Christians:Is The Trinity Truly Biblical(A Separate Thread) (Jesus, priest)

[Jeremy Mason]

All this talk about St. Patrick is getting me thirsty.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by Starfish

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, because you seem to agree with me, then maybe not?
Your example of the family is exactly right. We are one unit, yet separate beings. The Godhead is even more united because they always completely agree with each other, as if they were of one mind, as one god. Yet they are separate beings.

Simple to understand.

"One flesh" does not indicate a multiplicity of beings. It indicates one being.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying: That the family unit is one being -- one flesh -- with two or more separate persons. The Trinity is much the same.

[sojourner]

[quote=uss_bigd;1120569]Christ is in the bible, his teachings are in there and the verses that i read came from him. so, what kind of a question is that?


[quote=sojourner;1120226]Everything you say comes from yourself, since you process what you read through your own mind, and assign meaning to it. Who are you trying to kid?

When paul "said keep to what is written" and St patrick is not written in the bible.
and i say patrick is not an apostle becasue he is not in the bible, how is that argument an assignment from an own mind?

Do you have another interpretation to the Paul instruction which is to "keep to which what is written?"

Are you going to say that the instrution "keep to what is written" mean using those that are not written as reference?

Who are you trying to kid?

The Bible is the witness of the Church, for the Church. It is fallible, because it was written by humans. In fact, every understanding we have of God is human and, threfore, incomplete and fallible. One can't just say, "This is the word of God" and mean it in an absolute way. That's not what the Bible was intended to be by its authors -- that's not how we should treat it.

By saying, "keep to what is written," Paul means that we should adhere to the writings (his own letters were probably not what he meant by "what is written, BTW). But he didn't mean that our understanding or allegiance should be limited only to what is written. Remember, this was largely an oral society, passing along information, not by written account, but by verbal account. Therefore, Patrick, being in the same authoritative succession as Paul, should be listened to as one who has authority...because he does, just as Paul does.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

You are assigning you own interpretation. as far as who is an apostle.

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 4:9
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.

Do you interpret "last" as if it would mean someone will come next?

Your st patrick did not live until 400 AD.

No, I'm not. It is the consensus of the Church. Patrick was born into a Christian family somewhere ont he nothwest coast of Britain in about 390. When he was about 21, he tells us that he took holy orders as both presbyter and bishop. (Lesser Feasts and Fasts, 1994, The church Hymnal Corp., NY)

All bishops are consecrated in the apostolic succession, meaning that they carry the same authority as the original 12. It's always been this way. James, the brother of Jesus, was the bishop of Jerusalem, for Pete's sake. I can't help it if you choose to ignore this tradition of the Church, as it was maintained by the apostles, and has been maintained by the apostles, ever since. That's your problem, not mine.

Paul meant that the apostles were "last" in terms of place, not in terms of time. Read it in context.

[sojourner]

Originally Posted by uss_bigd

Michel, you are opening a can of worms on your part.

first, my preacher's name is not suppose to be in the bible, but he reads the bible and preaches everything in it. He get's persecuted by our government becasue of it.

Which reminds me, "the servent is not greater than his master, if i was persecuted and so will you" so, the name of my preacher is not in the bible, but the state of his life is.The state of our church is very much in the bible as well.

Second, the name of my church is in the bible, because we associated ourselves with the church that is written. CAN YOU FIND "THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHRUCH ANYWHERE IN THE BIBLE?"

If you do not believe in what is written in the bible you are not Christian. You have evaded the verses i have presented to you, and resorted to personal attacks. dont attack personalities. let us focus on doctrine. and chrsitian doctrine is the bible.

The Christ you claim to believe is in the bible. so, who do you really beleive? St patrick?

You're so far off base, it's pathetic. First of all, Roman Catholic Church isn't a name, it's a descriptor. Ask any Catholic. They'll tell you that they're a member of "the Church."

You don't associate yourselves with the "Church that is written," or you would acssociate yourselves with the Church that recognizes the succession of bishops.

None of this is important to the argument at hand. Fact is, the Trinity is ancient -- as ancient as the NT writers. They incorporated that theology into their writings, implicitly, but not explicitly. It is that implicit theology that later apostles drew out of the scriptures and made explicit in the doctrine of the Trinity.

As you said, "Christian doctrine is in the Bible," as the Trinity certainly is implied. "If you do not believe what is written in the Bible, you are not Christian."

[Wandered Off]

* * * * * * * * * * STAFF ADVISORY * * * * * * * * * *

Some comments throughout the thread are starting to get personal. Please help keep the topic on the ideas and not those presenting them.

Thanks for your cooperation!

[Starfish]

Originally Posted by sojourner

"One flesh" does not indicate a multiplicity of beings. It indicates one being.

I think you misunderstood what I was saying: That the family unit is one being -- one flesh -- with two or more separate persons. The Trinity is much the same.

OK, now I'm confused. I guess I don't understand your concept of the trinity. How do you define it exactly; and is it possible to explain it in non-vague terms so that I can understand you?
Doesn't the trinity mean that they are NOT separate? Thanks.