"trinity".... is there such an entity?


#1

willieH: How–dee… :mrgreen:

I am sure there shall be much opposition to the proposals I make in this post, but…

Does the Bible teach that our GOD, is a “3 person” God?

With all loving and due respect to those who might “believe” the WORD of God, teaches that there is in fact, a “3 person” God…

It is my observation after membership of 25 years in a few of the LARGE Christian systems which teach this as BIBLICAL FACT (“trinity” – Salvation Army – trinity/Hell believers, …SDA – trinity/annhilation believers, …Healing Rooms Ministries International – trinity/Hell believers), …that this teaching, is the beginning (root) of Babylon which finds YHVH continually upset with the Hebrew nation…

It is also my observation, that all other fallacies, and subsequent deceptions within them, find their root in and from this teaching…

When YHVH GOD speaks of HIMSELF, He says VEHEMENTLY says, …NO!

(Words in [black brackets] are my comments) Continually IN CONTEXT - SINGULAR references to Himself:

Is 44:24 Thus SAITHYHVH, …thy [size=150]REDEEMER[/size] [not redeemERS] , and …[size=150]HE[/size] [not “we”]… that formed thee from the womb, …[size=150]I[/size]… [not “we”] YHVH that maketh ALL; that stretcheth forth the Heavens, …BY [size=150]MYSELF[/size][not “ourselves”]

This verse is one of many (and even many more) to follow it… Is 45:5, 12, 18, 21, 22 / Hos 13:4

And several (of even many more) BEFORE it… Is 43:10-11 / 44:8 / Ex 20:1-3

Not to mention the continuing usages of I, ME, Mine, Myself, etc… when He speaks of HIMSELF… If there were TWO other “persons”, why are they left out of this?

I mean these with TOTAL respect of YHVH in order to make a point, …but, if there are THREE, …Is it not it a disrespect for YHVH to name HIMSELF ONLY as GOD, leaving out the other “TWO”? And if indeed the trinity is truly so, is it not a tone of selfishness, for so many mentions of Scripture to note EXCLUSION of the other “TWO”?

1… CHRIST plainly noted in HIS OWN WORDS, that He HAS a GODMark 15:34

Name one verse that states YHVH “has a GOD”… :bulb:

2… CHRIST noted and reiterated, that He was SENT [directed] by the Father (YHVH)John 6:44 / John 7:29

Name one verse that states that anyone or anything EVER, “sent” or DIRECTED YHVH in any way… :bulb:

3CHRIST noted that He did as DID the Father, even stating that He did NOTHING …OF Himself… John 5:19

Name one verse that states that YHVH does as does (copies) anyone or anything… or is counseled (advised) by anyone or anything… on the contrary - He does ONLY, as HIS WILL counsels – Eph 1:11 :bulb:

4CHRIST (the man) died… and thereby displayed a disruption concerning any consideration of being, EVERLASTING… However, CHRIST YHVH] the WORD (Son of GOD), removed Himself from CHRIST the man (son of man), that the sacrifice of death might be accomplished… which is WHY CHRIST (the son of man) cried out against the moment in which YHVH had “forsaken” Him (withdrawn from Him)…

Name one verse that names YHVH has experienced DEATH… On the contrary, …He is EVERLASTING, and is the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE… Is 57:15 – He INHABITS eternity, which is without BEGINNING of DAYS or END of LIFE) :bulb:

Might I add before I close that Ps 103:17 states that the MERCY of YHVH is from EVERLASTING to EVERLASTING…

This does NOT mean FOREVER is “multiple”… rather the MERCY of the LIVING GOD encompasses, the condition of TIME which began [emerged] from FOREVER, and ends [concludes] in FOREVER (everlasting to everlasting), and that is what this verse states… during which YHVH is LIVING – CONTINUALLY… :smiley:

There is so very much more to say on this subject, but for the moment, might I open it for discussion… and comment and/or reply as necessary…

Thanks for your thoughts… :bulb:

Peace… :wink:

…willieH :smiley:


#2

Here goes…

I don’t adhere to any particular definition of the Godhead (1, 2. 3 or more ‘persons’ - although I have a lot of sympathy with the examples Willie gives of God being one from Jesus’ own mouth) but offer the following as examples of 2 types of multi-person God…

Firstly traditional trinity from Dr. Stephen Jones’ web site gods-kingdom-ministries.org (but I think this is an unusual way of trying to prove Jesus as the incarnation of God - this particular example doesn’t talk about the Holy Spirit).

Next God as a multi-person (as in more than 3) corporate entity (a bit like what I think Jason has in mind but with more individuals). This view sees God as a family (the author acknowledges that his insistance on elohim being plural flies in the face of most scholars who note that it can be singular or plural depending on context (normally singular for God and plural for the pagan gods))

askelm.com/doctrine/d940201.htm

As I say these are not necessarily views I agree with just offering them into the debate.


#3

willieH: Hi JeffA… :smiley:

Thanks for the offering JeffA… but all it amounts to is an offering from another man such as you or I… subsequently it can be, and will be questioned for that very reason…

Interesting that the word “GODHEAD” surfaces first in this discussion… thanks for offering it up bro… :wink:

The word “GODHEAD” does NOT APPEAR AT ALL, in the OT… and JESUS maintained that He came to FULFILL what was written in the OT…

So all He did and said, was about FULFILLING what had already been WRITTEN - the concept of YHVH GOD, existent in 3 persons is not at all founded in the OT…

For YHVH is the Father …to which JESUS referred, and He is ONE which was NOT Himself!!

It is, …NT theology, which brings the other “two” into the picture… :cry:

YHVH was One, which CHRIST noted as separate from Himself: …Matt 19:17 but ONE [not "[u]Me"] / Mk 10:18 but ONE [not “[u]Me”] / Luke 18:19 but ONE [not “[u]Me”]

In the NT, the English word “GODHEAD” appears on only 3 occasions… the word itself does NOT at all, imply “MULTIPLICITY”, “COMMITTEE” nor “GROUP”… it simply means DIVINITY in ALL THREE cases and by definition of all THREE words in the Greek…

#G2304 THEIOS (Acts 17:20)
#G2305 THEIOTES (Rom 1:20)
#G2320 THEOTES (Col 2:9)

ALL mean DIVINITY… the word “GODHEAD” is an ENGLISH term that NT Theologians say, implies Mulitiplicity, and in all likelihood, this is due mostly to RELIGIOUS biases in themselves and early translators…

This word is certainly not a solid proof that YHVH God the FATHER and SINGLE entity AS the FATHER, …is a multiple person entity…

It is the FULLNESS of the DIVINITY of YHVH permeating, that is the ETERNAL state of all SONS… (YHVH all IN ALL) but while Men are amidst time, men must DIE, even CHRIST… In order for DEATH to come into the experience, the FULLNESS of LIFE itself YHVH] cannot prevail… and is WHY He withdrew from CHRIST upon the cross…

This is so, …for us BECAUSE of our SIN, :frowning: …and for CHRIST to redeem ALL of us from it… :smiley:

We are made in the image of GOD… and this FACT IS: we are ONE PERSON each… not THREE… :bulb:

peace brother JeffA… :wink:

…willieH :mrgreen:


#4

Well thankfully I don’t have to defend any of the positions that might get posted here :stuck_out_tongue:

However, your post didn’t seem to directly address either of the passages I quoted (unless I’m not seeing something) but was directed mostly to the word Godhead. What are your thoughts on the quotes?

Cheers,


#5

I think he already gave his answer on that:

So keep in mind: all that an interpretation of NT scripture in context with OT scripture amounts to, is an offering from another man like Willie… subsequently it can be, and will be questioned for that very reason. (And therefore isn’t worth remarking any further on. Unlike Willie’s interpretations… :mrgreen: )

ETA: Ah, whoops, Willie was going to comment on it after all, but didn’t have time to get around to it yet. My bad! (I hadn’t noticed you saying that you were in fact planning on commenting on Jeff’s actual materal, Willie; whereas, I’ve seen people dismiss other people’s interpretations too often as being “only from the mind of a man” and therefore not worth considering. I’m leaving my mistake still posted in this comment so that I can properly mea culpa for it, though.)

Still working on collating a trinitarian exegetical case–lots of material so it takes a while. I’ll post that up first in its own thread, eventually, before commenting on Willie’s presentation. (Which I promise I won’t dismiss out of hand as being only an offering from another man, thus not worth remarking on any further… :slight_smile: )


#6

willieH: Hi JeffA… :smiley:

I have to prepare a song for the New Years Eve gig we’re playing, but as soon as I can make a moment or two available later on, I’ll address the offerings you presented… :bulb:

I just wanted to clarify my observation of the word “godhead”… which appears three times in Scripture, as actually meaning DIVINITY, as opposed to Theologians implying THAT “DIVINITY” as plural…

peace… :wink:

…willieH :mrgreen:


#7

Incidentally, I’m not aware of any trinitarian theologian who interprets those three uses of the word and its cognates (as Willie reported them) as implying a plurality. (The wider contexts of the three quoted verses might be another matter, but will be discussed later and elsewhere if so.)

Neither did I think you were making a terminological statement from Greek exegesis, though. :slight_smile: I understood you to be thinking of the concept, not the Greek term sometimes translated “Godhead”. But Willie’s reply is correct insofar as the word means “divinity” – or as it might also be put, “Godhood”.

In regard to Dr. Jones’ paper: the relation of Jesus’ statement in John 5 is well-known and accepted by trinitarian exegetes, of course (including me); but I wasn’t personally aware that the Hebrew word in Isaiah was actually YSHuA.

It’s certainly suggestive, but probably secondary in importance at best: the main thing is that Jesus was claiming to be and to do what YHWH was claiming to be and to do (there and elsewhere in the OT) regarding the rock which gives Israel spiritual water.

To be fair, the great rabbinic founder Hillel, two generations before the birth of Christ, also stood up during the Festival of Light and Water (that’s the Feast which caps off the Feast of Tabernacles) and said much the same thing, once.

Then again, this shocked his disciples so badly that the received tradition of debate about it afterward ends with them deciding he couldn’t have really meant what he had said… :mrgreen: The point is that Jesus’ disciples did decide that Jesus had meant what he said, there–and, moreover, was correct to mean it!

(Hillel’s family and the disciples of his school, incidentally, were frequently suspected for centuries afterward of secretly being Christians on the side; the most famous of them being St. Paul, disciple of Gamaliel I grandson of Hillel. Epiphanius, in the days of Constantine, met and heard the story of a Jewish convert to Christianity, Josephus (not the historian), formerly a high-ranking member of the Hillel family, who had some curious things to say along that line… Considering their connections to Christianity in even the NT, I can’t help but wonder who exactly that old Simeon guy was who blessed Jesus during the first-son offering. He’s the right age, and in the right connections, to be the son of Hillel and father of Gamaliel…)

In regard to the acrostic meaning of Torah in the original Hebrew: it’s certainly clever, and I don’t know nearly enough Hebrew myself to affirm or deny it. But I wouldn’t personally put much weight on it. These kinds of things can be generated with some freedom on all sorts of topics, from playing around with Hebrew.

I’m guessing the second guy is a Mormon. (It’s at least a position that the Mormons would easily agree with, I think. Though I also think some of them would deny that the Father was ever being talked about as YHWH in the OT, the idea there being that Jesus had come to finally proclaim the existence of the Father to them. Be that as it may.)

His position does illustrate how “Elohim” and “AeCHaD” can be used, and that it’s important to keep the plurality of such terms and their grammatic uses in mind for theological exegesis. Ironically, trinitarians would go on to say that he and similar theologians aren’t taking other texts seriously enough, too. :wink: But their position is, I think, harder to answer on the textual evidence than that of the single-person monotheist.


#8

willieH: Hi JP… :wink:

“CONTEXT” is a whole (n)other discussion… :smiley:

GOD’s WORD stands as a COMPLETE CONTEXT… which notes various principles within the CONTEXT of His WORD, which remain valid both WITHIN or WITHOUT of the particular PASSAGE in which they appear…

example: THOU SHALT NOT KILL… is a premise which is quite valid outside of Ex 20:8, dontcha think JP? :confused:

Mea culpa? Is that a rock group from Jersey? Or maybe an ingredient in some oriental dish? :smiley: – Jus–kidn there JP…

Hey… I’m just a self-taught musician (you know, kinda like Peter & John were, common men with little education), not a philosophy professor… :blush: …do me a favor, & leave out the “mea culpas” bro… That way us’ns who ain’t speak right none, …can, uh… easilycatchyerdrift:slight_smile:

A piece of advice, …when speaking to a general audience (most of which are probably not as “educated” as yourself – me for one), usage of common words is best and will certainly maintain the largest audience for the longest time, …for common terms will get the job done …now, …and thereby eliminate the need for going back & forth to a dictionary in order to decipher the content and intent of your speech…

To me, an “INTERPRETATION” is that which inserts premises and ideas as BIBLICAL, which are NOT MENTIONED in the WORD… (one of which is the “trinity”)…

The first “red flag” that goes up for me, is when a “teaching” proposed is called BIBLICAL, yet is not even named or mentioned in the Scriptures… :open_mouth:

I will be interested as to how you view and understand, the WORDS of YHVH Himself as noted by me in the OP… which state HE ALONE is GOD, and there IS …NO OTHER BESIDE Him… :astonished: If there are 2 other “members” of the “Godhead”, where are they found in these statements? :question:

Please keep in mind, bro… often LESS is MORE:stuck_out_tongue:

With “baited” (albeit “altoid enhanced”) breath :laughing: …I await your response :bulb: …dear brother… (but after having been involved in “trinitarian” churches for over 25yrs, I don’t think you will have much to say that I have not already heard)…

Gotta go… should have been down in the studio an hour ago! :laughing:

peace… :wink:

…willieH :mrgreen:


#9

Incidentally, Acts 17:20 doesn’t have {theios} or anything like it. I suspect you meant verse 29.

And, to reiterate: no, none of those verses involves, in themselves multiplicity for the term. Nor does any trinitarian I’m aware of even bother to refer to 17:29, or Rom 1:20, other than to agree that we should not be inferring that the Divine is like gold or silver or stone, a sculpture of art and human sentiment, and yet to also agree that God reaches people in all ages through His achievements in the creation of the world by which all people can have at least some idea of His otherwise imperceptible power and divinity.

Trinitarian theologians (among some other kinds of Christians) do appeal to Col 2:9, which states that the entire fullness of the Deity was (and still is) dwelling bodily in Christ. I would have to agree that any trinitarian who focuses on the term “Deity” there as though it was supposed to imply multiplicity and so be evidence for trinitarianism in that fashion, is being pretty inept. But then, as I said, I’m not aware of any trinitarian scholar who does that. On the other hand, someone who reads this as meaning that Christ wasn’t (and isn’t) fully Deity, is also someone I would have to call pretty inept. On yet the other hand, the statement might imply two natures to Christ (since the fullness of the Deity is dwelling in Christ); which trinitarians certainly have no problem with, since that’s a doctrinal stance we affirm, though we don’t typically appeal to this statement as scriptural evidence for it.

Or, you could have figured it out from the context. (It’s another way of saying “my bad”, which I had already said and which the term literally means, which is why I chose it for variety in saying the same thing again.)

Whereas, most people mean something like “understanding the meaning of what’s being said” by “INTERPRETATION”. (For example, if you really had gone to a dictionary to interpret ‘mea culpa’, you wouldn’t have been inserting premises and ideas into the term that are not there.)

Those people who interpreted {theios} and cognates for you, so that you could know that they don’t have anything necessarily to do with plurality–they weren’t inserting their own premises and ideas into the meaning of the term, were they?

Whereas, one of the first red flags that go up for me, is when a person focuses on a term as though its presence or absence determines presence or absence of the concept. That’s a straw man argument, as can be seen from the fact that the mere inclusion of the word “trinity” in either of the testaments, even if it was also being used in regard to the characteristics of God, would not instantly denote trinitarian doctrine.

The term “mitachondria” isn’t mentioned in scripture anywhere, nor does the term have an analog in Biblical Greek or Hebrew (despite being a Greek term!) Yet you insist on treating Jesus as human, the way we’re human. How dare you?–humans have mitachondria in their cells, but that term isn’t found in scripture! That ought to have made you instantly suspicious of the doctrine of Jesus’ humanity, or anyone else’s humanity in that time and place, and yet you insist upon it as a BIBLICAL doctrine. (Unless maybe you deny or doubt that any human in Jesus’ day, including Jesus, were mitachondrial creatures, because the term is not found in scripture?)

A little more seriously, word “psychology” isn’t mentioned in scripture either (despite it also being a Greek term, and one that was even in use in the Greek literature of the day if I recall correctly), but people back then (just like now) had psychology as a characteristic. Yet no one would bother denying Jesus had the characteristic of being a psychological entity, who affirmed Jesus’ humanity–unless maybe they didn’t find that term in scripture! And in fact, some various kinds of docetists (though maybe not all of them) would insist that all those places in scripture where Jesus seemed to have what we would (afterward, centuries later) call a human psychology, are to be ignored as a sham or as allegory for something else maybe. Whatever scriptural data that would count in favor of the concept, they would reject on the ground that, among other things, the term isn’t expressly used of Jesus in scripture.

Meanwhile, not only did you have no reluctance accepting that people back then had psychology, you had no reluctance to insist that all apparent references to rebel supernatural entities are only (in effect) psychological artifacts of people’s minds–as a BIBLICAL (all caps) doctrine. (Which, btw, counts as a clear example of what you’re deriding as “interpretation”: inserting premises and ideas into scripture which are not mentioned in that scripture.)

Be that as it may. One of the words translated “interpret” in the NT is {diermeneuo} and cognates, which is directly related to the term “hermeneutics”: the study of proper interpretation of scripture. It always used in a positive way: Jesus interprets the prophets , Tabitha interprets Dorcas, Paul requires that if someone is speaking in tongues in the congregation they ought to have an interpreter or else stay silent. Sometimes the word {epiluo} and its cognates are translated “interpret”: thus Jesus interprets parables for the disciples. When Philip helps the Ethiopian Eunuch, the problem isn’t that the eunuch doesn’t know how to read Hebrew; the problem is that he doesn’t know what to make of the Isaianic prophecy that he’s currently reading and needs (and wants) guidance with it.

Another red flag that goes up for me, is when someone flatly defines a term in an ethically negative fashion for his own convenience, that everyone else either treats as positive or nuanced; while practicing elsewhere the very methodology he is attaching negatively to that term, as though the result thereby is so clear and proper that only a fool wouldn’t see it.

This is from the person who thought it a mark against trinitarians that they might have only “a few paltry” verses for their support… :wink: :unamused:

The case is what it is, and as I said I’m summarizing it. I’d be here for a year writing a book hundreds of pages long, if I was trying to put in every single piece.

Back to work…


#10

willieH: Greetings JP… :mrgreen:

You correctly “suspect”! …it was obviously a “typo”… most know the “9” is next to the “0” on the keyboard, brother JP…

You are obviously not in touch with common teaching of the “trinity” as correlating to the “godhead”… there are so many references for it, its like observing the forest, and not seeing the trees Jason…

Just google the word “godhead” JP, and find general definitions of it as noted in SECULAR view as well as, CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY…

SECULAR: The term TRINITY is UNBIBLICAL, and is defined on sights which are not BIBLE based (secular), one of which is Wikipedia’s… SECULAR …online encyclopedia…

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY: The results of “googling” the word GODHEAD, … show many CHRISTIAN based Theological groups as connecting this term with the “trinity”… :bulb: Here’s a few:

kenbirks.com/godhead.html
answers.com/topic/godhead
jesus-is-savior.com/Believer … odhead.htm
dianedew.com/godhead.htm
gospelway.com/god/persons_godhead.php

You obviously haven’t looked too far brother JP… :bulb: The INTERNET is FULL of instances and THEOLOGICAL notation connecting “GODHEAD” and “trinity”… :exclamation:

You are only making this determination as a result of “your opinion” which names another viewpoint INEPT, because it disagrees with YOURS… :frowning:

CHRIST noted that He had a GOD… for this admission was voiced in His LAST WORDS: “MY GOD, MY GOD, why hast THOU forsaken ME”… (Mk 15:16)

There IS no evidence for it, other then that which is (IMO-in my observation), contrived… name some, let’s discuss your “evidence”… CHRIST is named as the son of MAN, as well as the SON of GOD

Son of MAN because He was born of a human mother… SON of GOD, because He was SIRED by YHVH

He also noted Himself as both, which you willingly IGNORE…

Son of Man… The MAN portion of CHRIST could be TEMPTED, had the ability to TRANSGRESS (otherwise the whole thing is a sham), and DIED… all things which pertain to HUMAN EXISTENCE and NOT DIVINITY…

SON of GOD… the DIVINE portion of CHRIST was the FULLNESS of YHVH within… which COULD NOT BE TEMPTED, and subsequently would NOT TRANSGRESS, and could NOT DIE… which is WHY that PORTION, removed Himself from the HUMAN portion, in order that the SACRIFICE of DEATH, be manifest…

Why say the same thing TWICE anyway? It is intellectual stuttering of sorts…

I realize your intellect… which has never impressed me in my life… I have dealt with many during my years in the School of LIFE (of which you are but a young student)… and the greatest INTELLECTUALS are those who are able to take off the “Intellectual hat”, and get down to twisting the nuts & bolts… instead of being unable to remove themselves from the “schematic”…

This reminds me of a drummer I played with in the early 80’s which (truthfully) told me that I was not HALF the MUSICIAN, nor HALF the SINGER he was… my reply to him was: With all the TALENT you KNOW you possess, you still dont KNOW how to be a SUCCESS, …and between the 2 of us, I have been making a living here and will continue (still doing it), and YOU will be looking for someone like ME, …to GIVE YOU A JOB. He is LONG gone from the Spokane music scene, and never played here again… (btw… I hired HIM as our drummer :laughing: )

Maybe I should put it this way JP… Please REFRAIN from using all your “25cent words” with me, they dont impress me, nor shall I further respond to them… If you wish a discussion on this topic with me, then leave out WORDS which do NOT communicate with the MAJORITY… A little wisdom, goes a long way when one is endeavoring to communicate… :bulb:

You will NOT engage people in a “discussion”, unless the ears to which you speak, hear and understand what you have said… Use of UNCOMMON CRYPTIC terminolgies might serve to impress oneself, but in the end their usage shall FAIL because they are largely INVALID to most…

Unstarch your neck brother JP… I was joking with you about “oriental dishes” and “rock bands from Jersey”:smiley:

“Mea culpa” is hardly common language Jason… something like using the medical term “cardiac infarction” instead of “heart attack”… :bulb: What’s the point? :confused:

“Inclusion” of the word “trinity” is IRRELEVANT…

Simply because the word “trinity” is NOT in either of the testaments brother… so it is therefore, NOT INCLUDED… Introducing it is therefore, EXTRA-BIBLICAL… and therefore can be considered “STRAW MAN” to the WORDS of God, as it is ABSENT from them.

The “concept” of “trinity” is a modern one… the early church (as well as the OLD TESTAMENT and JEWISH “religious tradition”) held no such teaching… so the introduction of it in a [modern] “church” which is much more degenerate than was its earlier formation, …shows it to be addition to teaching rather than a basis for it…

Why not try responding to Scriptures I already noted JP??? …You have yet to answer my questions of you concerning the SEVERAL REPETITIONS of YHVH, that HE ALONE is GOD… and avoid it with this less than ON-PREMISE distraction…

Trinitarian doctrine, is NOT BIBLICAL… it is therefore either – contrived by men, and/or assumed by them, to be an “unspoken” word IN the WORD, yet remains an ADDITION to it…

“Mitachondria”? Who mentioned this term JP? (Hint: …you! :open_mouth: )

How “dare” I? He is our BROTHER JP… and was TEMPTED (God cannot be TEMPTED - James 1:13) in ALL POINTS as are we… (Heb 4:15 / Heb 2:18)

He was a MAN, as are we: 1 Tim 2:5 For there is ONE GOD, and ONE mediator BETWEEN GOD and MEN, …the …[size=150]MAN[/size]… CHRIST JESUS.

Talk about raising “STRAW MAN” arguements, as you go off on this tangent about MITACHONDRIAL creatures…

'55 Chevy’s arent mentioned in Scripture either but they DO exist, …but then again, no one is endeavoring to make a case for a '55 Chevy as a BIBLICAL teaching, are they? :unamused:

Btw… just for the record, …I’m a “ford man” myself… :laughing:

You are having your own little DISASSOCIATED discussion with yourself aren’t you JP? – Just kidn-ya! :smiley:

But seriously though, why don’t you make a case for your “trinity”, instead all this “ring-around-the-rosy” jive?

“Rebel supernatural entities”? Are you sure you are answering ME? Just for the record, there is no Scriptural evidence for “rebel supernatural enities” either… :confused:

How do you draw all this out of what I stated in the OP? Or are you getting off track already, and referring to other beliefs I have stated that I have?

It appears you are just creating this IRRELEVANT diversion, to set the stage for more of the same…

More babble which eludes the discussion here… That I have a perception of INTERPRETATION, does not mean it is COMPLETELY correct, neither did I claim it to be so, JP… your insistence on discussion peripheral notations, shows your inability to address the SUBJECT…

You are busily zeroing in on passing peripheral details (interpretation) which do not engage the TOPIC…

Interpretation is a realization of something one beholds… and a perception of that is found to be individual… and at times is shared with others…

For instance… there are 3 people witnessing a car accident from 3 different corners… ALL are noting their perspective of the very same accident, but the perspectives of the 3 often do not agree with one another… therefore “interpretation” can differ…

GOD’s WORD is solidly, …ONE TRUTH… and can be potentially viewed from 6.5 billion perspectives… and in those varying views, shall there be found differing accounts of that TRUTH… however… ONLY ONE account amongst them can be said is TRUE if indeed GOD has revealed to ANY of them, that TRUTHFUL perspective… :sunglasses:

Gave you some advice, and it does not surprise me that you IGNORED it… LESS is MORE… get to the point if you are able… :unamused:

EVERYONE ELSE? Please! One thing you have proven within this answer JP, …is your accomplished ability to EXAGGERATE! :slight_smile:

To this point you haven’t offered ANY! …be they few or many! All you have done is rant about INTERPRETATION, and have listed NOTHING to support your UNBIBLICAL concept of the “trinity”…

Probably still saying as much nothing in all that (hundreds of pages), as you have just said here… :unamused:

You definitely need to do that! :confused:

Try addressing the TOPIC next time…

peace, JP… :smiley:

…willieH :mrgreen:


#11

jeramyt.org/papers/jesus.html

thoughts?


#12

Can I just point people at this thread in Gregory’s forum space The Trinity and why it is a big issue (why the trinity is such a big deal).

Willie - I make a similar point in the thread referenced above.

Kaviraj - good read (at least it was full of biblical references :smiley: )

This is a link to an interesting rebuttal of Thomas saying ‘My Lord and My God’ - it goes into the Greek and asserts that the phrase implies Jesus as God’s proxy - not God himself sabbatariannetwork.com/Conte … Theos.html

One more - ad2004.com/Biblecodes/Hebrewmatr … tyGod.html this is a link to a Jewish perspective on the Isaiah “unto us a child is born…Mighty God…Prince of peace” passage (another one supporting Willie’s stance).


#13

willieH: Hi Jeff… :smiley:

Very cool link Jeff… thanks! :mrgreen:

I had never seen this translation before! :bulb:

Peace…

…willieH :smiley:


#14

hi willieH

what did you think about Townsley’s paper?

  • Pat

#15

willieH: Hi everyone…

I think my time might be limited here, so I would like to leave you with this link, which I consider a good look at the “trinity”… from an opposing viewpoint… You are welcome to reject it… but it is founded in LOGIC and specific research and BIBLICAL foundation

bible-truths.com/trinity.html

Hope you all benefit from investigating this… the “trinity” is one of, if not THE GREATEST deception in Christianity… :frowning:

peace… :wink:

…willieH :smiley:


#16

That’s an interesting article. If I were to come down on one side or the other of this discussion (hyperthetically of course :wink: ) it would have to be that God is one and Jesus adopted as God’s proxy and containing the essence of the divine nature (although Jason’s fair-togetherness is an angle I have never seen before).

BUT - in the spirit of fairplay to both sides here is a pro-trinity link christiancadre.org/topics/trinity.html

(I presume Jason this is the site you are a member of?).


#17

That is a site which Jason contributes to.

Personally I have never seen the Trinity described by a conherent model, so I think it fails that test.


#18

Yep; or rather, I contribute articles to the journal at christiancadre.blogspot.com from time to time. (Haven’t done much of that recently, being far too busy here. :mrgreen: )

As far as I know, nothing of mine is present at the .org site. I’ve presented roughly 500 pages of philosophical analysis so far leading progressively to ortho-trin (that’s the STTH link at the bottom of my sig), but I haven’t yet posted up the middle half of that argument (two whole sections of chapters). Logical coherency is pretty important to me, too, Qoh. :mrgreen: But it’s a very large case, and it isn’t easy to keep all the pieces in view, which is why I proceed in a topically progressing fashion slowly from point to point.

I’m currently past the 3/4 mark (I think) in compiling together an analysis of scriptural evidence about God in the Judeo-Christian canon and the relation of Christ to God (and to the Holy Spirit); which I’m sure won’t be totally complete but which I can at least say is spread out very broadly as well as deeply. (It looks like it may arrive at around 80 pages of 12pt single-spaced monospaced font. Most of the scriptural discussion focuses on the claims being made by the canonical authors, and reported by them to have been made by Jesus, concerning Christ’s relation to God and man.)

I don’t try to make a case for metaphysical coherency from that data, but only for an exegetical, narrative and thematic coherency. I’ll be posting it up as a .doc file here eventually (maybe at the Cadre org site, too), for reference sake, after which I hope to later address various scriptural and metaphysical complaints at some time. (Metaphysical complaints are things like “How can God die” and “Why wouldn’t multiple persons be a sign of mental schism”, etc.)

However, I don’t want to stray any further from the primary topical forcus of this site, either; which is “evangelical universalism” and discussion of that (pro and con). I’ve promised to do several other things recently which this project has already usurped priority on for several weeks, and I want to get back to those other things as soon as feasibly possible. (For example, commenting on that professor’s paper concerning what he takes to be the theological weaknesses of universalism as represened in The Shack.)


#19

willieH: Hi JP… :wink:

Its nice you are writing articles…

My question is, …when are you going to address this topic?

I asked you a several questions on December 28th… and here we are a week later… :confused:

Also, did you ever “google” the word GODHEAD bro? You will find MANY “Theologians” which connect “trinty” and “godhead”…

Hey – I’m 63, with cancer in my body, and am a bit strapped for time! :laughing:

…willieH :smiley:


#20

Hi Willie,

All of the scriptures that you quote are consistent with the teaching of the Trinity. And for example, the Gospel of John teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each a person. For example, John 17:5 says that the Father and Son gloriously preexisted the world. And all conversation between the Father and Son imply that each are a person while Jesus talks to the Father per all four Gospels. And John 14:26, 15:26, 16:7 describes the Holy Spirit as another person.