Whenever I meet someone who would discuss with me about Trinity, I immediately remember the time when I asked Rev. John Meaney who taught us Religion subject when I was in third year at St. Augustine High School, San Agustin, Surigao del Sur.
I asked him:
Why is it that you’re teaching us what Trinity is, but then you’ll say that Trinity couldn’t be explained and understood by anyone even by the Pope? How could you teach us that thing which you didn’t even understand?
So, much for that, the only reason why they’re always saying that Trinity couldn’t be explained and understand, is because Trinity doctrine is not written on the Bible.
Okay, I will give you a challenge… Tell me what verse in the Bible that the term “Trinity” is mentioned or the statement “Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one God”.
The first one to comment here with the valid Bible verse will get $25 or its equivalent in Philippine Peso.
| 2.8 |
SELaplana, 4 May 2007 at 
May 5th, 2007 at 3:37 am
I don’t want your money. If you ever come to accept the docrine of the Trinity, I expect you to begin your journey into the Catholic Church.
You are correct that the word “Trinity” does not apear in the Bible. You are also correct that there is only one God. However, there are three persons co-existing in that one God. Scripture is clear on the fact that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Since there is only one God, the doctrine of the Trinity was developed. I’m not sure why you don’t understand this… As for the Arian Heresy, it is not only the Catholic Church that considers the teachings of Arius (who was a Catholic Bishop) herectical, but all mainline Protestants as well. As for your comment that the Bible calls the Catholic Church a heresy, you are not only wrong, but being disingenous. I’ll give you $100 if you can point to the words “Catholic Church is heretical” or anything even resembling that in scripture.
Anyhow, Gen1:1-2, Gen1:26, Gen18:2, Is35:f, Is61:1, Mt1:23, Mt3:16, Mt10:20, Mt12:31-32, Mt17:5, Mt28:19, Lk1:16f, Lk4:18, Jn1:1, Jn1:3, Jn1:10f, Jn3:34-36, Jn5:18, Jn5:23, Jn10:30, Jn14:1, Jn14:9, Jn14:16, Jn15:26, Jn16:14f, Jn14:26, Jn20:28, Acts5:3f, Acts13:2, Acts20:28, 1Cor2:10f, 1Cor6:19f, 2Cor13:13, Col1:15-20, Col2:2, Heb1:2, Heb1:8, Heb1:10-12, 1Jn5:20, Rev1:7f, Rev1:17f, Rev2:8, Rev22:12f
Again, I asked you before to point specifically to some Catholic teaching that you disagree with, but you haven’t done this. All you’ve done is pompously declare that John was being literal when he says “In the beginning was the Word”, and “the Word was with God”, but metaphorical when he says “the Word was God” in the very next line. What is your basis for that reasoning? Please, come up with an argument that makes sense.
May 5th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
well, I launched this challenge to encourage those visitors who believe that in the Bible where the words of God are written.
so, you yourself admitted that the word Trinity is not written on the Bible, which means you know that the term Trinity is not from Christ nor from the Apostle. So, I assume that you also know who invented the term Trinity.
You’re always saying that there is one God but has three person without giving us here the verse in the Bible.
However, if I will say, that there’s only one God and the one God is the Father…. I assure you that it is not my own belief but the teaching of Christ and the Apostle which is written in John 17:1,3 and I Corinthians 8:6 respectively.
So my request is, if you will mention an information, please provide us the verse.
I already pointed you one of the teachings of the Catholic Church which disagreed with that of the teaching of Christ in John 17:1-3 and of the Apostles in I Corinthians 8:6.
Now with regards to the reasoning you’re looking for from me, I already told you that the statement “the Word was God” is just in metaphor language describing the Word as God not referring the Word as the God. If it was written, “the Word was a God” or “the Word was the God” then I will agree to what you believe that the Word was a God or the God.
Now, again I repeat: considering your point but not to concede, that the Word was a God, it’s already said that the Word was with God, therefore, the Word who was a God with another God clearly means that there are two Gods.
Just simple to understand…. based on your belief…. a God with a God is equal to two Gods…..not one God.
I wonder how did you add one God and another one God which resulted to one God. Even if you will multiply 1 God by 1 God will give you the product of 1 God exponent of 2 not 1 God.
May 5th, 2007 at 6:03 pm
I didnt believe in the trinity doctrine anymore… my old baptist pastor says that God is one but in three separate person… He said that if we are going to face God in heaven we will see Jesus, Holy Spirit, and God the Father separately but still one God..
May 5th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
I’m glad you too are awaken about this absurd teaching which according to the doctrine can’t be explained by anyone even by the Pope
….
May 10th, 2007 at 6:13 am
Well, thank you for clarifying that. Since you don’t understand the Infinite, Eternal, Perfect God, he must not exist as the Church explains Him. Really, that is as ridiculous as the atheist who says “you can’t prove God, therefore there is no God.” You don’t understand the Trinity and it’s not specifically mentioned by name in scripture, so it must not be true. Is the word “Bible” in the Bible? Where does it say in scripture that a thing must be mentioned by name in scripture to be true? How can you, a man with a mortal, finite mind, presume to understand fully the Eternal God?
Above I listed 43 verses that mention the divinity of Christ or the divinity of the Holy Spirit. You have ignored them. We know that there is One God. We know that God the Father is divine. If God the Son is divine and God the Holy Spirit is divine, that presents a bit of dificulty for your theory. You stumble around this by saying that “the Word was God” is metaphor. If John had been calling something God that was not God he would have been guilty of blasphemy. Are you saying that the inspired, inerrant word of God contains blasphemy? What indication do you have that John meant that metaphorically (aside from that it fits YOUR interpretation of scripture better)? By what authority do you declare it to be so? If this were the only passage that refered to the divinity of Christ, I might be inclined to consider your position, but there are many others.
The Catholic Church does not in any way disagree with John 17, or with any other part of the Bible. What exactly do you interpret John 17 to mean? And what teaching of the Catholic Church do you believe contradicts this?
Again, the same with 1Cor8:6. What is your interpretation of this and where do you believe Catholic doctrine to be in error?
Please cite the Magisterial documents of the Church that teach what you percieve to be error, so that I may discuss this with you in a rational manner, rather than us going “yes it does” “no it doesn’t” “yes it does” etc., ad infinitum…
Again, please tell me what authority you possess to render your interpretation of scripture valid.
May 10th, 2007 at 10:41 am
There is no Trinity, not even the “Holy Trinity”. The doctrine of “Trinity” came from the Pagans. The Vatican “incorporated” the doctrine of Trinity to the Christian belief to “tame” the Pagans and convert the Roman Empire to Christianity. At the same time, “taming” the “Christians”.
In other words, the Roman Empire mixed two totally opposing beliefs/religion/faith (whatever you want to call them) to tame all the people.
I am not defending SEPlana here, I don’t even know to which denomination he belongs to, but to discuss Trinity, we must dig-up our history.
That’s only the beginning… there countless more teachings of the catholic church that is totally contradicting with what the Bible teaches us.
Don’t you know that the catholic church or vatican didn’t come up with the Trinity right at the beginning? It was “Duality” before “Trinity” was incorporated - Duality, being that there is the Father and Jesus Christ. Later on, the Power of the Holy Spirit was felt, and they held another meeting and changed their doctrine to Trinity. Goal achieved.
Apparently, the Christians and the Chosen People did not accept it and hid away from the eyes of the Vatican.
So it all comes down now, who do we believe to? The ever changing doctrine of the Vatican or the ever the same Holy Bible?
The Bible said, “God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow”. God will not teach us “changing doctrines”. The Holy Bible is not a “technology” where it is “updated”. God’ Word will always be the same, now and forever.
The doctrine of the holy trinity is wrong. It was created by man, not God.
Oh one more thing, God is not a shampoo…. “3-in-1″.
Finally, the Gospel is “Acts 2:38″, St. Peter saying, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
We can go on if we want to… let’s talk about “Salvation”? How about if the Pope is really “infallible”? Or how about the claim of the Roman Catholic Church that Peter is the 1st Pope? And why “ROMAN Catholic Church”? Why do Catholics call themselves “Catholic” and not as “Christian”? Why is there a need to separate yourselves from the “Christian” name if Catholicism is really Christianity? Let’s not forget about the difference between the Catholic baptism and the Holy Bible’s Baptism…
and lots more to talk about the “Teachings of the Vatican and the Roman Catholic Church versus the teachings of the Father, His Word the Holy Christian Bible”.
May 10th, 2007 at 12:05 pm
Blah, blah, blah. John, you may spew your empty rhetoric all you like, but there is not one claim in your post that you have substantiated, nor is there a single one that will hold up under a comparison to history or scripture. I have offered several scripture passages relating to the divinity of Christ, as well as the Holy Spirit on SELaplana’s blog here. Additionally, I can point you to many writings of 2nd century Christians (the first century after scripture was written- ie: 2nd, 3rd & 4th generation after the Apolstles) who speak of the divinity of Christ and who speak of the Holy Spirit.
You already contradict yourself in your first two (unsubstantiated) charges. First you say:
“The Vatican “incorporated” the doctrine of Trinity to the Christian belief to “tame” the Pagans and convert the Roman Empire to Christianity. At the same time, “taming” the “Christians”.”
Then you follow it up with:
“In other words, the Roman Empire mixed two totally opposing beliefs/religion/faith (whatever you want to call them) to tame all the people.”
Which was it? Did the Vatican do it to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity or did the Roman Empire do it to tame the people? And how would imposing a so-called false doctrine on then “tame the Chrstians”? Furthermore, while the Roman Empire had collapsed by the begining of the 5th century, the Vatican did not come to be the center of the Church until over 400 years later, so it is unlikely that the Vatican used the doctrine of the Trinity to convert the Roman Empire. Not a very well thought out argument, but I’ll give you credit for trying.
The Catholic Church does not, as you assert, have “changing doctrine”, although as in every other human endeavor, there is developement of understanding. This is not due to error on the part of God or of the Church, but because we pitiful humans have a limited capacity for understanding, and God is infinite. Again, I make the same charge I’ve made to SELaplana: document your charges against the Church.
I am more than willing to debate all the issues that you bring up, but one at a time, and currently SELaplana and I are engaging the divinity (or lack thereof, from his perspective) of Jesus Christ. I am not interested in slinging accusations back and forth, so unless you are willing to cite historical documents or sound scriptural principles to substantiate your charges against the Catholic Church, I’ll have to bid you slan abhaile.
One further note- thank you for pointing out to us that all we need to know is Acts 2:38. I guess God was just bored when He inspired the authors of the rest of scripture.
By the way, Acts is not one of the Gospels.
May 11th, 2007 at 11:03 am
okay….. Cuneta is right…. Trinity is just one of the inventions of the Roman Catholic Church… the fact that it is no mention in the Bible is the proof that Christ and the Apostle didn’t teach that doctrine. if we’ll check the history, the writers who wrote about trinity are not the Biblical writers but the Roman Catholic Church fathers. Remember that Roman Catholic Church fathers are not members of the true Church of Christ, but are priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There is no priests in the true Church of Christ but Christ alone…..
May 24th, 2007 at 5:29 am
No Cuenta isn’t right, not even from a Biblical point of view. He thinks Acts is one of the Gospels, which it isn’t. I’m sorry, I’d truly like to discuss this with you more, but based on the lack of substance to your answers I fear that I am wasting my time. You clearly have little knowledge or understanding of Scripture, and none of history.
The Bible itself says that “the Church is the pillar and bullwark of the truth”
Paul says to keep everything that has been taught “by word of mouth and by letter”
John tells us that not everything Jesus taught was written down.
Obviously there are things that were not written. Those things are kept in the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church.
It was the Catholic Church that gave us the Cannon of Scripture. Prior to that there was no complete Bible.
This is historically documented and I would be happy to provide you with the information, but only if you are willing to have an intelligent rational discourse. I’m not going to respond to your ridiculous “no it doesn’t” any more.
John 1 says that Jesus is God. Revelations 1 says Jesus is God. Thomas calls Jesus God after the resurrection. Jesus refers to himself as “I AM”, the same name God gave for himself to Moses.
You have no answer to this because the Holy Spirit will not allow you to lie, only to chose to be wrong.
Additionally, you have no response to the verses that refer to Jesus as the creator of all things. God is the creator of all things, so how could Jesus be unless he is God? Or are you saying the Bible is wrong?
Lastly, only God can forgive our sins and only God can redeem us from the Fall. If Jesus is not God, you are stupid to call yourself a Christian, for no mere humen can affect your Salvation.
I hope you will offer me an intelligent response, instead of the saccharine tripe you have tried to pass off as debate so far.
May 24th, 2007 at 5:33 am
“human” not “humen”. Sorry for the typ-o.