Snow

Thank you Rameumpton, I'm going to order it.

I too go to Catholic mass with some regularity. There is a local church in So Cal I go to yearly and when I am in Salt Lake I sometimes catch an early morning service at the Cathedral of the Madeleine... which by the way is a beautiful church, especially as the morning sun pours through the east side stained glass windows. I think it is healthy to attend other denomination's services - I don't think there is a major one that I have skipped.

It is NOT a false idea in the least. Lots of Catholics worship Mary. I lived in South America where is was common. Outside big Catholic church you could buy knick knaks and stuff. In front of one large Church you could buy a picture of Mary, carrying the cross, walking on water. In a Church there was a statue on the wall of Mary hanging on the Cross. Mary, among some circles, was more popular and more worshiped that Christ.

I didn't say anything of the sort. Them not declaring doesn't cause it to be. I understand why Catholics believe it - the Trinity. I don't recall you being Catholic so I am still trying to figure out why you believe it Maureen. Let me explain. It's not you in particular. Any one can believe what they choose. I am trying to grasp the non-Catholic, orthodox mindset. Surely most people believe one doctrine over another because that is what they were told to believe. You, Maureen, have always been one of the more thoughtful posters so I was hoping to get something substantive from you. I am not sure why you aren't engaging in the issue. Obviously you are peeved at me, and I guess I understand why but I am not peeved with you. I have always respected your knowledge and your intentions... well mostly anyway.

Ah clever. Instead of all the silly game playing, could you not have simply answered the question and avoided all the drama and acrimony? People have some basis for their belief. I was interested in yours.

1. Do you not understand that it is incomprehensible... by definition. 2. And yet you fail, time after time, to demonstrate that it is Biblical. That's not a knock in and of itself since no one has ever been able to but then, most knowlegeable people don't claim that it is (biblical). You can't very well be called un-knowledgeable so what gives?

More game playing Maureen. Really... what's the purpose of that - who are you trying to score points with. It's a typo, obviously. Yes - we all know this is America or Canada or something and you are free to believe as you wish. That had nothing to do with my question... which you assiduously avoided... again. It's a choice. I choose to accept revelation/scripture of The Restoration as, as valid as the Bible. That's my faith-based rational. I am still waiting for yours... since it is not based on scripture or revelation and has as one of it's creators, Constantine (who recommended the concept of same-substance) who was a very, very unsavory character, evil is not too strong of a word.

An interesting question. By definition it is all incomprehensible but also according to definition the substance is not divided... and the body is matter but spirit is not matter so it seems to be a contradiction of itself. "...we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; 4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance. 5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit. 6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal. 7. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Spirit. 8. The Father uncreated, the Son uncreated, and the Holy Spirit uncreated. 9. The Father incomprehensible, the Son incomprehensible, and the Holy Spirit incomprehensible. 10. The Father eternal, the Son eternal, and the Holy Spirit eternal. 11. And yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. 12. As also there are not three uncreated nor three incomprehensible, but one uncreated and one incomprehensible..."

I have no idea what point you think you are making. I was referring to what he wrote while posing in an assumed identity, while in the employ of the Church - something that wasn't know at the time. Thank you for making my point.

As you well know, I should hope, there is no known instance of God saying anything. There is only people claiming to speak for God or unprovable accounts of what someone (usually anonymous) says God said.

I'm sorry, I guess I missed it. What do you feel lied to about?

Oh Maureen, need I remind you of your own post? ["Snow, I don't agree with your assessment about the Trinity being non-biblical"] Obviously I know it's not in the Bible... it's hardly fair to accuse me of playing games when I am responding directly, without obfuscation to your claim. Not only is it not explicitly in the Bible, the creation of additional, non-biblical material was required in order to invent the doctrine of the Trinity. Yes, I know how Trinitarians created new material, used pagan philosophy, overthrew what was previously the orthodox position (subordination) under the threat of death (Constantine's decree after Nicaea) and eventually, over 400 years after Jesus died, to arrive at the modern idea of the Trinity. My question to you, still unanswered, is why bother believing something that is by definition incompressible and not in the Bible? It's a legitimate question. Why not believe something that is, either in the Bible or comprehensible, or both?

A shepherd is "a person, such as a clergyman, who watches over or guides a group of people" so I am not really sure what your point there is. However, when Psalms, which is poetry, refers to God and wings (or John refers to Jesus as the door) the context makes explicitly clear what is being referred to. So, when the Bible says that Moses spoke face to face with God, as a man speaks to a friend, you want us to believe that Moses DID NOT speak with God face to face, as a man speaks with a friend, rather that the biblical author meant something else instead. What, pray tell, did he mean?

What are you talking about? The Comma isn't part of the original NT. I that if you could post any passage that described the Trinity, you would have done so by now. By that, I meant an authentic passage from the NT, not a fake one. You point being.... what? Avoiding the question I see. You know full well that I was referring to his supposed Trinitarian nature. Let's not play games... okay? By the way, I see that Shelly, who you say is ignoring me, is still posting "thanks" on every responses you make to me. She obviously is following my posts quite avidly.

You don't need to worry. The Vulgate is in Latin, not Greek - Version Vulgata for the vulgar or common tongue.

Okay - what knowledge do you have that his writing and perspective was known to the Church, while he was writing it... or are you blindly speculating? So, I'm curious Maureen. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of books about Jesus. How is it that out the thousands, you happened to suggest one, which you haven't read, written by someone critical of the Church, instead of one you have read or which wasn't written by a critic?

Still avoiding the topic like Shelly I see, Obviously if your were aware of any NT passage that expresses the Trinity, you would have referenced it by now. That scribes corruptly the original text deliberated is undisputed. In this particular case it is plausible, I suppose, that the corruption was inadvertent. There may have been some scribe who was so unfamiliar with the Bible that he didn't know the different between the New Testament itself and a personal note in the margin from someone unknown. How this passage found it's way into the English is a different story. Erasmus knew well that it was original to the text but included the corruption anyway in his 1522 edition text for other reasons. So anyway... why do you think that even Jesus didn't understand his own nature? Or did He just think it unimportant?

You're asking me to explain Joseph Smith's motivations and intentions? Seriously? Do you think I'm a prophet? You don't even think JS was so what's up with that? ...Trying to divert attention instead of addressing the issue.

Read the post right below yours. She is not ignoring me. She reads everything I write. She just doesn't answer because she can't - just as you haven't (posted any passage that backs up your contention).

I don't think he is dangerous. I don't care if he is critical of the Church. It's the way he went about it - secretly, while employed by the Church. I had a chance to spend time with him several years ago and was disappointed that, it seemed to me, he had one set of critical standards that he applied to the modern Church that he did not apply to the ancient Church.

Hey - I thought of a book that I really enjoyed. What Jesus Meant by Garry Wills. It's short, inexpensive and written by one of Catholicism's leading scholars. Refreshing to get a different perspective.

I suggest that Maureen isn't recommending the book because it's good... she hasn't read it, but rather because it was written by someone who has been highly critical of the LDS Church... in a book he wrote negatively about the Church's founding, surreptitiously, while in the Church's employ.

It's hardly my assessment. It's undisputed among those that are knowledgable about the Bible. The easy demonstration is no one, ever, has been able to quote a passage that described the Trinity. The only one passage that describes some of the, but not not the entire, concept of the Trinity is a forgery written by a dishonest monk or scribe who obviously knew it wasn't in the Bible and so he fabricated it. Notice how Shelly avoided the topic like the plague? It doesn't matter to me if you accept the LDS view or not - which by the way corresponds nicely to the ancient Jewish view - unlike the Trinity. I'll acknowledge that the Bible isn't explicit one way or the other. My question is: why don't you believe something that is in the Bible instead of something that was developed centuries later... especially since one of the key contributors to the definition, Constantine, was a very bad person, a murder and worse?

Besides the Gospels, written decades and decades after Jesus' death by people that had never met him, a few passages in the Epistles, also by someone who never met him, and a few late, lines from historians, there's isn't anything. If you are looking for something historical, there's not much to work with.

Maureen, Since the Trinity is an extra-biblical belief (a belief not found in the Bible) that took 400 + years to be fully developed. why not believe something that is 1. not a mystery, and/or 2. found in the Bible instead?