The Trinity

[sojourner]

and his quote



what part of that is not man defining his deity??

as well as this tidbit




he made it quite clear man defined his deity.

I don't think he ever used the word "defined." How can we define the indefinable? We can come up with limited constructions, but that doesn't constitute a "definition."

 

[outhouse]

I don't think he ever used the word "defined." How can we define the indefinable? We can come up with limited constructions, but that doesn't constitute a "definition."

please dont pull the imagination excuse

man defined the deity and so far no one has proven otherwise, only confirmed.



you can try to use theology to explain why man defined a deity but that doesnt negate the facts at hand.


"developed" a doctrin is defining it

 

[Desert Snake]

You must've missed the part about "one possible..." the texts are multivalent.

That makes sense...

 

[Desert Snake]

A pretty large indicator that, perhaps, you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to arguing the Trinity...

No, you're just making up theories to suit your beliefs. Which anyone can do. So I'll just leave your "arguments" for someone else to debate.

 

[kepha31]

please dont pull the imagination excuse

man defined the deity and so far no one has proven otherwise, only confirmed.

you can try to use theology to explain why man defined a deity but that doesnt negate the facts at hand.


"developed" a doctrin is defining it

de·fine (d

-f

n

)
v. de·fined, de·fin·ing, de·fines
v.tr. 1. a. To state the precise meaning of (a word or sense of a word, for example).
b. To describe the nature or basic qualities of; explain: define the properties of a new drug; a study that defines people according to their median incomes.

2. a. To delineate the outline or form of: gentle hills that were defined against the sky.
b. To specify distinctly: define the weapons to be used in limited warfare.

3. To give form or meaning to: "For him, a life is defined by action" (Jay Parini).

v.intr.

. To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment: an instructor who develops the capabilities of each student.2. a. To expand or enlarge: developed a national corporation into a worldwide business.
b. To aid in the growth of; strengthen: exercises that develop muscles.
c. To improve the quality of; refine: develops his recipes to perfection; an extra year of study to develop virtuosic technique.

3. a. To cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate: began with a good premise but developed it without imagination.
b. Music To elaborate (a theme) with rhythmic and harmonic variations.

define - definition of define by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
To make or write a definition.
_______________________________________________________________
de·vel·op (d

-v

l

p) v. de·vel·oped, de·vel·op·ing, de·vel·ops
v.tr.. To bring from latency to or toward fulfillment: an instructor who develops the capabilities of each student.
2. a. To expand or enlarge: developed a national corporation into a worldwide business.
b. To aid in the growth of; strengthen: exercises that develop muscles.
c. To improve the quality of; refine: develops his recipes to perfection; an extra year of study to develop virtuosic technique.

3. a. To cause to become more complex or intricate; add detail and fullness to; elaborate: began with a good premise but developed it without imagination.
b. Music To elaborate (a theme) with rhythmic and harmonic variations.
develop - definition of develop by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

By development of doctrine, we mean that some divinely revealed truth
has become more deeply understood and more clearly perceived than it
had been before. Under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, whom Christ
promised to send to teach us, the Church comes to see more deeply
what she had always believed, and the resulting insights find
expression in devotion of the faithful that may have been quite
uncommon in the Church's previous history. The whole spectrum of
Christology... is simply another, though dramatic, example of doctrinal development.

Always implied in such progress is that, objectively, the revealed
truth remains constant and unchanged. But through the light of the
Holy Spirit, the subjective understanding of the truth becomes more
clear, its meaning becomes more certain and its grasp by the
believing mind becomes increasingly more firm.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/homelibr/historea.txt
There is nothing in this explanation (by a prominent catechist) that has anything to do with "defining". According to Outhouse, "define" and "develop" is the same word. It is not. Any dictionary will show they are different words with different meanings.

Outhouse, since you believe there are only man-made truths and no divinely reveal truths, doesn't that make you a relativist?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Prefigured by the Hebrew Scriptures, prepared for by the Prophets, anticipated by the Greeks, the doctrine of the Trinity was delivered by Christ through His life, death, deeds and teachings.

The definition of the Trinity was not an unprovoked event, the fruit of mere speculation, but the blossoming of seeds sewn by Christ during his life. There would be no doctrine of the Trinity had the Son not made Himself- and through Himself, the Father, manifest.

Yes, it was articulated by man,
and so expounded by the Church,
But also sealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

If we must call it man-made, then it was God in man, by way of the God-Man, who accomplished it.

It was guided by the whole content of Revelation in light of the event of Christ, who is, as the first Christians believed, the hermeneutical key to the relationship between God, Israel and the world (the stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone).

You act like we should find the Trinitarian doctrine drawn from scratch (arising from no developments), as though there should be an instance where the doctrine was handed to human beings as though from God's hand on a post-it. Even were that to be so, since you don't believe in God, you would probably just accuse such a person of exceptional creativity.

If you choose to see only human agency, we can not help the faithless. If you see God as man made, you will see all instances of revelation as man made as well as any developments in our understanding of Him. Nothing further can be said.

 

[sojourner]

Prefigured by the Hebrew Scriptures, prepared for by the Prophets, anticipated by the Greeks, the doctrine of the Trinity was delivered by Christ through His life, death, deeds and teachings.

The definition of the Trinity was not an unprovoked event, the fruit of mere speculation, but the blossoming of seeds sewn by Christ during his life. There would be no doctrine of the Trinity had the Son not made Himself- and through Himself, the Father, manifest.

Yes, it was articulated by man,
and so expounded by the Church,
But also sealed and confirmed by the Holy Spirit.

If we must call it man-made, then it was God in man, by way of the God-Man, who accomplished it.

It was guided by the whole content of Revelation in light of the event of Christ, who is, as the first Christian believed, the hermeneutical key to the relationship between God, Israel and the world (the stone which the builders rejected has become the corner stone).

You act like we should find the Trinitarian doctrine drawn from scratch (arising from no developments), as though there should be an instance where the doctrine was handed to human beings as though from God's hand on a post-it. Even were that to be so, since you don't believe in God, you would probably just accuse such a person of exceptional creativity.

If you choose to see only human agency, we can not help the faithless. If you see God as man made, you will see all instances of revelation as man made as well as any developments in our understanding of Him. Nothing further can be said.

Bloody well-said! Frubals.

 

[Shermana]

"Prefigured by the Hebrew scriptures"

- Really? Where?

 

[outhouse]

Prefigured by the Hebrew Scriptures

wrong, dead wrong bud.

you do know ancient hebrews had many gods in their beginning???

prepared for by the Prophets

not one self proclaimed prophet ever prepared anything to do with the trinity

anticipated by the Greeks

LOL

the doctrine of the Trinity was delivered by Christ through His life, death, deeds and teachings.

jesus was a failure as a messiah

he preached the end was near, and it never happened. He failed so bad not one person wrote about him while he was alive.


Anybody who did write about him had ZERO first hand knowledge of him or his teachings. What we have left from his teachings were cherry picked for content and highly edited

The definition of the Trinity was not an unprovoked event

thast right it wasnt a event

but the blossoming of seeds sewn by Christ during his life

I love ya brother,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, but it sounds so rediculous because we dont have anything from jesus that states he is EQUAL to the father. jesus was the son and then we dont know if it was literal or not. We do have a statement though that states jesus is not equal to the father.


There will never be a winner in this arguement because the trinity isnt accepted by many even today. Im sure many a bishop met his end who went against this. Holy blood was spilled over this and in modern times as we know more of the truth about this history, the more the trinity falls into a category of fantasy.

I do appriciate your intellegent conversation

 

[URAVIP2ME]

EQUAL as in Phil [2vs5-9] in the manner of God. Not equal in power but in doing God's work [will] by emptying himself of heavenly life and taking on a servant role so that God would exalt him.
As 1st Cor 2v16 says we do not have the mind of God but we have the mind of Christ.
-John 6vs27-29; 5v17

 

[waitasec]

That translates to 1 x 1 x 1 = 1

I have 1 + 1 + 1 = 3.

I have one apple. I put the apple on the counter and I put the apple in a bag and I eat the apple. I have three instances of the same apple. I do not have three apples.

1x1 is a mirror of it self.
it's one apple...no matter how many ways you slice it.

 

[outhouse]

we live in a culture where we teach our children a imaginary man in a red suit brings presents once a year using magic.

We teach the same children that a a rather large bunny comes around and deliver's colored eggs and puts baskets with candy for them to find.


And they teach them

there was global flood that history says never happened
the world was created in one day
there is a afterlife no one can prove exist
woman came from a rib
A sky daddy watches everything you do


and some try and teach the trinity

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

we live in a culture where we teach our children a imaginary man in a red suit brings presents once a year using magic.

We teach the same children that a a rather large bunny comes around and deliver's colored eggs and puts baskets with candy for them to find.


And they teach them

there was global flood that history says never happened
the world was created in one day
there is a afterlife no one can prove exist
woman came from a rib
A sky daddy watches everything you do


and some try and teach the trinity

And others try to teach that animals, evolved without purpose over millions of years from microbes somehow resultant in the wake of an an undirected, cosmic catastrophe, are, for some unexplainable reason, "inherently equal", endowed with "individuality" and "dignity" along with so called "inalienable rights" (metaphysical claims on par with belief in a soul) enclosed in some kind of "rational" universe and that these animals' societies should never submit themselves to the cruel and barbaric logic of sheer power, being so frequently the beckon call of our inclinations.

You're right, every age does have its stories, even if some of them are wholly anthropocentric, immanent and lacking in any transcendentals. As to why you think the present one should be an exception, I am at a loss.

 

[outhouse]

And others try to teach that animals, evolved without purpose over millions of years from microbes somehow resultant in the wake of an an undirected, cosmic catastrophe, are, for some unexplainable reason, "inherently equal", endowed with "individuality" and "dignity" along with so called "inalienable rights" (metaphysical claims on par with belief in a soul) enclosed in some kind of "rational" universe and that these animals' societies should never submit themselves to the cruel and barbaric logic of sheer power, being so frequently the beckon call of our inclinations.

You're right, every age does have its stories, even if some of them are wholly anthropocentric, immanent and lacking in any transcendentals. As to why you think the present one should be an exception, I am at a loss.

bud, are you trying to state evolution as myth???



nothing personal, but there is no debate when it comes to evolution. It is taught in every major university around the world as higher learning.

creation as taught in the bible is outlawed from public schools, we dont teach our children myths as science anymore.

Now the trinity, that is up for debate and why is beyond me with zero real evidence for it.




a little advise for ya bud, dont bring science to the table when debating a possible myth

 

[outhouse]

The unity of marriage I get. I have no problem with the whole "one flesh" thing. However, the trinity's idea of unity runs deeper than that. For example, no one would ever claim that the husband and wife are the same individual or that the husband can become the wife and vice-versa.

The doctrine of the trinity tells us that the father is god, the son is god, and the spirit is god, yet there is only one god. Perhaps to someone with 'spiritual knowledge' this makes sense. However, to those of us who rely on rationality and common sense, it's a contradiction.

Besides, if the doctrine of the trinity is so clear, the why did the early church fathers feel the need to add the one verse to the Bible that describes it better than any other (1 John 5:7)

Maybe they were worried that 'spiritual knowledge' just wasn't enough, eh?

I like this

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

No I am not saying evolution is a myth. Read me again.

 

[outhouse]

No I am not saying evolution is a myth. Read me again.

hows about in english this time, or atleast a little sentance structure lol

has to be the longest sentence ive read, looks like something id write lol

 

[jtartar]

1+1+1=1? or 1+1+1=3 or 1+1+1= something else?

Atruthseeker,
I believe that there is only ONE authority on religious questions, The Bible!!!
I cannot put down all the information about The Trinity, becuae every time I try to tell people what the Bible says, STAFF erases my post.
I will list several scriptures that deal with the Trinity and you make up your own mind.
Consider John 3:16, 6:57, 14:28, 20:17, Acts 13:28-37. Col 1:15, Rev 3:14.
Dan 7:13,14, Rev 5:6,7, Eph 1:20, Acts 2:23,24, 7:55,56.
Matt 3:13,16,17, Mark 9:7, John 12:28.
Matt 16:13-17, 20:23, 24:36, 26:39, John 5:30, 6:38.
Heb 2:9, Acts 3:13,26, 4:27,30, Heb 3:1.
Deut 6:4, Zech 14:9, Gal 3:20, John 8:17,18.
I could go on and on, but this should be enough, if you believe the Bible.

 

[waitasec]

was jesus apart of the decision for the flood, since he is a part of the trinity?
iow, did he know he would have to sacrifice himself anyway?

 

[sojourner]

jesus was a failure as a messiah

Only according to the standards of a religion wherein military might was more important than spiritual formation.

he preached the end was near, and it never happened.

How so?

He failed so bad not one person wrote about him while he was alive.

The fact that nothing was written about him during his lifetime is a greater indication of a largely oral culture than is his failure. We know that stories were circulated about him less than ten years after the crucifixion.

What we have left from his teachings were cherry picked for content and highly edited

Opinion. And baseless.

thast right it wasnt a event

It was a process.

but it sounds so rediculous because we dont have anything from jesus that states he is EQUAL to the father.

So?

We do have a statement though that states jesus is not equal to the father.

You're forgetting that Jesus was also fully human, which would place him under the Father.

There will never be a winner in this arguement because the trinity isnt accepted by many even today.

It's accepted by the vast majority of Xy.