Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Holy Trinity
3/19/06 | Carl Eldredge

Posted on 03/19/2006 6:25:15 PM PST by whispering out loud

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-160 next last
To: Eagle Eye
So, I'll believe what the Bible says that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God Almighty instead of what you say.

Has your dog ever had kittens?

SD

81 posted on 03/22/2006 12:18:57 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God

Was John wrong?

JM
82 posted on 03/22/2006 12:19:02 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
Jesus Christ is the image of the invisible God. When we look at Jesus Christ, we are looking at God. Jesus Christ is the physical, visible manifestation of the Godhead.

Up to here you resoning is excelent. But from here on out you go too far and contradict plain scripture.

He is God in the Flesh. No one has seen God the Father, but they have seen God the Son. That is who was in the Garden with Adam and Eve. That is who supped with Abraham. That is who Isaiah saw sitting on the throne.

Show me a single scripture that uses the terms 'trinity' or 'God the Son'. We both know that you cannot.

Yes, Jesus is the express representation of God. But he is a man, NOT a God. That point is made over and over in the scriptures.

83 posted on 03/22/2006 12:23:52 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM; Eagle Eye
Was John wrong?

Depends on whether or not you're a literalist. Every religion takes their writings and decides which to take literally and which to take allegorically. You just happen to be taking the wrong parts literally. (of course I don't find NT writings as inspired but that's beside the point)

84 posted on 03/22/2006 12:26:16 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

"Show me a single scripture that uses the terms 'trinity' or 'God the Son'. We both know that you cannot.

Yes, Jesus is the express representation of God. But he is a man, NOT a God. That point is made over and over in the scriptures."

You will find your answer in Phil 2:5-11


85 posted on 03/22/2006 12:27:31 PM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
John 8:58 - Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM."

John 10
33 The Jews answered Him, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God."
34 Jesus answered them, "Has it not been written in (AS)your Law, 'I SAID, YOU ARE GODS'?
35 "If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),
36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Jesus clearly proclaimed himself as God. Even the pharisees realized it. The Scriptures proclaim His Deity.

Also how can Jesus, a man who was born to a woman, be the Creator of all that is, if He was just a man.

Col 1:16 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities--all things have been created through Him and for Him.

JM
86 posted on 03/22/2006 12:28:45 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Yes, it's easy to allegorize any Scripture that challenges one's theology.

JM
87 posted on 03/22/2006 12:29:37 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM

There is no contradiction, but when you have problems with the simple texts you cannot adequately deal with the more challenging texts.

Here's a key hint: look up the word "logos" and see all the ways that it is translated and used.

How can you separate God and His Word? God speaks and things happen. God's word is God's power.

There's more, but I don't think we can go into it here.

It is utterly poor handling of the Word to interpret an apparently ambiguous verse to your favor while ignoring many clear verses that don't support your idea.

But as long as you're determined to call Jesus God while the Bible CLEARLY and PLAINLY calls him a man, we're gonna be at loggerheads.


88 posted on 03/22/2006 12:29:49 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM
Yes, it's easy to allegorize any Scripture that challenges one's theology.

Hey that was the point I was trying to make. I had it first. :-)

89 posted on 03/22/2006 12:31:25 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
What do you think "begotten" means?

How does Jesus being the "only begotten" Son of God make Him different?

SD

90 posted on 03/22/2006 12:33:54 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
John 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.

This Word that became flesh was begotten of the Father. Sounds like Jesus to me.

JM
91 posted on 03/22/2006 12:39:47 PM PST by JohnnyM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM; SoothingDave
This Word that became flesh was begotten of the Father. Sounds like Jesus to me.

Because you're a hyper-literalist (thank you dave). Now if you can, read the verse again allegorically. I think you'll find in can be read two ways.

92 posted on 03/22/2006 12:42:38 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM; Eagle Eye
This Word that became flesh was begotten of the Father. Sounds like Jesus to me.

The world awaits Eagle Eye's "clear" Scriptural definition of "begotten." Perhaps giraffes can beget hippos.

SD

93 posted on 03/22/2006 12:43:53 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Because you're a hyper-literalist (thank you dave). Now if you can, read the verse again allegorically. I think you'll find in can be read two ways.

What does "only-begotten" mean when you read it in a non-literal way? How does it distinguish Jesus from Abraham or any other faithful follower of God?

SD

94 posted on 03/22/2006 12:45:05 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: JohnnyM

LOL...don't even try the "I am" schtick!

Buddy, you really need to study the Bible more than your dogma!

But, hey, Paul said 'I am that I am'...so that makes him a double God?

Again and again, you've preferred the apparently ambiguous texts over the word-for-word easy and simple texts.

To go along your thinking, you still have the problems of there being one God and one mediator between God and Man the man Christ Jesus as well as God not being a man, etc. So if Jesus is God and God is not a man, but Christ Jesus is a man, then what?

Your foundation is terribly crooked and crumbling. You cannot build off of a poor foundation.


95 posted on 03/22/2006 12:46:21 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye

"But, hey, Paul said 'I am that I am'...so that makes him a double God?"

Paul never said that.


96 posted on 03/22/2006 12:48:38 PM PST by tenn2005 (Birth is merely an event; it is the path walked that becomes one's life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: SoothingDave
The world awaits Eagle Eye's "clear" Scriptural definition of "begotten." Perhaps giraffes can beget hippos.

Tts 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. And yours, it seems, epitomizes foolishness.

97 posted on 03/22/2006 12:49:19 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Eagle Eye
LOL...don't even try the "I am" schtick! Buddy, you really need to study the Bible more than your dogma!

you've preferred the apparently ambiguous texts

LOL. I'm sure the 1st century Hebrews understood the implication of Jesus invoking the unspeakable Name of God. No ambiguity about it at all.

SD

98 posted on 03/22/2006 12:50:07 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005
Paul never said that.

He's thinking of Popeye.

SD

99 posted on 03/22/2006 12:50:44 PM PST by SoothingDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: tenn2005

1Cr 15:10 But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which [was bestowed] upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.

Ok, so it was I am WHAT I am, not THAT...

Happy now?

What are you, about 1 for 25?


100 posted on 03/22/2006 12:52:12 PM PST by Eagle Eye (There ought to be a law against excess legislation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 141-160 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson