Another look at the Trinity.

[Hoghead1]

Then we're looking at it differently. I think a single-character substitution error is about as minor as it gets.


Imo a single-character transcription error wins in terms of likelihood, since such errors are common.


I no longer use the word 'inerrant' because it means different things to different people, and because some of the definitions become soooo complicated. What matters to me this this: how confident can I be that the message I am reading is the one the authors wrote? And in this case my confidence is high that 2 Sam 21:19 originally said that Elhanan killed Goliath's brother. And my reasons are these:

• Such an explanation is consistent with the rest of Samuel and with Chronicles.
• The word 'brother' could've been dropped from 2 Sam 21:19 with only a single-character substitution (and the two characters are even similar!).

Minor? Are y u kidding? If I said someone killed someone else when they didn't, that is no minor error, that could be taken as a slander. Inerrancy means that the way the Bible describes things as happening is exactly the way they did. Inerrancy means without error. Hence, if you take 2 Sam. 21:19 to be a scribal error, then no, Scripture is obviously not inerrant. And was just a scribal error? Fumy, it was never caught. They were extremely thorough in checking for errors. I suspicion there is more to the death of Goliath than the David cult let on.

 

[ChetSinger]

Minor? Are y u kidding? If I said someone killed someone else when they didn't, that is no minor error, that could be taken as a slander.

That's what I meant by the two of us "looking at it differently". You're looking at the literary result of the mistake, which is the reassignment of responsibility for someone's death. I agree that isn't minor. But I'm looking as a textual critic at the mechanics of the mistake itself, which is a single-character substitution and is about as minor as such mistakes get.

Inerrancy means without error. Hence, if you take 2 Sam. 21:19 to be a scribal error, then no, Scripture is obviously not inerrant.

As I said, I don't use the word "inerrant" in discussions because its definition isn't agreed upon by all. Myself, I believe the originals were inspired by God and that he remains involved in the Bible's preservation to this day.

And was just a scribal error? Fumy, it was never caught. They were extremely thorough in checking for errors. I suspicion there is more to the death of Goliath than the David cult let on.

As the NET footnote indicated, Samuel contains a number of known mistakes and is believed to be a poorly-preserved book. So because I usually choose what I think is the more likely solution, I'll choose an erroneously-copied letter before I believe that Elhanan killed Goliath and there is large-scale purposeful corruption in both Samuel and Chronicles. It's not a difficult decision for me.

 

[thankfulttt]

I changed the subject? How, by asking how the thread is on topic?
Because

Your reading comprehension deficiency is causing problems yet again.

Are you searching for truth? Because if you are you need to look at the five sources of the credibility of truth and see if God meets them.

1. Pragmatic-----Does God exists in reality rather than just theory? Is their always a designer attached to a design?

2. Experiential---Have you experienced God, or observed his magnificent designs?

3. Cosmic--------Did the Universe always exist, or did it come into being?

4. Historical------When did man first acknowledge God? What book has out sold the Bible through the ages.

5. Community---Would you be questioning the existence of God if your surrounding community did not acknowledge Him?

 

[Hoghead1]

That's what I meant by the two of us "looking at it differently". You're looking at the literary result of the mistake, which is the reassignment of responsibility for someone's death. I agree that isn't minor. But I'm looking as a textual critic at the mechanics of the mistake itself, which is a single-character substitution and is about as minor as such mistakes get.


As I said, I don't use the word "inerrant" in discussions because its definition isn't agreed upon by all. Myself, I believe the originals were inspired by God and that he remains involved in the Bible's preservation to this day.


As the NET footnote indicated, Samuel contains a number of known mistakes and is believed to be a poorly-preserved book. So because I usually choose what I think is the more likely solution, I'll choose an erroneously-copied letter before I believe that Elhanan killed Goliath and there is large-scale purposeful corruption in both Samuel and Chronicles. It's not a difficult decision for me.[/Q

I use the word "inerrant" because I find it does have a distinct, definite meaning, in addition to being a common term used to express one's view about the Bible. I have no idea where you are getting all these other meanings from. Also, most scholars assume 2 Sam. is a simple scribal error. However, as I said, I am not so sure. I am convinced David had puff pieces written about him to cover his tracks.

 

[anatolian]

I have recently come to look at the Trinity from another angle.

...

Does this make sense to anyone?

Trinity from any angle doesnt make any sense to me.

 

[thankfulttt]

Trinity from any angle doesnt make any sense to me.

Can you comprehend how someone could design a human body as complex as it is? I know I can't. But I see the human body, and I know that there has to be a designer. If we can't comprehend a Spirit that had no beginning and no end, then none of us fully understand how that Spirit could send out his own word, and then manifest that word in the flesh. But we can know that the Bible clearly makes that statement. I believe it because I believe the Bible. I believe the Bible because I do not believe man has the capability to write it on their own. I also believe it because God's Spirit communicated to my spirit. Thus you have a Trinity in the form of a Spirit that sends out his word as a communication to our flesh, and that same Spirit sending his spirit to communicate with our spirit. The sender and the two witnesses.

 

[Hoghead1]

Can you comprehend how someone could design a human body as complex as it is? I know I can't. But I see the human body, and I know that there has to be a designer. If we can't comprehend a Spirit that had no beginning and no end, then none of us fully understand how that Spirit could send out his own word, and then manifest that word in the flesh. But we can know that the Bible clearly makes that statement. I believe it because I believe the Bible. I believe the Bible because I do not believe man has the capability to write it on their own. I also believe it because God's Spirit communicated to my spirit. Thus you have a Trinity in the form of a Spirit that sends out his word as a communication to our flesh, and that same Spirit sending his spirit to communicate with our spirit. The sender and the two witnesses.

OK, but what exactly is your take on the Trinity?

 

[thankfulttt]

OK, but what exactly is your take on the Trinity?

I believe the Trinity is as simple as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And it is as complex as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

Both the Word and the Holy Ghost emanated from the Father. They are the Father's way of communicating with us. Both physically and spiritually. Hope this is understandable.

 

[Hoghead1]

I believe the Trinity is as simple as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost. And it is as complex as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost.

Both the Word and the Holy Ghost emanated from the Father. They are the Father's way of communicating with us. Both physically and spiritually. Hope this is understandable.

Are you assuming the members of the Trinity are separate, unique personalities, or what?

 

[thankfulttt]

Are you assuming the members of the Trinity are separate, unique personalities, or what?

No, but the problem for me arises when the Word is manifested in the flesh. Christ had his own mind, and yet he always yielded to the Father.

The Trinity is simple to define before the manifestation, in the flesh, of Jesus. I do not pretend to fully comprehend how Jesus is both God and man, but I do believe it.

 

[Hoghead1]

No, but the problem for me arises when the Word is manifested in the flesh. Christ had his own mind, and yet he always yielded to the Father.

The Trinity is simple to define before the manifestation, in the flesh, of Jesus. I do not pretend to fully comprehend how Jesus is both God and man, but I do believe it.

Yes, that is a problem. The NT does present Christ as subordinate to the Father, which suggests that the Father is the Boss of Bosses, strictly speaking, with the Son and Spirit being lesser divine beings sent to do his bidding.

 

[thankfulttt]

Yes, that is a problem. The NT does present Christ as subordinate to the Father, which suggests that the Father is the Boss of Bosses, strictly speaking, with the Son and Spirit being lesser divine beings sent to do his bidding.

If you compare your own words as being a part of who you are and relate it to the Word of God it helps. Your words are subservient in that you determine their potential. Words can be more deadly than a sword. Your words are who you are. They proclaim your image. I would never say God's words are less divine than He Himself. God is a spirit. and when He sends His Spirit out that Spirit is no less than Himself.

 

[Hoghead1]

If you compare your own words as being a part of who you are and relate it to the Word of God it helps. Your words are subservient in that you determine their potential. Words can be more deadly than a sword. Your words are who you are. They proclaim your image. I would never say God's words are less divine than He Himself. God is a spirit. and when He sends His Spirit out that Spirit is no less than Himself.

Makes sense. But, and this is a big "but," are you personifying God's words? Or are you assuming the Son and Spirit are ways God has of being God? In other words, are you assuming teh Son is a separate personality form that of the Father? If so, how is this anything other than tritheism?

 

[thankfulttt]

Makes sense. But, and this is a big "but," are you personifying God's words? Or are you assuming the Son and Spirit are ways God has of being God? In other words, are you assuming teh Son is a separate personality form that of the Father? If so, how is this anything other than tritheism?

Jesus said,(John 10:30) "I and my Father are one." The Father said,(Acts13:33/Hebrews 1:5) "This day have I begotten thee". There is only one God. Jesus said,(John 14:9) "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Jesus was born with his own will, and own mind, but he chose for that mind and will to be the same as the Father's. This is what we were meant to be, but we fall short.

 

[Hoghead1]

Jesus said,(John 10:30) "I and my Father are one." The Father said,(Acts13:33/Hebrews 1:5) "This day have I begotten thee". There is only one God. Jesus said,(John 14:9) "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father."
Jesus was born with his own will, and own mind, but he chose for that mind and will to be the same as the Father's. This is what we were meant to be, but we fall short.

How, then, do you tell them apart? Also, would you allow for the Father to sufferer and change, as Jesus did?

 

[thankfulttt]

How, then, do you tell them apart? Also, would you allow for the Father to sufferer and change, as Jesus did?

Are we not made up of body, mind, and soul? How would you distinctly define them? Do they each perform the same tasks? Do they each have their own personality? Don't we identify as a singular person? God has made man in his own image.

I apologize if this reply does not satisfy your questions, but I don't know how else to answer.

 

[Hoghead1]

Are we not made up of body, mind, and soul? How would you distinctly define them? Do they each perform the same tasks? Do they each have their own personality? Don't we identify as a singular person? God has made man in his own image.

I apologize if this reply does not satisfy your questions, but I don't know how else to answer.

OK, you are using a psychological model of the trinity, whereby God is one personality, not three.

 

[thankfulttt]

OK, you are using a psychological model of the trinity, whereby God is one personality, not three.

I wouldn't use the term psychological model. I believe the body has its own literal personality. Don't we fight a warfare between the spirit and the flesh?

In the beginning was the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity. In John 1 we read that the Word was God and was made flesh, thus we have the only begotten Son. All one God.

I don't believe our minds are capable of fully understanding a Spirit who had no beginning, and who created all things.

 

[Hoghead1]

I wouldn't use the term psychological model. I believe the body has its own literal personality. Don't we fight a warfare between the spirit and the flesh?

In the beginning was the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit. This is the Trinity. In John 1 we read that the Word was God and was made flesh, thus we have the only begotten Son. All one God.

I don't believe our minds are capable of fully understanding a Spirit who had no beginning, and who created all things.

Warfare between Spirit and flesh? No. That's a dualistic view, which isn't biblical. Sin isn't flesh, sin is insensitivity.
Moving on. Are you saying you do hold with a psychological model, just exclude the body?

 

[thankfulttt]

Warfare between Spirit and flesh? No. That's a dualistic view, which isn't biblical. Sin isn't flesh, sin is insensitivity.
Moving on. Are you saying you do hold with a psychological model, just exclude the body?

You see no battle between the flesh and the spirit? Read Romans 8:1-15 The lust of the flesh and the pride of life is sin.

1 John 2:16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.

In the medical world there is no difference between the psychological model and the physical model, but no, I am not saying that I hold a psychological model and am excluding the physical model.

I am saying God is our Father who sent two forms of communication to man. One is the Word which became clothed in flesh, and the other is God's spirit. That adds up to three.