Posted on 03/16/2008 9:30:40 AM PDT by DouglasKC
Then he should read my post 198.
I Corinthians 13:11 must really get under your skin.
Not at all, simply indicates that you aren’t concerned about keeping scripture in context.
Try this:
2Pe 1:3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that [pertain] unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
Eph 1:9 Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath purposed in himself:
God has made it known how to understand Him and how to worship him.
It is there for us to understand. God being Creator and Father of Jesus Christ is simiple.
Turning one into three and three into one then proclaiming it a divine mystery when the scriptures don’t go your way isn’t consistent with the Bible or the common sense God gave to children.
Are you capable of doubting the trininty?
I’m capable of doubting anything, and willing to change my view provided the evidence is consistent and reasonable. Your cherry-picking verses to back up your view, while ignoring the numerous ones that contradict it, doesn’t meet the standard.
For instance, what do you do with John 1:1?
Then there’s the matter of Jesus claiming to be God in front of the Pharisees; which, incidentally, is precisely why they were eager to stone him. So Jesus misspoke? I give him more credit than that.
And the fuller context of 1 Corinthians 13:11 doesn’t do anything to change its application to your erroneous and unscriptural view that a child should be able to fully understand God. As an example of mischaracterizing something, your citation in no way challenges my point. If you look at the text again, note that it references our understanding God’s will, not his nature.
The Bible clearly says that God is one.
It NEVER says God is three.
So don’t get to the point where you think you are twice as smart as you are because then in reality that will still only be half as smart as you think you are.
I think you are full of crap on both statements.
At what points could you doubt the trinity?
If you truly value consistency then reading the Bible as if Jesus is God is contradicting your values.
Start with the simple, clear, easy to understand verses and descriptions of God, then move on and interpret the other verses in light of the clear ones, not vice versa.
Otherwise your research on the topic is less valid than that of the Global Warming crowd.
Is God visible?
Is God a man?
Does God change?
Wow, your evasions get more elaborate — and hostile.
Just saying “Is not!” would be as effective. And as substantive.
I am challenging your statements. But I doubt you are being honest and sincere. You have a chance to prove me wrong.
There.
I've just called you full of crap in a more diplomatic manner.
Where could you doubt the trinity?
Because tradition must be preserved even at the cost of truth.
The Saducees and Pharisees of Jesus' time felt that way as do the religious leaders of today.
Secondly, the inherent, if not hidden point in my 198 is that: You claim (correctly), that while the *word* monotheism isn't in the Bible, the CONCEPT is there. We agree there. However, that's clearly the case with the concept of the Trinity. At least that's my claim, and of course not yours.
However, I'd like to see how each individual (classical) verse that has ever been used to show Christ's divinity, and also the Trinity in particular is answered. Certainly the Bible speaks of Jesus' Sonship, but this doesn't necessarily exclude a Trinitarian construct, as Trinitarians say that Jesus is BOTH the Son of God and God the Son.
And then there's the lists, both here and here of which I'm sure you are aware, but I have never seen any who deny the Trinity answer. Sure there are a few rebuttals here and there, but each and every verse in these infamous lists must be explained or else: Scripture contradicts itself OR *gasp* maybe the Trinity really IS the best concept we have of God's nature!
So don’t get to the point where you think you are twice as smart as you are because then in reality that will still only be half as smart as you think you are.
Good advice, we should all follow it, right?
Note, the following replies will be ignored: Further snide commentary; anything that doesn't address this post, but seeks to go off on a tangent; and finally, more specifically, any post that posts verses that seem to show Jesus' Will contradicted the Father's will, and/or verses that show Jesus talking to the Father, or referring to Him as His "father". This is because of the "tangential" reason given, and also, because it shows a complete lack of understanding of the concept of "hypostatic union".
As simiple as spelling simple? :-)
Maybe you can answer this question that Chris De Weese has been avoiding:
Do you believe that Jesus is:
1) God Almighty?
2) A lesser god? or
3) Not God at all?
That's an interesting statement. So I should only read the Gospels to determine if the Trinity is false? What about the remainder of the Bible?
Yep. I also know how to spell it correctly. But you've based your principal objection to the doctrine of the Trinity on a huge non sequitur; the notion that if the word doesn't appear, it's not a valid concept gleaned from the harmonizing of various scriptures addressing the nature of God in different ways.
Please provide the historical documents of when the notion of a Trinity appeared in Christianity.
How about we start with the document called the Gospel According to Matthew, specifically John 1:1?
The problem here is that I am not willing to adopt a doctrine that fails to address all the scriptures and it bugs the crap out of a lot of people.
On the contrary, it's addressing ALL the scriptures that leads to the doctrine of the Trinity. Only by ignoring the challenging ones can you reach any other conclusion.
No, sir, this is not a "straw" argument. It is what is considered a "logical conclusion". If Jesus is the Father and the Father is Jesus, then Jesus did not die.
Nifty how you can deny making a straw argument by then laying one out. Nobody is saying Jesus IS the Father. Jesus is the human incarnation of the second person of the godhead, identified as the Son in scripture. The physical body that contained the Son -- known as Jesus -- is what died.
When the sky opened up at Jesus' resurrection, under the Trinitarian theology, and God said "this is my Son, in whom I am well pleased"
Wow, what translation are you using? In all the Bibles I've read, that happened at his baptism.
.it was really Jesus playing a parlour trick on His followers.
How about it being the three persons of the Trinity being revealed? Again, you seem to be locked into this idea of the three persons being "the exact same being." That's your cul-de-sac, not Trinitarian theology's.
When Jesus says "all authority has been given to me" after His resurrection, it means that someone else had that authority and thus gave it to him,
That would be the Father.
and that someone else no longer posseses that authority.
See "non sequitur." Do you have children? Do you and your spouse not share authority?
If God is a Trinity, He could not give something to Himself.
Uhmm, actually, it's because of God's triune nature that the Father can give something to the Son.
I understand the scriptures to mean what they say, that God was in heaven while Jesus was on earth.
And in reference to the Father, that's entirely true.
God gave authority to Jesus, authority he did not previously possess.
That's reading a bit much into it, although it doesn't really present much of a logical problem if we acknowledge the hierarchy presented in scripture which is first the Father, then the Son, then the Holy Spirit.
Two separate beings.
Orthodoxy would use the term "distinct persons"; however, we're approaching semantic distinctions here rather than what we mean by those terms. The problem seems to lie in the fact that in the Old Testament, there was no tendency to distinguish between the three persons, in large part because prior to Jesus' coming, we were never confronted with more than one person of the Trinity at a time. Consequently, we've simply had a tendency to refer to God without making the distinction (such as the phrase "Son of God"; which would more accurately be "Son of the Father," but we humans tend to like our linguistic shortcuts).
As to the second point, I am in agreement. I think that God, especially when it is the Hebrew "Elohim" is used, it is referring to a family, not to a singular entity or a 3 headed Janus.
You're going to the image of a 3-headed Janus, not me. But with the family construct, you're right back to the problem of all those verses stating that there is only one God. How can you possibly deal with those?
Ripping off C.S Lewis and plagiarizing his work is unbecoming. You should cite people when you quote them.
Which I would if I recalled that Lewis was my source for it. If he was, it was in something I read long ago. I didn't recall him having used that analogy. Well, at least you can't say I lifted the Cream analogy from him.
Indeed, I do not understand this as there is not sufficient data in the scriptures to fully explain the relationship between Christ and God.
Well, thanks for throwing me that bone, at least.
The Trinity doctrine is not supportable by the scriptures
No, that's exactly where it comes from; as an understanding of key scriptures, not because the word itself was coined in the text.
, and in fact contradicted by a long string of verses
Seemingly contradicted, perhaps, but if those verses are interpreted in light of the ones that substantiate the Trinity, then they're not so difficult to reconcile.
, so why believe it?
Because I'm not willing to close my eyes and ignore the verses where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly indicated as being God. I'd have a harder time justifying that than to pretend the other verses don't exist or were some sort of transcription error.
Why not just say "I don't know"?
Because when John 1:1, among others, clearly makes the case, and Jesus himself said "Before Abraham was, I am," I'm willing to accept those statements as authoritative. Because three persons are referred to in scripture as God, and yet it is repeatedly stated that there is only one God, there is only one conclusion left to me; that in some way my human understanding can't fully grasp, God exists as a Trinity. Don't like the word Trinity? Fine. Use the name "Fred" if you like. The concept is the same, and the evidence supports it. I have to allow the whole of scripture to inform my understanding of God; not just the portions that fit comfortably within my understanding.
There are only two parts to that I'm bothered with and that is A) that they won't answer questions but demand ansers; B) will demand you answer something you already answered upthread.
Other than that, their numbers don't bother me any more than the truth doesn't bother them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.