Holy Spirit is Not a Person Thread

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[Rev. Eric]

Hello again Frank,

Eric,

No! Not Rev.! It is only Father Yahweh's Name that we are to REVere!

It is fine by me if you or anyone wants to call me as Eric.  I use the title "Rev." because that is the traditional official title for Christian ministers, including Catholic priests.  In this case, the term "reverend" means "worthy of respect."  In light of that, God as well as all of humanity are to be revered.  But it truly does not matter to me what people on this forum call me.  Hey, maybe I should go by "Eric the Cleric."

I would like to address the concerns David raised.  To them you responded:

I did not steal these articles. I have never said that they were my own articles. They are simple articles that I have on my web site,s and I have made it plainly known on my web sites from where these articles originated. Also, I have received permission to use these articles.

Permission to use articles is only granted upon the understanding that the authorship is to be properly cited, regardless of where the articles are posted.  Whenever you cut & paste material that is not your own, whether it is for the Glorify God forum or otherwise, you are obliged to make proper citations.  This includes when presenting full articles as well as only sections of them.  Failing to do this, you open yourself up to accusations of plagiarism, objectively speaking.  From a legal viewpoint, it does not matter that you never expressly stated that they were your articles.  Furthermore, failing to properly cite other people's material goes against Glorify God Community policy, as presented here: 

http://community.glorify-god.com/index.php/topic,109.0.html

I am not one of the moderators, so it is not up to me to enforce this issue.  I would like to continue the ongoing Trinitarian discussion with you, but if you do not comply with the rules of Internet citation then the Glorify God Community website is at risk of being the target of legal action.  In light of this, the moderators may be forced to pull this thread, and I don't want to see that happen.

With this in mind, I would like to point out in this forum that your above "Father and Son" post originated from the Aaron Advocates webpage:
http://www.aarons-advocates.org/echad2a.html

As a side note, the main page for Aaron Advocates (http://www.aarons-advocates.org/index.html) states:

Featured on this site are over six hundred visions and prophecies as given to Dumitru Duduman and Hattie about the Destruction of the United Stattes as per Isaiah 18 for this end of days prelude to the Great Tribulation moment.

Goodness knows, speaking as a concerned U.S. citizen, this country could use a little shaking up, although its destruction may be a little harsh.  But anyway, I also noticed a lot of Hebrew spellings such as what you use.  Are you a member of Aaron Advocates?  If not, it certainly seems that you view them as peers, seeing as you utilize their material and got their permission to do so.  In that case, I was wondering, do you find these 600 listed visions credible?  Judging by the response you gave T.R. about his vision, I'm guessing that you don't.

And now I would like to comment on how you decided to address my post.  I gave an examination of specific points you made in your posts.  I also raised issues that I think needed to be addressed by you.  You began this with your own examination of my points on Sacred Tradition, and that was all well and good.  But that's as far as you went in giving me an actual exchange of dialog.  After this you simply cut & pasted mammoth amounts of material, some of which was relevant to our discussion, much of which was not.  You left me the burden of trying to sift through it all and figure out what was meant to be a response to the specific issues I raised.  Rather than trying to give a clear refutation of my material, you simply took a few seconds to download some articles and web links.

Consider this: 
assuming that all  three of your last posts were for my benefit (as well as others), you cut & pasted over 4300 words of text in response to my post! 

As you can readily see elsewhere in this forum, I give people the courtesy of a clear and precise point-by-point discussion of their material, but you have just made that impossible for me to do so here.  Rather present one or two strong points for us to discuss at a time, you simply downloaded over thousands of words of text.

So what now is your expectation?  If you really want to engage in a serious dialog, then are you seriously expecting me to now give spend literally hours and hours commenting on all this stuff you've listed?  It's easy for you to spend a couple of seconds cut & pasting articles and then sit back and expect Catholics to spend huge chunks of time researching material and typing it out.  And if we refute something, rather than honestly concede the point are you simply planning spend a couple of more seconds just downloading more stuff for us to wallow through?  And the problem is, no one has time to do that.  This is the sort of treatment I got from Ayodhya a couple of years ago in this forum.  He kept cutting and pasting, ignoring every question I directly asked him, and then went his merry way.  Check out his past posts and you will see what I mean.

Nevertheless, I am prepared to give an overview of your last three posts.  As a full-time priest working in a parish with over 2000 families, I will not be able to do my standard point-by-point refutation because there is simply not enough time, especially if you keep doing the same thing over and over.  But here is the big question for you:  are you prepared to engage me and others in real intellectual dialog?  Are you prepared to clearly address the specific points I raise on a point-by-point basis?  If you truly believe that you represent the Truth of God's Word and that the Catholic Church teaches error then this is a challenge that you should be willing to undertake.

Furthermore, you should ask yourself what the ultimate purpose of your posts are.  If they are meant to get Catholics see the error of our ways and adopt your spiritual ideology then you will need to convert us through honest, person-to-person dialog.  Posting thousands of words of cut & pasted texts does not do that.

In any event, this is all that I am able to comment on at this time.  I will work on my responses to your last three posts at a later time when my schedule permits.  Like I said before, there will not be time for a fully detailed line-by-line refutation, but I will do my best with the time I have available.

God bless,
Rev. Eric

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[DavidFilmer]

I did not steal these articles. I have never said that they were my own articles. They are simple articles that I have on my web site,s and I have made it plainly known on my web sites from where these articles originated. Also, I have received permission to use these articles.

I was not discussing your website. I have not visited your website, and I have no intention of doing so. I was discussing your activity right here in this forum (which, by the way, is a completely different website).

Dictionary.com defines plagarism thus:

a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own

You posted a piece of writing here under your own name using someone else's words.  It does not matter if somewhere else you copied the same words and correctly attributed them.  It also does not matter if you have permission to reproduce the text that you posted. You are still obligated to cite the source, even if you have permission to use it.   Had you done something like this at a college or university, you would be expelled.

You presented a long list of commented Bible citations. Dude, we know how to use Google - http://www.aarons-advocates.org/echad2a.html.

You are also in repeated violation of the terms of service of this forum.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[DavidFilmer]

As to [Rev.Eric's] assumtion that the article "Father And Son" originated from the Aarons-Advocates web site, this is not true. This artilce was originally wriiten by Voy Wilks.

Rev.Eric was, of course, correct that you copied the material, but apparently mistaken about the true orgin.

[trmichels]

Reverend Eric and David Filmer,

I'm glad someone else tried!!! But, as you have seen, nothing but arguments and lack of respect is why I quit.

I'm not being notified of this topic, but hope you two do better at tyring top explain the truth as we see it to theis non-believer.

God bless all of you, Frank too

T.R.   

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[Rev. Eric]

Greetings again Frank.
And Greetings to you, also T.R.

This will have to be a three-part post, as there is too much material that the website will allow in a single post.

PART ONE

As to you assumtion that the article "Father And Son" originated from the Aarons-Advocates web site, this is not true. This artilce was originally wriiten by Voy Wilks. Just because you found this article online through a search engine does not mean that it originated from there.

Which is precisely why neither I nor anyone else should have to cite your references for you.  That is your responsibility.

I will have you know, maybe you people work this way but, those who are in agreement are of one spirit and body. We do not bring frivolous law suits against anyone, especially in conveying teachings that are in accordance with Father Yahweh's word.

Well, I can easily see someone with an anti-Catholic agenda visiting the Glorify-God Community website and using the improperly cited material as a tool for getting the entire website shut down.

This is nothing new to me! I have been to a many so called "Christian" forum and encountered this same evil spirit and have been banned from posting in such like forums.

Oh, so forums should risk legal action simply because you don’t like having to cite your references?

Now let us move on to the items in your more recent posts.

For anyone to say that his or her interpretation of the Bible is correct and someone else’s is wrong, at least one of the following requirements must be met in order for that claim to be credible.

1)  The interpretation declared wrong must be demonstrated to be in clear contradiction of another biblical passage or biblical context.  The key word here is “clear.”  The contradiction must be clearly represented in print.

2)  The person stating that the interpretation is wrong must appeal to divine authority, and the person would, of course, need to demonstrate that authority.  For example, Catholics appeal to the authority God bestowed on the Catholic Church. 

I realize that you do not accept that authority.  But my point is that if you are not able to clearly present your case with Scripture then, rationally speaking, you will have to do one of two things: a) Concede that your case against Catholic teaching is simply a matter your personal interpretation of Scripture not agreeing with it, or b) Demonstrate that divine authority has been given to you to decide which interpretations are God’s own and which are not.  In other words, to use a Catholic term, you would have to demonstrate your “infallibility.”

I will now try to cover the material you presented.  This is a lot of material to cover and, as I’ve stated earlier, there is not enough time for a point-by-point refutation.  It’s going to take enough time as it is.  Therefore, I will focus on the items that I think are the most credible and make general statements regarding the rest.

But lest anyone say that I am intentionally dodging a topic, Scripture passage, or whatever, I will honor requests to specifically address any item in this thread.  All someone needs to do is ask.
Concerning Sacred Tradition

I used 2Thes 2:15; 2Thes 3:6; 1Cor 11:2; and Col 4:9 to demonstrate that the Bible instructs us to keep traditions.  It should be pointed out that 2Thes 2:15 states that some traditions are taught by “word of mouth” as well as by letter.  Furthermore, Col 4:9 demonstrates that Paul teaches by his visible example (among other things).  Christian teachings that stem from “word of mouth” and visible example are not, by definition, Scripture.  And yet we are admonished to keep them.

In your posts you did not attempt to refute my position that these passages defend the practice of having and keeping Sacred Tradition.  You basically ignored them.

Nevertheless, you attempted to discredit Sacred Tradition by other means.  First you used Scripture in which tradition seems to be condemned.  From the Gospels you quoted Matthew 15:3, 6;  and Mark 7:9,13.  From Paul you quoted Col 2:8;  2Cor 6:17-18; 2Thess 3:6; and 2Cor 6:17.  And then finally there was a quote from the third verse of Jude.

First let us start with the gospels.
The full context of these passages shows that he was speaking about a specific tradition.  The traditions in question were strict interpretations of God’s Law that the Pharisees imposed on everyone.  In many cases these interpretations were so strict that they violated the spirit of the Law and did not properly represent God’s love and mercy.

Matthew 15:3, 6 – Jesus reacted against the Pharisees who criticized the disciples for not washing their hands before eating, as according to the Law.  Jesus condemns them as hypocrites because they are concerned about hands being washed in strict accordance with the Law while teaching a loose interpretation of the Decalogue that permits people not to support their parents (see Matthew 15:1-9).

Mark 7:9,13 -  This is simply Mark’s account of the same event in Matthew 15:1-9.

Neither in this event nor anywhere else does Jesus condemn all tradition.  When Jesus speaks against tradition, it is always concerning a specific interpretation of Law being taught by the Pharisees.

Now let us move onto Paul.

Col 2:8.  I agree that we need to avoid falling prey to “human traditions” that are “not according to Christ.”  But Sacred Tradition comes from God and is in accordance with Christ.

2Thess 3:6.  This is, of course, one that I cited it in defense of Sacred Tradition.  Herein Paul tells us to hold fast to the traditions that were received “from us.”  I assume that your point would be that because the traditions came from Paul, they didn’t come from God.  But who is “us”?  Paul and the Church.  The Church is "the pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1Timothy 3:15 – notice that this designation is given to the Church, not Scripture).  This is the Church Christ established and imbued with God’s authority (Matthew 16:18) and Christ is its head (Ephesians 5:23).  Therefore, the origins of these traditions are God.

2Cor 6:17 does not address traditions and is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Jude 1:3 speaks of contending for the faith delivered to the saints.  Jude says nothing about that “faith” excluding Sacred Tradition.

Furthermore, Paul cannot be condemning tradition in general in this passage if he tells us to keep traditions in other passages (such as 2Thess 2:15).  Obviously, Paul saw that there were two kinds of traditions, good ones and bad ones.  He tells us to keep the good and avoid the bad.

Conclusion:  Neither Jesus nor Paul ever condemned all tradition.  Moreover, nowhere in Scripture is all tradition condemned or dismissed.  There is no passage in Scripture that can be used as a rejection of Sacred Tradition.

This is the end of Part 1.  Part 2 is in the next post.

God bless,
Rev. Eric

[Rev. Eric]

PART TWO

Concerning Sola Scriptura
As I have stated before, although you have not used the term Sola Scriptura (“Scripture Alone”), you are an advocate of it.  According to Sola Scriptura, the Scriptures are to be one’s only source of doctrine.  Doctrine refers to an official teaching on matters of faith and morals which is given to all of humanity.  According to Sola Scriptura, such teachings must be clearly demonstrated in Scripture.

I said that you are an advocate of Sola Scriptura because of posts such as this:

Proof of doctrine is to come from Scripture, not from what one says that Yahweh has told them or from what someone has told them.

All Scripture is given by inspiration of Yahweh, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of Yahweh may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all righteous works (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

If it does not come from Scripture ...  it is not right. It is WRONG!

If it is top "clearly presented in the Bible", (Father Yahweh's word that we are to live by, [Mattithyah {Matthew} 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16) it is but mere false doctrines of mere men.

(I presume in the above quote you meant to say, “If it is not clearly presented in the Bible…”) 

With all this in mind, I will use the term "Sola Scriptura" in my responses to you.  If you want me to call it something else, then let me know.
The two Bible citations in the above quote do not back up the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  For example, in Matthew 4:4 we are told “Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God” (RSV).  “Word” refers to anything that God reveals to us, not just Scripture.  When God spoke to the prophets, they received his Word regardless of whether or not it was written down later.  The Word of God refers to Sacred Tradition as well as Scripture.

Concerning 2Timothy 3:16 – You quoted this on June 23.  On June 25 I posted a detailed examination of this passage and demonstrated that it cannot be used as a defense of Sola Scriptura.  And yet you ignored this and on June 27 you quoted it once again as if you think it proves your point about accepting Scripture alone.  It does not prove this, and people may refer to my June 25 post to see why it does not.

Concerning the Article “Yahshua Was Not a Lawgiver”:
Jesus fulfills the revelation of God, which was gradually given to people over a great span of time.  Neither Jesus nor the Church “adds” anything to what God reveals, and God reveals through Scripture, Sacred Tradition and through the Magisterium’s official interpretation of the same.

The law which Yahweh gave was perfect (Ps. 19:7-9) and so could not be improved upon – not even by Yahshua the Messiah.

In many cases, “the Law” was simply the shortened way of saying “The Law of Moses”, another name for the Torah (the first five books of the Bible).  “Torah” may have a broader meaning (which I will discuss later), so for purposes of clarification, I will refer to the post-Joshua books of the Bible as the “scriptural Torah” (i.e., the books of the Bible that are listed prior to the Book of Joshua).

Psalm 19 does, indeed, state that the Law of the Lord is perfect, so people may think that it proves Sola Scriptura.  After all, if it is "perfect," why accept anything in addition to it?  But actually Psalm 19 fails to support Sola Scriptura, and here’s why.  What happens if we interpret this passage to mean that only the scriptural Torah is to be the source of doctrine?  It means that we cannot formulate any doctrines using sources outside of the scriptural Torah.  The Psalter is not a part of the Torah, so Psalm 19 cannot be used as the basis of doctrine, including the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  Along these same lines, it cannot be used as a rejection of Sacred Tradition.  If it is not ok to formulate doctrines from Sacred Tradition because they are not part of the Torah, then neither is it ok to formulate doctrines from the Psalter.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that Deuteronomy is the fifth book of the Torah.  This book was largely unknown to the Jews until it was discovered and promulgated during the reign of King Josiah (640-609 B.C.).  The discovery of this book (or at least a portion of it) by Josiah is recounted in 2Kings 22:8-20.  In this text from 2Kings, we also hear from the prophetess Huldah that the Lord revealed to her that idolaters would be subject to the punishments described in that same book.  Therefore, God considered Deuteronomy part of his revelation to humankind, for he referenced it himself.

After Josiah promulgated Deuteronomy, it, along with all the legal text it contains, was added to the scriptural Torah.  Psalm 19 describes itself as “a Psalm of David”, and David died over 300 years prior to the reign of Josiah.  So the words, “the law of the Lord is perfect” were written before the formation of the scriptural Torah was even completed.  So if one says that Psalm 19 says not to add anything to the scriptural Torah, then the Torah itself is torn apart, and Deuteronomy and the laws therein must be removed.

But even though the term “law” usually referred to the scriptural Torah, this was not always the case.  The word torah comes from the Hebrew root “to instruct.”  Therefore, sometimes the Jews used the term “law” to include all the instructions of God, whether or not these instructions are found in the scriptural Torah.  For example, the term “law” was also used to refer to the teachings of prophets (Is 8:16), the precepts of parents (Prov 1:8; 4:2) and the utterances of wise men (Prov 13:14), “…for which all the OT writers characteristically claim a Divine origin…” (The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church; ed: F.L. Cross & E.A. Livingstone; New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, page 1632).  If one interprets the term “law of the Lord” to include all the instructions of God, that would include Sacred Tradition.

As a side note, the Law of the Lord is, indeed, perfect, but nowhere does the Bible say that the perfection of God’s revelation is found only in Scripture, or is limited to Scripture.  Psalm 19 is what it is: a song praising the Lord and what he has given us.  It was not written to formulate doctrinal statements (such as Sola Scriptura) and any attempt to use it as such fails, as I have demonstrated above.

If Yahshua made a new law, why did the Apostle Peter say that Yahweh's law (his spoken words) endures forever? (1 Pet. 1:25) 12. The seventh day Sabbath is a part of this law (Ex. 20: 8-11).

The Church has not done away with any part of the Law.  Through the direction and power of Christ, certain ways the Law is to be observed have changed, but this does not mean the Law itself has been abolished or changed.

The Sabbath is still observed, only the day has been changed.  Just as the Resurrection of Christ brings the fulfillment of all creation, the day of his resurrection (Sunday) was seen as the fulfillment of the 7 days of creation.  It becomes the “8th day of creation” so to speak.  The Church has the God-given authority to transfer the Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday.

And let us examine more closely the quote presented from 1Pet 1:25.  Here Peter states “…the word of the Lord remains forever” (RSV).  Is Peter saying that the traditional ways the Law is observed cannot ever change?  This is not something that Peter can say simply because of what happened in Acts 11:1-10.  We see here that the Law concerning eating with the uncircumcised and the eating of ritually unclean animals was no longer avoided by Peter, based upon God’s own instructions.

I could also add that Jesus ate with sinners in violation of the Law’s instructions concerning ritual purity and led his disciples to do the same.  Did he add to this Law or abolish it?  Did he change the Law itself?  No, but obviously the manner in which purity laws were to be understood was broadened and the manner in which the disciples of Jesus observed these laws were changed.

Concerning the “Father and Son” Article:

The Doctrine of the Trinity states that the Father and Son are One, and at the same time are distinct from one another.  With this in mind, one can expect to see Scripture verses that demonstrate both aspects.  The “Father and Son” article simply provides verses that show how the Father and Son are separate Persons.  In addition to these there are verses that demonstrate their unity:

In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God…and the Word became flesh and dwelt among us  (John 1:1,14  RSV)

“I and the Father are One.”  (John 10:30  RSV)

“He who has seen me has seen the Father”  (John 14:9)

Thomas answer him, “My Lord and my God!”  Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”  (John 20:28-29  RSV)

Furthermore, God himself has clearly stated that the Holy Trinity is a fact.  The Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Divine Persons existing in perfect unity.  God himself has revealed this in Sacred Tradition and Magisterial teaching.  It is a Doctrine of the Faith and therefore is God’s Truth for all humanity.

Concerning the Article “Many Believe in the Pre-Existence of Yahshua – Why?”:

Many people believe in the pre-existence of Jesus because it is the truth.  The author tries to argue against this by two methods.  The first is basically Sola Scriptura, claiming that it is not clearly found in Scripture.  But because Sola Scriptura is a paradoxical tradition that was created by certain people and not God, that is not a concern of Catholics. 

The second method is to highlight similarities between the belief of the pre-existence of Jesus and earlier similar notions held in Greek philosophy and paganism.  In essence, the claim is made that this is where Christians based their doctrine on.

I should start by pointing out that many atheists would agree with this and take it one step further to say that belief in Yahweh came from earlier mythology.  There are books written on the subject.  Shall we say that Yahweh does not really exist?  Shall we say that he is a fabrication based upon ancient myth?  I certainly won’t say that, nor will I say that the pre-existence of Jesus is based upon paganism.

Moreover, it does not surprise me that elements of Judeo-Christianity doctrine can be found in other religions and in ancient mythology.  Quite the opposite, I would be surprised if I did not find this!   God created all of humanity in his image and likeness, gave us the power of intellect and reason, and put within each heart the desire to know him.  God worked through the Hebrews and later Christians to spread knowledge of him throughout the world.  But other people did not simply sit still during this period of waiting.  Their desire for God turned their gazes heavenwards and their intellects empowered them to discern some things about the nature of God.  Because they were made in the image and likeness of God, some of their concepts were accurate.  Because they lacked the fullness of God’s revelation, most of their concepts were erroneous.

Just as the Greeks and other Gentile converts retain pagan holidays such as Christmas, Easter, Halloween, May Day; the immorality of the soul, and the Trinity; they also retain their belieft hat the SON of the Supreme Being was the actual cretaor of the universe. Only one step further brought them to the anology of identifying Yahshua as that Son who created all things.

The Church has never hidden the fact that it has used certain elements of paganism to assist in the spread of the Christian Faith.  And yet some people like to bring this up as if it is some big secret that the Church tries to conceal.  What is going on is a simple rule of being an effective missionary.  One identifies the religious and cultural elements of a people and then uses that information to help explain the truths of Christianity.  Paul did it himself when he used a pagan shrine to teach about God (Acts 17:22 ff).  Furthermore, having Christian holidays coincide with the dates of pagan holidays allowed people the choice of engaging in Christian spirituality during festive times rather than paganism.  There were other reasons as well.  Christmas was observed around the date of the pagan Celebration of the Undying Sun to allow people to reflect on the idea that Christ the Light was the true "undying sun."

…they also retain their belieft hat the SON of the Supreme Being was the actual cretaor of the universe. Only one step further brought them to the anology of identifying Yahshua as that Son who created all things.

No, Christians refer to the Father as the one who is the Creator.  But the Father created everything through the Son, who is the Word, as described in John 1:1-3.

Most Biblical scholars held these views even before they began translating the Scriptures into the English language, so it was only natural the the Greek view would, to some extent, manifest itself in our English translations. Examples of his are John 1:10; Eph 3:9; Col. 1:15-18; Heb. 1:2.

Here’s the big problem with arguing translations.  As the Doctrine of the Trinity is given in Sacred Tradition, it does not even have to be argued from Scripture.  Therefore it is pointless to imply that the Scriptures were somehow twisted or misinterpreted in order to create a Scriptural basis for the Trinity.

Furthermore I have examined some of the links that you provided concerning Greek translations of Scripture.  The complexities of Greek words and phrases allow for different meanings, nuances and implications.  The authors of these articles claim that Christians translated Greek in order to support Trinitarian doctrine.  But it could also be argued that they simply translated the Greek to support their non-Trinitarian stance.

Moreover, it should be pointed out that Trinitarian concepts were discussed by the Greek Fathers of the Church to a Greek speaking world when Greek was the standard biblical text. 

For example, see:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Trinity.asp 
http://www.catholic.com/library/God_in_Three_Persons.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Divinity_of_Christ.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

They not only spoke Greek, they lived it.  It cannot be realistically argued that the ancient Greek Christians did not know their Greek or got away with messing with Greek texts.

Finally on this matter pertaining to Greek translations and theology expressed in Greek, it should be noted that the Doctrine of the Trinity is also embraced by the various Christian Orthodox churches, including the Greek Orthodox Church.  So let someone argue Greek with them and see how far they’ll get.

End of Part 2.  Part 3 is in next post.

God bless,
Rev. Eric

[Rev. Eric]

PART THREE (which is the last)

Concerning the various references from encyclopedias & dictionaries:

Let us examine the citation from the New Catholic Encyclopedia:

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." –(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

First a note of clarification: the term “Apostolic Fathers” refers to the leaders of the Christian Church who personally knew the Apostles.  So, in terms of the Early Church, we’re talking about a tight time frame here.  There were a lot of things that the Apostolic Fathers did not discuss, at least in terms of the records of their discussions that have survived.

I happen to have a copy of the same 1967 edition of the N.C.E., which devotes over ten pages to the topic of the Holy Trinity and the development of the doctrines concerning it.  From all this material, the author pulled one paragraph trying to make it sound like the concept of the Trinity was not a consideration of the Early Church and was an invention of the Church in the 4th Century.

But here is the paragraph that directly precedes it:

"From what has been seen thus far, the impression could arise that the Trinitarian dogma is in the last analysis a late 4th-Century invention.  In a sense, this is true; but it implies an extremely strict interpretation of the key words Trinitarian and dogma."  (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV; New York: McGraw Hill, 1967; pg. 299)

And when we skip over to the next page we read:

"If it is clear on one side that the dogma of the Trinity in the strictest sense of the word was a late arrival, product of 3 centuries’ reflection and debate, it is just as clear on the opposite side that confession of Father, Son and Holy Spirit – and hence an elemental Trinitarianism – went back to the period of Christian origins.  Contemporary studies on the ancient Christian creeds have done much to bring this out."  (Ibid, pg. 300)

All doctrine comes from God, which makes it ultimately a mystery.  Therefore, in many cases God ordained that doctrine would develop over time.  The concepts of heaven and hell, for example, developed among the Jews throughout the entire Old Testament period.  But when the Church finally formulates a doctrine, it does so based upon the Deposit of Faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  Trinitarian doctrines of the 4th Century simply gave an official definition to what Christians had been expressing from the beginning, even if earlier Christians did not have a precise understanding or proper articulation of what the Holy Spirit had written in their hearts.

Newton did not invent gravity when he came up with the Law of Gravity.  It existed all along.  The Church did not invent the concept of the Trinity either when it came up with its doctrine.  The Trinity, too, existed all along.

Furthermore, it does not matter exactly when Trinitarian doctrine was officially defined.  It could have happened with the Apostles themselves, in the 4th Century or yesterday.  The Deposit of Faith has been given to us by God and exists in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  The exact time that the Church chooses to define doctrine based upon these sources does not matter.  When the Church makes these definitions, they are made under the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit.

This is the context in which any quotation from an encyclopedia concerning the Trinity has to be understood.  Catholic resources will discuss it in the manner that the New Catholic Encyclopedia did.  Secular works may choose to simply focus on a strict interpretation of dogma and discount concepts that existed prior to when something is officially defined.

Now I would like to point out that any translation of Scripture is a form of tradition.  There has yet to be discovered the original text of any book in the Bible, Old or New Testament.  All we have are copies of copies and so on down the line.  No one can take any Scripture passage today and objectively prove that it matches what the original says, because we don’t have the originals to make the comparison.  So how do we know that our Bibles truly reflect what was originally recorded?  As a Catholic, I simply point to the authority of the Catholic Church and the guaranteed guidance of the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals.  The Church tells me that the ancient manuscripts my Bible is based upon accurately relate what was in the original text, and I can believe this because the Church, and only the Church, has the God given authority to interpret Scripture. 

People who do not believe that the Church has this authority must decide for themselves why they think the Bible in their hands accurately depicts what was in the original texts.

There is no way that I can "engage in a serious dialog" with one who continues to espouse to false doctrines that have not proceeded from the mouth of Father Yahweh.

You turn to Sola Scriptura to defend your positions and reject Catholic positions.  Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that does not proceed from the mouth of God.

There simply is no passage of Scripture that says that Father Yahweh's "Holy Spirit" is a seperate person or deity apart from Himself. There is simply no mention of a "pre-existant son", a "God the Holy Spirit","Triune God", "Holy Trinity", "God the Son" or an "Eternal Son".

This is an example of you using Sola Scriptura.  As far as you are concerned, if a teaching is not clearly represented in the Bible then it is wrong.  Sola Scriptura itself is not clearly represented in the Bible. 

To use your phrase, “there simply is no passage of Scripture that says” that there must be a passage of Scripture to prove doctrine. 

Moreover, “there simply is no passage from Scripture that says” God only gives his revelation in Scripture.

And “there is simply no passage from Scripture that says” that God rejects all tradition as a vehicle of his teaching.

In other words, “there is simply no passage in Scripture that says…

If it does not come from Scripture ...  it is not right. It is WRONG!

You might want to Keep this in mind when you make statements like this:

I have no respect or reverence for those who teach false doctrine and are in opposition to Father Yahweh's word

Until you can present a clear and objective definition of Sola Scriptura from Scripture itself, and not from your personal interpretation of it, then you, yourself, are teaching a false doctrine, the false doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

Your doctrine of Sola Scriptura is based upon your own personal interpretation of certain biblical passages, as well as the personal interpretations found in the articles you posted.  In essence, all you have done in these various posts of yours is demonstrate that Catholic teaching is in disagreement with your own personal interpretation of Scripture.

My 5-Point Conclusion:
1)  Sola Scriptura is used by some as an official teaching which must be universally held.  As such, it is a doctrine, for the term doctrine refers to an official teaching.
2)  Sola Scriptura states that doctrines of the faith must not be held as truthful unless they can be clearly and objectively demonstrated in Scripture.
3)  The Doctrine of Sola Scriptura cannot clearly and objectively be demonstrated in Scripture.  Therefore the doctrine, in essence, tells one to reject itself.  A doctrine containing this sort of paradox cannot be true, and cannot be said to represent God’s teaching.
4)  Not being from God, Sola Scriptura has its origins among certain humans.  In my experience, none of these people claim to have the authority to create doctrine on their own.  Therefore, the Doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, by the very definition of the term, a “tradition of man.”
5)  Because Sola Scriptura is a doctrine of man, it has no credibility as a tool to examine the validity of the doctrines of the Catholic Church pertaining to Scripture or to Sacred Tradition.

If you can not see these points that I have already made clear in my previous posts, I really don't know what else to tell you.

Here is something else you can tell me.  If you still disagree with my positions based upon your belief in Sola Scriptura then tell me the following:

Where in Scripture does it clearly and objectively state:

If it does not come from Scripture ...  it is not right. It is WRONG!

The key terms here are “clearly” and “objectively.”  A passage that is clear and objective would say something like, “And it was made known unto Israel that the Lord would never send his revelations to them except by the written word, for it is only through Scripture that the Lord makes his teachings known to humanity.”   Of course, I just made up this quote – it’s not in the Bible.  But if there is a passage that makes a statement with this kind of strength then that would be clear and objective proof that we are to only use Scripture as a source of doctrine.  Unless that passage can be found, all that is left are your personal opinions concerning the use of Scripture to prove all doctrine.

If it is top "clearly presented in the Bible", (Father Yahweh's word that we are to live by, [Mattithyah {Matthew} 4:4; 2 Timothy 3:16) it is but mere false doctrines of mere men.

So, once again, show me the concept of Sola Scriptura "clearly presented in the Bible."  If it is not there then, based upon your own definition, it is a false doctrine of mere men.

God bless,
Rev. Eric

To Everyone:  Wow, what a post!  I worked on this one on my computer here and there over a course of three days.

[DavidFilmer]

People who do not believe that the Church has this authority must decide for themselves why they think the Bible in their hands accurately depicts what was in the original texts.

You turn to Sola Scriptura to defend your positions and reject Catholic positions.  Sola Scriptura is a false doctrine that does not proceed from the mouth of God.

This is, of course, the core problem with Frank's entire argument.  Frank's logical error has NOTHING to do with the Trinity. His error is Sola Scriptura, upon which his (or, rather, Ms. Armstrong's et. al.) arguments are based.

[Seeker]

I was away on vacation with family the past three weeks and apologize for not being able to moderate this discussion.

I am at work now and will have to delete personal attacks and any other material that violates forum rules from this thread later (but soon).

For those who have posted material from other web sites or authors, please properly cite the source and give due credit to the orginal author in every case or I will be forced to delete the material.  I do not have the time to track down the proper citations myself and this discussion will not make sense without them.  But I must protect the Community from any potential for legal action.

For now, I will leave this thread open.

[Frank4YAHWEH]

I am not a thief!

[Seeker]

To all discussion participants:

I repost the forum rules posted by Melody (located at http://community.glorify-god.com/index.php/topic,109.0.html):

Hello family!

I've been busy with a couple of things, but have been with you in prayer if not in cyberspace!

I have two IMPORTANT announcements to make:

(01) It has been brought to my attention that some members have been 'copy-pasting' articles from other sites etc. onto the community for purpose of discussion. Apparently this is illegal & considered internet fraud. PLEASE DO NOT DO THIS here! If you would like us to discuss issues which are posted elsewhere, Post the Link to the article and perhaps you could paraphrase the main points you would like to bring out.

(02) I would also like to stress that - I will NOT tolerate any member disrespecting another family member (no matter how vital he/she may be to this community, because truly I don't want to lose any of you!).

To this end, NO member should post ANY NEGATIVE personal remarks about another family member on this community (personal positive remarks are always welcome!). If anyone does post negative remarks:

*I will use my right as moderator to immediately delete such entries without intimation.
* After warning, if this still continues, I WILL REMOVE the member from our community.

I repeat no negative personal remarks are allowed here eg: You sound #$*#$ or Your post shows your &$^(*#&^ nature.Not even an INDIRECT Negative Remark will be allowed here eg: People like you are *&#$&^  or I pray that you are saved from your $U&#&#


I want to stress that I do not write this against any particular individual. These rules shall apply to ALL members. I thank you all for reading this. I hope & pray that you all will find it in your hearts to abide by these rules completely. If you have any comments to make personally you could PM me or publically, post it in the suggestions & feedback forum.

May God bless us all through this community. May it be a source of love & fellowship online. May the evil one not succeed in breaking up this family that God has so loving brought together. May the Lord God Holy Spirit be with us every step of the way. Amen.

With my love & prayers,

Melody

Only portions of an article may be "copy-pasted" and the author must be given full credit for the reference to be considered fair use.  Also, please read the rules given by the author.  You can't go wrong with paraphrasing the content, directly quoting no more than 10%, providing the source web link, and giving the author's name.  At all times, the original author must be cited and permission must be given by the author to use their words.  This permission must be stated explicitly in the citation when posting.

For those who have posted material they did not write themselves, please go back and edit your posts to comply with the above policy or I will have to delete the content in order to protect the Community from legal action.  The assumption in every post is that the words are your original work, unless you explicitly state otherwise.  The starting assumption is that you did not do this intentionally, but it cannot continue.

I am erring on the side of allowing this discussion to continue because it is an important topic.

This is a general warning.  Any further infractions will be dealt with personally.  I assume the rules weren't followed because of lack of awareness rather than willful disregard for them.

[Seeker]

Frank,

All we needed was for you to ensure the original author was propely cited in addition to the source web address so that the Community is protected. 

Thank you for going back and making sure the proper citations were made.  But I wish you would have stopped there and kept the content of your posts and your reply to our points, rather than totally delete them.  That way the discussion would have been instructive for lurkers.  Now the thread just has our side of the debate.

I pray we can have some respectful discussion in the future now that we are all aware of how to properly cite material that is not our own.

[Rev. Eric]

Well Frank, I don’t know what happened to your various posts on this forum.  At the time of this posting they seem to have disappeared.  Maybe they will be back later.

But I did read your last post, which I saved on my PC so that I could work on my responses to it off and on this past week. 
Therefore, I will able to quote your last post below and respond accordingly.

Scripture is not to be of private interpretation.

And yet that is what you’ve been giving us throughout your various posts, your “private” (i.e., personal) interpretations of Scripture.  As a matter-of-fact, that is exactly what you just did in the above quote.  Here you are obviously referring to 2Peter 1:20, which states, “First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by impulse of man, but by men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (RSV).

From this you stated “Scripture is not to be of private interpretation” in an attempt to refute the Catholic Church’s authority to officially interpret Scripture.  But Peter is not referring specifically to Scripture, but to prophecy.  Moreover, when Peter speaks of Scripture, he is speaking of the Old Testament, which means that this is a past reference.

So whereas Peter wrote about “prophecies of scripture” (from the past), you interpreted that to mean all Scripture, prophecies or otherwise.  Then you interpreted this to be an ongoing rule: “Scripture is not to be of private interpretation.”  So what you are saying is that because Peter said that the past Old Testament prophecies contained in Scripture were of Divine origin (and therefore not from mere man’s interpretation of God’s will), Peter must also be saying that God would never empower humans to officially interpret Scripture (when your quote is examined along with the context in which you made it, this is, in essence, what you are saying).  So what you have presented is an elaboration of 2Peter 1:20 that goes well beyond what the actual text states.  And because you do not claim to have the ability or authority to officially define Scripture, what you have given us is your private interpretation of Scripture.

Therefore, Frank, your private interpretation of 2Peter 1:20 is that no one is allowed to make private interpretations of Scripture.  You’ll pardon me if I don’t find that to be a very credible position.

But I would also like to point out that when the Catholic Church gives an official interpretation of Scripture, it is not a private interpretation.  It is an interpretation that originates  from God, not from mere humans, and is to be universally applied.  So it is not “private” in any sense of the word.  But I will speak more on that later below.

The Catholic Church and those who follow it only twist Father Yahweh's word to their own destruction.

And yet we have been around for some 2000 years.  The Holy Spirit has protected us from even our own faults.  Our ranks now include over one billion people and we are found throughout the entire world, having spread to every country.  Is this your idea of “destruction”?  Moreover, you would have us believe that after thousands of years of divine revelation, to find the real truths of God' Word people have to go to a handful of websites created by obscure sects of Judeo-Christianity.  Such a proposition does not depict the power of God's Spirit in the world in a very realistic light. 

The author of Father Yahweh's word is not the R.C.C., but Father Yahweh Himself.

That statement is absolutely correct, but needs to be modified.  Ultimately, Sacred Scripture comes from God; he is its author.  But who does the actual job of putting it into writing?  Sometimes God writes directly with his hand, such as is described in Exodus 24:12 and Daniel 5:5 ff.  But basically Scripture (including the written records of the aforementioned passages from Exodus and Daniel) is given to us from the hands of humans who were writing under God’s inspiration and direction.

God not only empowers certain people to write Scripture, but also to officially interpret it.  The whole idea of having Scripture in the first place is to have a written record of certain aspects of God’s revelation.  Therefore, Scripture is one way of attempting to provide clarity to God’s revelation.  I say “attempting” because as with any written word, there is the matter of interpretation and translation, which can vary.  Objectively speaking, there can be different legitimate interpretations for the same passage.  As followers of God, we need to know what, among the various interpretations, is the one that represents what God truly means.

Just as God inspired and directed certain humans to write Scripture, he also inspires and directs certain people to officially interpret it.  Today the official interpreters of Scripture are the members the Magisterium of the Church.  As I’ve stated before in this thread, the term Magisterium refers to the teaching office of the Catholic Church, meaning the pope and the bishops in union with him presenting official teachings on matters pertaining to faith and morals (which includes officially interpreting Scripture and Sacred Tradition).

To illustrate this, consider what happened in the United States with the writing of the Constitution.  Those who wrote the Constitution knew that future generations of people would try to interpret the meaning of the text in different ways.  Therefore, they created the U.S. Supreme Court as an entity that would be present to each and every generation.  The members of the Supreme Court are the only people empowered to officially interpret the Constitution for all of the U.S.  Without the Supreme Court, everyone in this country could interpret the Constitution however they wanted, give themselves rights that they aren’t truly entitled to, and try to impose their personal interpretations on other people.  Chaos and lawlessness would rule the land.

I presented the example of the U.S. Constitution and the Supreme Court simply to illustrate the fact that human beings need more than written words to provide universal instruction.  We need official interpretations, or there is no way the instructions can ever be universally applied.  God gave Scripture to all of humanity, which means that it is to be universally applied.  But if he did not provide the means for that Scripture to be officially interpreted, then a true universal application of it would be impossible.

God provided the Magisterium with this power.  The Magisterium is to Scripture (and Sacred Tradition) what the U.S. Supreme Court is to the U.S. Constitution.  The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, is a human institution, meaning that it gets its power from the government and by a mandate of the people.  Therefore, it can and does make mistakes.  But the Magisterium receives its direction and ability to make official interpretations of Scripture from God who insures that it properly represents his will.  Therefore, the Magisterium cannot err when undertaking this role.  Just as God ensured that the human writers did not err when recording Scripture, so too does God ensure that the Magisterium does not err when interpreting it.

Reproof, correction, doctrine and  instruction in righteousness comes from Father Yahweh's word, not the so called "Holy Roman Catholic Church" and their historians.

Once again you are trying to use 2Timothy 3:16 as proof of the validity of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.  On June 25th in this thread I presented a careful examination of that passage from 2Timothy and demonstrated how it cannot be saying that Scripture is to be our only source of doctrine.  Nevertheless, you have continually ignored what I posted.  If you continue to cite 2Timothy 3:16 as a proof of Sola Scriptura, your position will lack credibility unless you can successfully refute the material in my June 25 post.

And that is only one of my arguments against using 2Timothy 3:16 to defend Sola Scriptura.  Here’s another.  When Paul wrote this letter, he was referring to the Old Testament when he said “scripture”, and you have even acknowledged that in your past posts.  2Timothy, of course, is not in the Old Testament, and therefore not part of the Scripture Paul referred to.  Therefore, your interpretation of 2Timothy in essence says this:  “Based on what Paul wrote, we can only use the Old Testament as a source of doctrine, with the exception of 2Timothy 3:16 (upon which this rule is based).”  Such an interpretation contains a self-contradiction, and therefore must be discarded as erroneous.

Nowhere in Father Yahweh's word is it said that He gave the R.C.C. authority over His word.

Sacred Tradition is part of God’s Word.  The authority God gave to the Catholic Church is clearly presented there.  Furthermore, the overall authority of the Church is demonstrated in Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17.  You are the one who limits God’s Word to what is only seen in Scripture, but you have yet to provide a clear scriptural basis for this.

Also in your post you stated that God would never give authority over his Word “to a bunch of child molesters.”  Throughout history, God has delegated some of his authority to humans who held specific offices.  These offices included patriarchs, judges, prophets, the Jewish monarchy, the cultic Jewish priesthood, and finally the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.  To some extent, people within these offices were given divine authority and guidance in promulgating, officially interpreting, and sometimes even writing Sacred Scripture.  In other words, they were given “authority over Father Yahweh’s word,” to use your term.

Consider the Jewish monarchy.  We see in 2Kings 22:8-20 that King Josiah had the authority to declare the Book of Deuteronomy as being valid Scripture and promulgate it among the people.  He was able to do this by virtue of his office as king.  Furthermore, God used King David and King Solomon to actually write parts of Scripture. 

But what shall we say of the Jewish monarchy as a whole?  There were some righteous kings and bad ones.  And some were capable of both great righteousness and great sin.

The great King David committed adultery and had an innocent man killed (Uriah).
King Herod Antipas also committed adultery, and executed John the Baptist.
King Solomon allowed pagan shrines to be constructed in the Promised Land.
King Manasseh, the Bible tells us, “…did what was evil in the sight of the Lord”, including sacrificing his own child and practicing witchcraft (2Kings 21:1-6).
And these are just a handful of many examples that could be cited.

Whereas you said that God would never give authority over his word “to a bunch of child molesters,” someone could use that same line of reasoning to say that God would never give authority over his word to “a bunch of adulterers, murderers, and idolaters.”  And yet when we look at the Jewish monarchy as a whole, that’s exactly what happened.

And now let us examine the cultic Jewish priesthood.  At the time of Christ, Caiaphas was the high priest and he directly participated in the greatest crime ever committed, the persecution and execution of Jesus.  But the Bible tells us:  ...Caiaphas, who was the high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all; you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”  He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation, and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.  (John 11:49-52  RSV)

Despite his great crime, God empowered Caiaphas to deliver prophecy, and we are told Caiaphas  was able to do this by virtue of his office of high priest (“He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied…”).

The Magisterium is empowered and directed by God to officially interpret Scripture and Sacred Tradition by virtue of its office, the head of which is Christ himself.  The fact that some of the members of the Magisterium have committed serious sin in the past does not invalidate the role of the Magisterium as a whole, any more than David’s sins invalidate the Psalter as Sacred Scripture.

You would do well to take your own advise and clearly present your case with Scripture.

To “clearly present cases with Scripture” is not my advice, it is the requirement that you have set down over and over in this forum.  I was simply telling you to follow your own rule.  There is absolutely no reason why I should have to defend Catholic doctrine with clear Scripture passages unless you can provide a clear Scripture that says that I must.  This is an issue that I have been bringing up repeatedly and that you have been dodging.

Let me put it another way.
1)  Throughout this thread you have been trying to impose a rule that a doctrine must clearly be presented in Scripture to be valid. 
2)  You have presented this as not your rule, but God’s.  In other words, you believe this is how God wants us to do things. 
3)  If it is God’s rule that doctrine must be clearly presented in Scripture then this rule would, likewise, be clearly stated in Scripture.  As a matter of fact, given the thousands and thousands of passages of Scripture, a rule of this importance would have to found clearly stated therein, if it were, indeed, God's rule.
4)  Show me where this rule is clearly presented in Scripture and I will be happy to obey it from henceforth.  Just give me one such passage - just one!

In your multi-part post you hardly used any Scripture at all. The greater part of your post were certainly not words that proceeded out of the mouth of Father Yahweh.

Instead of criticizing me for not citing more scriptural passages, how about trying to refute my positions on the ones that I used?  For example, I used Scripture passages to defend the use of Sacred Tradition (my June 30 post, part one), which you ignored.  I also used Scripture passages to demonstrate that 2Timothy 3:16 and Psalm 19 cannot be used as the basis of Sola Scriptura (2Timothy was handled on June 25 and in this post, Psalm 19 was handled in Part 2 of my June 30 post), which you ignored.  If you think my examination of these passages was incorrect then give a detailed refutation of them.


God bless,
Rev. Eric