Is Silence Acceptance?

[Phil 1:21]

I'm confused. How can I be cherry-picking scripture -and- not have a single citation sans one vague reference to the Sermon on the Mount?

Very simple. You are referencing what you think it says in one place to support your ideas (without actual citation) while disregarding what it actually does say. You’ve put forth a lot of claims, but are unable to substantiate them.

 

[zephcom]

Very simple. You are referencing what you think it says in one place to support your ideas (without actual citation) while disregarding what it actually does say. You’ve put forth a lot of claims, but are unable to substantiate them.

And how is that cherry picking?

 

[A_Thinker]

It was, eventually, defeated in favor of the Trinity God which is a single God with multiple personalities.

Actually, the teaching of the Trinity is of One God ... consisting of multiple (i.e. three) Persons.

Trinitarians believers believers God is three PERSONS, ... that make up one GOD, which is UNITED (i.e. ONE) in character and purpose.

Jesus, Himself, referred to the glory He had with the Father ... before the Creation ...

The language of the Bible particularly supports the idea that there is a true Father-Son relationship between the Father and Jesus.

But it also clearly makes the case that Jesus is inferior to the Father and willingly makes Himself subject to the Father.

I subject myself to my father, and that doesn't make me inferior to him.

 

[Phil 1:21]

And how is that cherry picking?

The same way water is wet.

 

[zephcom]

Actually, the teaching of the Trinity is of One God ... consisting of multiple (i.e. three) Persons.

Trinitarians believers believers God is three PERSONS, ... that make up one GOD, which is UNITED (i.e. ONE) in character and purpose.

Jesus, Himself, referred to the glory He had with the Father ... before the Creation ...

The language of the Bible particularly supports the idea that there is a true Father-Son relationship between the Father and Jesus.

For the sake of reference, here is how the Trinity is defined in the Wikipedia reference on the Christian Trinity:

"According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Council of the Lateran declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds");[9] and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire."

The reference for that quote is: Coppens, Charles, S.J. (1903). A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion. St. Louis: B. HERDER.

Your discussion of what you found in the Bible and your analogy does not comply with this. Your understanding can be made to fit the co-equal, co-eternal (possibly) and consubstantial but what it isn't is 'each is God, whole and entire'.

Using your analogy, you as a Harris are NOT your father whole and entire. And that is the difference between polytheism and monotheism.

I also inserted (possibly) under co-eternal because one of the arguments at the Council of Nicea against the trinity is that Jesus is declared in the Bible as 'begotten' which means He had a beginning. If Jesus had a beginning...even if that beginning was before the earth existed...He isn't 'co-eternall' to the Father.

And, as you point out, the Bible is clear there is a true father/son relationship between Jesus and the Father. For that to exist requires time to exist. A son does not appear at the exact same time as the father appears in a true father/son relationship.

I subject myself to my father, and that doesn't make me inferior to him.

Actually, it does. By subjecting yourself to your father you accept his superior status and your inferior status. It is the same between you and your son. You don't consider your son as an equal even when your son reaches majority and even if you both think and feel the same. You will always remain his father and if necessary you can assert that superiority.

It is just the nature of parent/child.

 

[A_Thinker]

For the sake of reference, here is how the Trinity is defined in the Wikipedia reference on the Christian Trinity:

"According to this central mystery of most Christian faiths, there is only one God in three persons: while distinct from one another in their relations of origin (as the Fourth Council of the Lateran declared, "it is the Father who generates, the Son who is begotten, and the Holy Spirit who proceeds");[9] and in their relations with one another, they are stated to be one in all else, co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial, and each is God, whole and entire."

The reference for that quote is: Coppens, Charles, S.J. (1903). A Systematic Study of the Catholic Religion. St. Louis: B. HERDER.

Your discussion of what you found in the Bible and your analogy does not comply with this. Your understanding can be made to fit the co-equal, co-eternal (possibly) and consubstantial but what it isn't is 'each is God, whole and entire'.

Using your analogy, you as a Harris are NOT your father whole and entire. And that is the difference between polytheism and monotheism.

The definition of the Trinity that I operate from is stated below ...

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3–4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays? The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.

For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), he cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son

So ... the Son, for example, is fully God (i.e. He has all of the qualities necessary for Godhood, ... but He is not the WHOLE of God), as there are (2) other Persons required to complete the WHOLE Godhead (i.e. family).

In the same way, I possess ALL of the qualities necessary to identify as "Harris", ... but I am not the WHOLE of Harris, ... as there are other persons who complete the whole Harris family.

A_Thinker said: I subject myself to my father, and that doesn't make me inferior to him.

zephcom said: Actually, it does. By subjecting yourself to your father you accept his superior status and your inferior status. It is the same between you and your son. You don't consider your son as an equal even when your son reaches majority and even if you both think and feel the same. You will always remain his father and if necessary you can assert that superiority.

Actually ... no. My subjection of myself to my father is not based upon any REAL inferiority (from a human standpoint) to my father. It is entirely based upon MY CHOICE to subject myself ... or not. This is clearly evidenced by those sons who choose NOT to subject themselves to their fathers.

In addition, most christians believe that God exists and operates OUTSIDE of our dimensions of TIME and SPACE. Therefore, for the Father to have a Son does not invalidate that they cannot be co-eternal, particularly from our perspective. Their Father-Son relationship need not mirror ALL of the qualities of the father-son relationship we experience.

 

[zephcom]

The definition of the Trinity that I operate from is stated below ...

The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons — the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Philippians 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3–4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays? The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons.

For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), he cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son

So ... the Son, for example, is fully God (i.e. He has all of the qualities necessary for Godhood, ... but He is not the WHOLE of God), as there are (2) other Persons required to complete the WHOLE Godhead (i.e. family).

In the same way, I possess ALL of the qualities necessary to identify as "Harris", ... but I am not the WHOLE of Harris, ... as there are other persons who complete the whole Harris family.

I reserve the ability to question the quality of your references concerning the qualifications to be God of the each of the three persons. But for the sake of the current question...is the Trinity found in the Bible...they are not germane.

Let's agree that the somewhere in the Bible the Father, The Son and the Holy Spirit is referenced as 'God'. At this point we have, at least, threes entities referred to as God. Each of these you declare to be distinct persons and fully God in their own being.

At this point we have three fully functioning and distinct Gods. That is polytheism.

Then you proceed to combine these fully function and distinct Gods into a single 'family' and declare that the real one God is actually that family. But you don't provide a Bible reference that gives you the authority to make that jump from fully functioning and distinct Gods to the one 'God' which is the family grouping.

You don't provide that reference because it doesn't exist. That is why I say the concept of the Trinity does not exist in the Bible.

The concept of three fully functioning and distinct Gods may well exist in the Bible but not the Trinity as either of us have defined it.

Actually ... no. My subjection of myself to my father is not based upon any REAL inferiority (from a human standpoint) to my father. It is entirely based upon MY CHOICE to subject myself ... or not. This is clearly evidenced by those sons who choose NOT to subject themselves to their fathers.

In addition, most christians believe that God exists and operates OUTSIDE of our dimensions of TIME and SPACE. Therefore, for the Father to have a Son does not invalidate that they cannot be co-eternal, particularly from our perspective. Their Father-Son relationship need not mirror ALL of the qualities of the father-son relationship we experience.

Whether you choose to subject yourself or not doesn't change the fact that when one being is subjected to another there exists a superior/inferior relationship. They are no longer equals.

But lets look at the actual passage from 1 Corinthians 15. There does seem to be possible differences in how translations deal with this passage. First let's look at the NIV:

"28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all."

And now The Message:

"When everything and everyone is finally under God’s rule, the Son will step down, taking his place with everyone else, showing that God’s rule is absolutely comprehensive—a perfect ending!"

Note that in the NIV, The Son is forced to become subject to the entity who put everything under the Son.

In The Message, The Son voluntarily steps down...all the way down to the level of everyone else...to show that God's rule is absolute.

In both cases, the Son is absolutely not being treated as a fully functioning God.

 

[A_Thinker]

The concept of three fully functioning and distinct Gods may well exist in the Bible but not the Trinity as either of us have defined it.

There is deduction to my view of the Trinity from what is offered in the Bible (i.e. every detail is not entirely spelled out), but the basic building blocks are there. The Church acknowledges that the explanation of the Trinity is not completely spelled out, which is why it considers it to be somewhat of a mystery.

You very well may come to a different conclusion. Different christians have drawn differing conclusions over the course of 2,000 years.

Fortunately, completely accurate knowledge of the nature of God is not necessary to follow Christ. In fact, a correlated view only became possible once all of the writings of the Canon were available together. Early christians only had portions of what is compiled into the Bible today.

For such early christians, and for christians till now, all that is necessary is for persons to commit to following Christ and His teachings, the core of which was love of God, ... and love of one's fellowman.

 

[zephcom]

There is deduction to my view of the Trinity from what is offered in the Bible (i.e. every detail is not entirely spelled out), but the basic building blocks are there. The Church acknowledges that the explanation of the Trinity is not completely spelled out, which is why it considers it to be somewhat of a mystery.

You very well may come to a different conclusion. Different christians have drawn differing conclusions over the course of 2,000 years.

Fortunately, completely accurate knowledge of the nature of God is not necessary to follow Christ. In fact, a correlated view only became possible once all of the writings of the Canon were available together. Early christians only had portions of what is compiled into the Bible today.

For such early christians, and for christians till now, all that is necessary is for persons to commit to following Christ and His teachings, the core of which was love of God, ... and love of one's fellowman.

Which is pretty much where I am now, all that is necessary is for persons to commit to following Jesus and His teachings and the Trinity is not Biblical.

Thanks for the discussion. I enjoyed it very much.