What Others Said about the Trinity

quite unacceptable, the fact of the matter is, that it is not dependent upon the actual meaning of the definite and indefinite articles, merely that a distinction has been made, thus, it matters not what exegesis that you are willing to impose upon the verse, a conscious distinction has been made, regardless. perhaps you can point to any other usage, or even a singular usage, where the indefinite article has warranted its use as, 'was', for it is generally accepted that its usual use is to represent oneness, i.e a cat, a singular cat, i.e a mouse, referring specifically to one mouse! why it should suddenly take on another form, i have no idea, and I get the impression that you are a little desperate. Why this should also be important to your faith Conrau, i also have no idea? Who ever gained salvation through the trinity? who ever became a Christian through the adoption of the trinity? It seems to me please even the catholic church itself is rather retiscent about its explanation, and i quote,

The New Catholic Encyclopedia observes: “There are few teachers of Trinitarian theology in Roman Catholic seminaries who have not been badgered at one time or another by the question, ‘But how does one preach the Trinity?’ And if the question is symptomatic of confusion on the part of the students, perhaps it is no less symptomatic of similar confusion on the part of their professors.”

also the translation that you gave of John 1:18 is not accurate, but i have said enough here already. My very father is a catholic and even he has not accepted that Christ is God.

what some other Catholic theologians have said concerning the trinity,

Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why should one bore people with something that in the end they wouldn’t properly understand anyway?” He also says: “The Trinity is a matter of formal belief, but it has little or no effect in day-to-day Christian life and worship.”

Catholic theologian Hans Küng observes in his book Christianity and the World Religions that the Trinity is one reason why the churches have been unable to make any significant headway with non-Christian peoples. He states: “Even well-informed Muslims simply cannot follow, as the Jews thus far have likewise failed to grasp, the idea of the Trinity. . . . The distinctions made by the doctrine of the Trinity between one God and three hypostases do not satisfy Muslims, who are confused, rather than enlightened, by theological terms derived from Syriac, Greek, and Latin. Muslims find it all a word game. . . . Why should anyone want to add anything to the notion of God’s oneness and uniqueness that can only dilute or nullify that oneness and uniqueness?”

The Catholic Encyclopedia claims: “A dogma so mysterious presupposes a Divine revelation.”

Catholic scholars Karl Rahner and Herbert Vorgrimler state in their Theological Dictionary: “The Trinity is a mystery . . . in the strict sense . . . , which could not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
quite unacceptable, the fact of the matter is, that it is not dependent upon the actual meaning of the definite and indefinite articles, merely that a distinction has been made, thus, it matters not what exegesis that you are willing to impose upon the verse, a conscious distinction has been made, regardless. perhaps you can point to any other usage ...[text shortened]... h here already. My very father is a catholic and even he has not accepted that Christ is God.

quite unacceptable, the fact of the matter is, that it is not dependent upon the actual meaning of the definite and indefinite articles, merely that a distinction has been made, thus, it matters not what exegesis that you are willing to impose upon the verse, a conscious distinction has been made, regardless.

Yes, as I explained, that could just well be a grammatical distinction. Some language do use the article to indicate the grammatical function of the noun, whether it is subject or complement, just as Greek does. So if you wanted to say 'He is God', in this language, you might express this as 'He is a God', in which the article does not signify indefiniteness but rather grammatical function.

perhaps you can point to any other usage, or even a singular usage, where the indefinite article has warranted its use as, 'was', for it is generally accepted that its usual use is to represent oneness, i.e a cat, a singular cat, i.e a mouse, referring specifically to one mouse!

No; what I am saying is that the indefinite article might indicate the complement of 'was'. In languages with free word order, it can be difficult to know which is which.

Why this should also be important to your faith Conrau, i also have no idea? Who ever gained salvation through the trinity? who ever became a Christian through the adoption of the trinity? It seems to me please even the catholic church itself is rather retiscent about its explanation, and i quote,

The Catholic Church is not reticent about the Trinity. Granted, the Trinity usually does not figure in homilies -- largely because it is difficult to relate and because it generally does not suit the purpose of a homily which is to exhort people to lead moral lives. This does not mean the Trinity is unimportant. In fact, I can't see the point in Christianity without the Trinity. Without the Trinity, God remains totally unknowable. If you spend half an hour a day in prayer, you quickly start to wonder what you are praying to. With the Trinity, it is easy to imagine God. You can think of Jesus Christ and by coming to Him, praying to Him and trying to develop a personal friendship with Him, come to know God. Another important reason for the Trinity is the the Eucharist. For Catholics, the Holy Communion is Jesus Christ, body, blood, soul and divinity. If Jesus is not God, then Communion does not matter because we would not be receiving God at all. Divinity of Christ and the Trinity are essential to the Catholic sacramental and prayer life.

My very father is a catholic and even he has not accepted that Christ is God.

I pity your father. His rejection of Christ certainly does place him outside the Church. Catholicism is fundamentally Christocentric. In baptism, we are brought into the body of Christ; in confession, we are forgiven by Christ; in Eucharist, we receive Christ. The Church is both the body of Christ and the bride of Christ. If he does not believe in Christ's divinity, then he has lost the central point of Catholicism and what the Catholic Church claims to be.

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]quite unacceptable, the fact of the matter is, that it is not dependent upon the actual meaning of the definite and indefinite articles, merely that a distinction has been made, thus, it matters not what exegesis that you are willing to impose upon the verse, a conscious distinction has been made, regardless.

Yes, as I explained, that could just w ...[text shortened]... e has lost the central point of Catholicism and what the Catholic Church claims to be.[/b]

he has not rejected Christ, infact, for him Christ was a hero! he has merely rejected the concept that Christ is God.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what some other Catholic theologians have said concerning the trinity,

Jesuit Joseph Bracken observes in his book What Are They Saying About the Trinity?: “Priests who with considerable effort learned . . . the Trinity during their seminary years naturally hesitated to present it to their people from the pulpit, even on Trinity Sunday. . . . Why ...[text shortened]... d not be known without revelation, and even after revelation cannot become wholly intelligible.”

It is important to note that Kung and Rahner, both very famous theologians and periti of the Second Vatican Council, are not regarded as orthodox. Both lost their license to teach in Catholic universities and seminaries. Kung was recently in my country to attend the Parliament of World Religions. He is very much a religious pluralist and the main focus of his theological working life has been to develop the World Ethic, which is a common ground for all religious ethics. This has been universally condemned by Catholics. Kung also rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility.

I would agree that most Catholics do not formally reflect on the Trinity. That is, they do not contemplate what notions like 'substance' and 'person' mean. However, that does not mean that the Trinity has no significance. Many Catholics have a profound reverence for Jesus Christ as God and ask the Holy Spirit for the gifts of virtue. While they may not be able to verbalise how Jesus Christ is God and one in being with the Father, because they lack the philosophical terminology, the Trinity is still important. Every time a Catholic enters the church, genuflects to the altar or blesses himself with holy water, he makes the sign of the cross -- a visible sign of the Trinity. It figures in the Mass when the priest gives his blessing. It is in the Rosary when the person prays 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit'.

Originally posted by Conrau K
It is important to note that Kung and Rahner, both very famous theologians and periti of the Second Vatican Council, are not regarded as orthodox. Both lost their license to teach in Catholic universities and seminaries. Kung was recently in my country to attend the Parliament of World Religions. He is very much a religious pluralist and the main foc ry when the person prays 'Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit'.

wow, despite our lack of agreement as to the actual acceptance of the trinity, it is never the less, very interesting in learning about these things, first hand, from someone living the faith, rather than them being dry words on the page with only ones imagination to illuminate them. Although it is not very related, i was reading an article on John Paul II, the gist of which, was that he was moving closer to sainthood. I believe he was also a keen chess player in his youth.

Originally posted by Rajk999
You folks DO know Jesus Christ's teachings were deemed heretical.

Yeah, yeah--but Origen's really WERE heretical. We all know now Jesus's was the genuine article.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
Yeah, yeah--but Origen's really WERE heretical. We all know now Jesus's was the genuine article.

You are pretty small minded. Do you think the Pharisees knew that Jesus was the genuine article ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You are pretty small minded. Do you think the Pharisees knew that Jesus was the genuine article ?

When you say "The Pharisees", do you mean ALL of them--every single member of that group? Or are you making one of those vague insinuatory allusions, such as "the Democrats think...", or "Catholics say..."? I'll take small minded and precise over open-minded/gullible and sloppy forensics anytime.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It is universally agreed among all evangelical Bible scholars that God is revealed in scripture as triune

that is just pure pants!

now i am beginning to give credence to a thousand youngs thought terminating cliches

Universally agreed. That's like the words "always" and "never"---if you use 'em, some one WILL find a case to prove you wrong. I quite certain that somewhere out there, walking amongst us, there's a Unitarian evangelist scholar.

Maybe two. 😉