Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...

O.

 NO I read what you said{ there's not a great deal to help choose between them.}

 Hence baloney.

  ~TW~

So because two sects interpret the same poetically translated unevidenced claims in two different untestable ways, and I point that out, I'm talking baloney

You'll appreciate that I don't feel that's the most robust riposte of the day.

O.

[~TW~]

baloney as usual with no examples.
~TWW~

Sorry, I didn't realise your memory didn't stretch back far enough to read further up the thread where I cited some Christian sects that don't accept the trinitarian account...

O.

 NO I read what you said{ there's not a great deal to help choose between them.}

 Hence baloney.

  ~TW~

So because two sects interpret the same poetically translated unevidenced claims in two different untestable ways, and I point that out, I'm talking baloney

You'll appreciate that I don't feel that's the most robust riposte of the day.

O.

 I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

[Outrider]

I am not interested in your twist and turns,I am telling you that if you take time to read scripture you will find the trinitarian concept in scripture,but do you know what the trinitarian concept is.The evidence suggest you are clueless,so therefore in my book that equals reply's, I can call baloney.

                          ~TW~

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

I don't actually need to grasp the trinitarian concept to state that, unless you're contesting either of those documented realities. I have some grasp of the Trinitarian concept, though I find that it's unintuitive - not impossible, given the possibility of an extra-universal deity not bound by such restrictions as not existing in multiple places at the same time, but unintuitive. Beyond grasping the basics of the concept, I don't see much need to know anything further, given that it's arguing about whether something I don't think exists fails to exist as three parts of a single whole, three independent parts of a linked greater being or three separate things entirely that people misclassify.

It's a bit like spending a long time deciding whether the doughnut I don't have is a ring doughnut or not - there is no doughnut.

O.

[ad_orientem]

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

[Outrider]

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.

O.

[ad_orientem]

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.

O.

But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.

[Outrider]

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.

O.

But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.

Because being right now isn't as important as being the same wrong you were a thousand years ago?

O.

[ad_orientem]

What evidence would that be? I've cited the undeniable fact that there are Christian sects that have accepted, and do accept, the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's founded in scripture, and there are Christian sects that do not accept the trinitarian concept, and claim that it's not founded in the same scripture.

That's why we have the Church guided by the Holy Spirit.

I'm sure the other churches make the same claim.

O.

But they have no claim. They were not there from the beginning. There must be continuity, a golden thread going all the way back to the Apostles who were themselves taught by Christ.

Because being right now isn't as important as being the same wrong you were a thousand years ago?

O.

How can they be right when they have no connection to Christ and his Apostles? For it was to them and to the Church Christ himself founded that the Holy Spirit was promised.