Do serve God...or a 'Trinity'?

Two things:
The Doctrine of the Trinity was declared before the Roman Catholic Church existed as a distinct entity – it was declared, and championed, primarily by Eastern theologians. There are, of course, Western/Latin champions – Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, Leo the Great – but there is also Athanasius of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church ... so this hysteria with Catholicism (by which is meant Roman Catholicism) as the root of all eveil is patently nonsense.

It's a Catholic doctrine, an Orthodox doctrine, a Coptic doctrine, etc., etc.

I can find Jesus speaking about it ... that you can't is not the fault of Scripture.

The whole catholic (ie universal) church was Trinitarian from the get-go – Baptism, first recorded c96AD, is according to a trinitarian formula.
Prove your points, please!
Let's take that first one, for example.
They existed before the Rome established their Church?

That was 313.
"In 313, Emperor Constantine I's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity, and in 330 Constantine moved the imperial capital to Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Turkey. "

"I can find Jesus speaking about it ... that you can't is not the fault of Scripture."
Please show me- and the Baptism was NOT a reference to it.
 
Please show me- and the Baptism was NOT a reference to it.
Why not? Because it voids your argument? 😂
The burden of proof is on you as the accuser.


Jesus said

Matthew 28:19​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 14:16-17
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
 
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

And, the Protestant Churches chose which dogmas to take WITH them from their Mother Church....
 
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

And, the Protestant Churches chose which dogmas to take WITH them from their Mother Church....
Something you keep forgetting is that it is the so-called Catholic Church that preserved the New Testament and the words of Jesus Christ for you to read and argue about on the internet -- down through all the ages and through all wars and political turmoils and population events.

The Protestant church only came into being about 500 years ago, and the JW's much later.

Without the hated Catholic Church, for all its faults and failings, there would be no New Testament Christ, no collated gospels, carefully preserved and copied by countless generations of monks for century upon century, until the advent of the printing press and the protestant reformation.
 
Last edited:
Why not? Because it voids your argument? 😂
The burden of proof is on you as the accuser.


Jesus said

Matthew 28:19​

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,

John 14:16-17
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever, 17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.

What the 'Holy Ghost's' name?
The Father has one. (Even tho Churchianity HATES to use it)
The Son has one.

Where is HIS?
 
Prove your points, please!
Let's take that first one, for example.
They existed before the Rome established their Church?

That was 313.
"In 313, Emperor Constantine I's Edict of Milan legalized Christianity,
Wrong. Read the article. The Edict of Milan (if indeed there was such a thing) was of religious tolerance, and applied not just to Christianity. Constantine tolerated Christianity along with other religions, but favoured Christianity overall.

But his was the Christianity of the whole church, as it were, Greek East and Latin West.

and in 330 Constantine moved the imperial capital to Constantinople, modern Istanbul, Turkey. "
Yes, and Constantinople is in the East, and saw itself as the rightful successor to Rome. Today the Patriarch of Constantinople of the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church. not the (Roman) Catholic Church.

If you're going to discuss early church history, it's important to get these distinctions right, as otherwise they imply erroneous anachronisms – the Roman Catholic Church as distinct from Greek Orthodox, Syrian Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Russian Orthodox etc ... all believe in the Holy Trinity.

(Christianity became the Roman State Religion in 380AD)

"I can find Jesus speaking about it ... that you can't is not the fault of Scripture."
Please show me- and the Baptism was NOT a reference to it.
I'm sure you know where Scripture speaks of the Three Divine Persons.

As for baptism – the Didache (c100AD) asserts the triune formula "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" (Didache chapter 7).
 
You a
What the 'Holy Ghost's' name?
The Father has one. (Even tho Churchianity HATES to use it)
The Son has one.

Where is HIS?
You asked for where Jesus referenced the trinity and it was provided so why deflect by demanding a name for the Holy Spirit. I know it's human nature to not want to be wrong but I'm sorry . You were just proven wrong.
 
Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles. In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture.

And, the Protestant Churches chose which dogmas to take WITH them from their Mother Church....
A number of those things are in fact not specifically spelled out in scripture, with that being one of the reasons some Christian denominations have no hint of them. I believe many of these however are within all Orthodox churches. Perhaps they grew from some Jewish folk traditions -- I don't know if that is known (obviously the Marian adoration wouldn't be, but ideas not unlike Purgatory and ideas of the authority of rabbinic tradition and scripture would be)
 
A number of those things are in fact not specifically spelled out in scripture ...
True, but they are implied.

The idea that Scripture must necessarily 'spell out' its totality of meaning is itself trefuted by Scripture – nor is it an understanding within the Abrahamic Traditions.

Not even the Reformed churches declared that the total meaning of Scripture should and is self-evident to everyone – and clearly it's not. The idea that because I can read something I understand it fully is somewhat naive.

In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy,
Actually there is. To what extent the Office of Peter has authority over all, or is regarded as 'first among equals' as the Orthodox have it, is a matter for discussion. But it's clear from various gospel texts and moreso from Acts that Peter was considered the leader of the Twelve.

worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix)...
We don't worship Mary although I will allow in the popular mindset it hard to see the difference – I rather see it as telling that the Divine Feminine simply will not go away ...

But the Marian Dogmas are upheld by the wider Church, informed by its own faith, by sound reason, strong theological argument.

The Immaculate Conception (that Mary was not subject to Original Sin) has neither a direct transmission in Scripture or Tradition, but popular devotion grew over the centuries and when the dogma was put to a free vote by the bishops, more than 90% agreed.

Theologians argue that Mary, as 'the New Eve' (which is an acient tradition) would enjoy the same sinless state as Eve prior to the Fall. Theologians reference Genesis 3:15: "I (God) will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman (Eve),". This is seen fulfilled in the Book or Revelation – the Woman crowned with stars and trampling the Dragon underfoot.

The Angelic Salutation in Like 1:28 – "Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee..." and again in 1:30 – "Fear not, Mary, for thou hast found grace with God." both would imply a 'state of grace' – when I did my degree, a question was asked: Was Mary baptised, and by whom? To which the answer is Yes, by the Holy Spirit prior to her conception, but precisely when is unknown, although a strong tradition suggests from her own conception – that is she was baptised from the get-go ...

... petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers ...
Already, if recent, a Jewish tradition ... basically if the dead live on in some form, why would they not seek the best for us?

apostolic succession
Again, a question was put: Would Christ found a Church, and make no provision for its continuance?

I believe many of these however are within all Orthodox churches. Perhaps they grew from some Jewish folk traditions -- I don't know if that is known (obviously the Marian adoration wouldn't be, but ideas not unlike Purgatory and ideas of the authority of rabbinic tradition and scripture would be)
Pretty fair assessment.

As ever, people criticise 'the Catholic Church' when they think of the RCC, ignorant or ignoring the fact that the dogmas and doctrines they see as 'invented' were there long before the RCC emerged as a specific entity – and often the supporting arguments for them are stronger in the Greek Traditions than in the Latin.
 
What the 'Holy Ghost's' name?
The Father has one. (Even tho Churchianity HATES to use it)
The Son has one.

Where is HIS?
Different names have been given to each of them.
Holy Ghost=Holy Spirit, full synonyms specific to English.
רוח הקודש, ruach ha-kodesh in Hebrew , with forms in many languages.
Both, in Christian and Islamic literature, we occasionally find the Archangel Gabriel in one script where an other script tells the same, using a language specific form of "Holy Spirit".
The Christian apostles identfy the "Parakletos" announced according to John with the Holy Spirit.
Father is the Name Jesus used for God. There is a huge multitude of names meaning the One God. Already the Torah uses JHWH (JW with other 19th century authors pronounce it Jehovah, many 20th century authors suggested to pronounce it Jahwe instead), Elohim (pluralitandum of Eloah, God), and -only in combinations- the old Semitic root El. Jews since long time say Adonai (Lord) or Ha-Shem (The Name) to avoid pronouncing JHWH.
The Quran used 99 attributive (describing) Names used for God. All languages have at least one name for God.
Son of God is an Alias for the Meshiah (Messiah, Christ with forms in all languages). His given name Jeshwa (Jesus), again with forms in all languages.
 
Why have someone here who is clearly not interested in interfaith?
This is sadly very like two others recently who just hounded people.
I honestly wish we had a few JWs and a couple of Mormons too...
And what I further wish is not only were they here with us, but that they were civil at least.
Cheerful would be nice too. But I can work with civil.
 
The Mod threatened to BAN me if I keep on repeating myself ('Interfaith', indeed)-so go to that thread where I am starting to do that.
This remark made no sense.
I wish you were just civil. Do you not know how to be?
I like having a JW presence, but not the attitude you express towards opposing viewpoints.
 
Of course He was teaching about His Father. Thats why He came as a man.. sin separates us from the Father and Jesus came to reconcile us with His Father
Yes, indeed!
by DYING on the cross and SHEDDING His blood for our sins.
That's essentially Paul's interpretation.
I don't think that his suffering on the cross was the last sacrifice for delivering mankind from sin. God did not want him to die, that's why he resurrected him. Why should God need the sacrifice of His messenger to be reconciled ?
Jesus did this because he chose to keep to His Word without compromise. God saved him, but not in this world, because it was not ready. Imo.
 
Back
Top