Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Engaging your intellect is essential in understanding Scripture. It dos not at all mean you are trying to put yourself above God. Again, the problem is that the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out. That's the reason for all the later Trinitarian formulas.scripture speaks of father, son and holy spirit. man has condensed this to 'the trinity' . as for theologies or ideologies or any other concept that seeks to raise mans intellect above the scripture, they are inerrant. unlike scripture. if we aer truly seeking the Lord, and truly attempting to understand the written word of God, it makes sense to put any over intellectualising to one side. the scriptures were not written to be the sole prize of the intellectual elitists. . they were written to reach the hearts and minds of any mortal who would seek to know the lord. we have to put aside our intellectual blockagesand pride if we are to appreciate the meaning of scripture. it is not intended to be understood by a few elite, but to be fed upon by the spiritually hungry. again, i see no cause to dispute the scriptural passages that refer to what some people in christianity now call the trinity. as i stated earlier, it is merely a matter of semantics, and they need not prevent us from absorbing and understanding an original truth.
I'm not sure what this "diversity of concepts" means here. I do know the Bible is not a work in systematic theology or metaphysics. It tells us very little about how God is actually built. We get snap shots that often conflict. For example, in many passages God is presented as immutable, whereas many others speak of God as changing. It's up to us, the readers, to piece all this together.There's no diversity of concepts within the book. The diversity of concepts come from outside the book while not properly exegeting the book.
The Bible isn't that clear, that's the problem. There are many ambiguities in Scripture here. Remember, the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture to support their position. Others used the Bible to deny the Deity of the Spirit.hi colter. i see no reason whatsoever to dispute the biblical teaching regarding the three in one nature of our Lord. it is not merely a concept, but a grounded biblical teaching. i do not understand how it has been such a topic for debate when the bible passages are clear about this teaching. father, son and holy spirit.
personally, i have never experienced any problem at all in accepting and understanding the father, son and holy spirit as taught in scripture. it is so tragic how divisions and schisms have developed over such innocuous parts of scripture. for some people, such disagreements become a severe stumbling block to their faith, and it can deny them years of meaningful friendship with God. this is tragic, needless and pointless. since when was being a 'trinitarian' or 'anti trinitarian' ever a requirement to be received into the love of Jesus? perhaps if we all just agreed to agree on what scripture actually says, instead of bickering about its possible interpretations, we would make far better progress.The Bible isn't that clear, that's the problem. There are many ambiguities in Scripture here. Remember, the anti-Trinitarians also used Scripture to support their position. Others used the Bible to deny the Deity of the Spirit.
i didnt say we are to disengage out intellects. i said that it is important to have our intellects in their rightful place. scripture should ALWAYS be approached with a humble and seeking and grateful manner. when we over utilise our intellect to the expense of our common sense and our hearts, we make scripture null and void.Engaging your intellect is essential in understanding Scripture. It dos not at all mean you are trying to put yourself above God. Again, the problem is that the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out. That's the reason for all the later Trinitarian formulas.
Not at all. In fact the old adage holds true that there's nothing new under the sun and that these concepts that come from the Bible have been around every since the Bible has. The point is that there is a majority consensus and opinion that is paramount in all these issues and what I express is that consensus of opinion based on my own 45 years having studied the Bible.As you see it, your way is the only right way. Their are many other people with many other ways who see their way as the only right way.
His argument is no different than the argument of the cube. It is meant to convey that three separate and distinct planes of existence can come into one reality. It's an example or an analogy, and it's not meant to satisfy what apparently is something that is not satisfiable to you.You have yet to explain clearly what your x-z argument above has to do with the Trinity.Your question shows you have not paid attention to what I posted. I think maybe you are touching on a point I made that some argue the "one" God is due to the fact all three persons share the same nature, divinity or Deity. I then simply pointed out, this still gives us three gods, which is precisely what it does.
What points? Maybe I missed them? What post were they in? Do you think that there's any scholarly language sample explain the Trinity any better than the common English vernacular can? If that's the case then why don't you 'splain that for us?Sorry, but you have failed to address my points and show me where ins the "one" God. You have simply proposed a lay version of teh social theory of teh Trinity and then said well, but there is only one God, without explaining how that is anything other than contradictory.
If you are talking about 1Jn., you are referring to the johannie comma, which is not at all found in early Bibles. It is a later insert by later Trinitarian thinkers. Also, In Paul, Son and Spirit appear to be used the exact, same way. So, how are they different?
Because those who identify them and understand them are trying to convey them to people that are spiritually ill prepared to receive them. It is also apparent from my perspective that those who can't receive what the Bible says are usually indicative of those who have never received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, who helps us to understand complex issues like these. There is no harm in trying to make people understand. There is only harm and those who refuse to understand.No, we don't have a solid description of the Trinity from Scripture. That is why the Trinitarian formulations are extra-biblical in nature. The problem is that the Bible implies a Trinity, but does not work it out. Because of ambiguities in the biblical accounts, anti-Trinitarian people also use Scripture.
No, it really does not work. It is a version of the Trinity unique to you, certainly not the world of major Trinitarian thought. The reason is that it does not even begin to make any real sense. It's like saying Jane x Pat x Sally = something. But what? An apple x an orange x a pear = What?It actually does work in math, so you explain why it doesn't work in terms of the Trinity.
Oh, and what, pray tell, is your test?It would be impossible for me to know all who do 'rightly divide the word of Truth', but I can tell you that when I've encountered them I know who they are. It's all a matter of testing the spirits at that point.
So God is an inanimate object like a cube? Also, it now appears you are arguing that the three are part of some larger, al-inclusive whole that transcends any one of them. OK, fine. What do you call that whole? Meta-God?His argument is no different than the argument of the cube. It is meant to convey that three separate and distinct planes of existence can come into one reality. It's an example or an analogy, and it's not meant to satisfy what apparently is something that is not satisfiable to you.
No, it really does not work. It is a version of the Trinity unique to you, certainly not the world of major Trinitarian thought. The reason is that it does not even begin to make any real sense. It's like saying Jane x Pat x Sally = something. But what? An apple x an orange x a pear = What?
Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking for an explanation about how my comment doesn't hold up to solid grammatical rules? Here is a popular online source for such rules: http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp Here is a list of their grammar rules.Just what I said. You're making assumptions in the grammar that don't hold up under solid grammatical rules. The context shows exactly what is being conveyed in this scripture. I would have absolutely no idea about what the disciples were thinking but I do know what they were being instructed about and what they said. The point is you don't read scripture based on what the thought process would have been of the people mentioned because the inspiration of God supersedes any human thought process. The kingdom of God is a spiritual realm where God rules in individual hearts. The Kingdom of Heaven is similar and is only used by Matthew.
No, and you shouldn't be comparing geometrical figures to persons, either.Not at all, because I learned it off of somebody else who made it that clear to me. I've never had an issue with believing in the Trinity the only issue I have ever had was conveying it to others and I find that they Cube analogy does it best. Of course I wasn't dealing with people who were predisposed to argue everything. So you're telling me that geometry doesn't make any sense? Does length x width x height not equal one Cube?
I do agree with one part of your analogy.... you shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges.
Perhaps I was unclear. I am asking for an explanation about how my comment doesn't hold up to solid grammatical rules? Here is a popular online source for such rules: http://www.grammarbook.com/english_rules.asp Here is a list of their grammar rules.
Finding Nouns, Verbs, and Subjects
Subject-Verb Agreement
Clauses and Phrases
Pronouns
Who vs. Whom
Whoever vs. Whomever
Who, That, Which
Adjectives and Adverbs
Prepositions
Effective Writing
Where can a person find these rules of grammar that you're proposing?
I'm not, it's an analogy. You're the one that's comparing geometrical figures to God who by the way is not a person accept as Jesus Christ.No, and you shouldn't be comparing geometrical figures to persons, either.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?