Trinitarian Arguments

[nPeace]

Take care @Unveiled Artist. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Vouthon]

Thanks.
Let me see if I get the basics of what you believe.
God is three persons - father, son, and holy spirit. Correct?

God is one essence in three persons, yes but remember: 'person' here means something very different from our modern understanding. St. Thomas Aquinas's definition of divine personhood is very precise: "The Son is a subsisting person by virtue of his relation [namely, filiation]: for his relation is his characteristic personhood" (sua enim relatio est sua personalitas).”

These three persons are one mind - not distinct. Your basis for believing that is, for one thing, John 5:19. Correct?

They constitute in themselves and conceived abstractly as to the essence which person each Is, only one single divine Mind in three distinct instantations of that self-same being, yes.

These three persons are distinct only by 'relation' - that is, the father is not the son, and the holy spirit is neither. Correct?

Correct, distinct only in terms of 'relation' or relatively, whereas in the absolute sense they are one (God conceived as He is to Himself is three relations of the same essence, whereas in Himself He is one essence and each of the three Persons just is that one God entirely with all of His attributes, both distinctly and together without parts or divisions).

If all the above are correct, I have a few questions.
Can you explain?
1) How are they related?

In themselves, they are but the one divine nature and essence. To themselves, they are 'related' by subsisting relations of origin: the Father is Father because He eternally (in a perpetual and unceasing 'present' beyond time) generates the Son by begetting a 'mental' self-image of His own being as an object, the Son is Son because He is intellectually begotten (in a perpetual and unceasing 'present' beyond time) of the Father and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit because He 'proceeds' from the Father and Son's mutual love by 'spiration' as the bond of love between them.

Without the 'relations' there are no Persons, because what defines the 'personhood' of the persons are their relations: they are these subsisting relations.

So, we are discussing here the 'three' distinct subsisting relations by which the one God relates to and knows Himself. And this is all taking place in the 'inner life' of God (i.e. unlike the Sabellian modalist heresy, it is not just 'how' God appears in relation to us His creatures, rather these 'distictions' are actually real in God although 'relatively' speaking).

2) How was the son begotten?

By intellectual generation, like how we would conceive a 'mental image' inside our minds of ourselves and delight in 'knowing' ourselves in that self-image that we have 'generated'. However in God, this 'process' is not an 'accident' but essential to His being: so the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are real (not just imaginery as they would be in our heads), distinct objects of the one Mind knowing and loving Itself, such that we can call them "subsisting relations" of that essence. You don't get this with human minds, which is why it is perilous to ever try and conceive of the Trinity in human terms by reference to human persons.

The 17th century Anglican theologian Bishop William Beveridge (1637 – 1708) explained this by citing a psychological analogy first conceived by St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century and further developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

I invite you to consider what he says closely, as it is orthodox:

The Theological Works of William Beveridge, D.D.

3) What did Jesus mean by the words at John 12:49, 50?
...and 4) How does Acts 2:32, 33 describe one God as three persons?

John 12:49, ESV: "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak."

Jesus notes later in the gospel: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (17:4-5) He refers in this instance to His eternal 'pre-existence' with God the Father as God before the creation of the universe.

So, when he says above 'the Father has sent me' this is referring in our interpretation to God the Father in eternity conceiving this distinct image of Himself (one in essence and being) and in this image God 'coming into the world' incarnate as Jesus. The Son is thus from the Father by relation of origin in eternity but He only says and speaks that which the Father does beyond time, because He is one God with Him having a single essence, being, mind etc.

Acts 2:32 "Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear" is referring to how the pre-existent divine Son now incarnate as the fully human Jesus (which nature He has assumed without losing His divinity) has been exalted in his glorified humanity (not just pre-existent divinity) to the Father symbolically at 'his right hand' (not literally, because God the Father has no 'hands', this is just anthromorphic spatial imagery for a spiritual reality) where He is now given all glory and honour as the redeemer of the human race.

 

[Muffled]

I believe it is untrue that the view of the Trinity is not well founded. I believe the arguments to the contrary are not valid.

 

[Muffled]

I can clear up their logic by using more common sense thinking (non biased view is always a good thing) if you like. It's not hard to make sense in it. Disagreement and logic are two different things. It doesn't make sense to disagree with something without understanding it first.

Also, there is scripture to back their view. Unless you're focused on how they debate (focus on the person), not the context, both sides make sense.

I believe the contrary to the Trinity only makes sense if you accept irrational arguments.

 

[Muffled]

You call the family God?
When Jesus prayed that his followers be one, as he and his father were one, is he praying that they be God?

I believe so and we are.

 

[nPeace]

God is one essence in three persons, yes but remember: 'person' here means something very different from our modern understanding. St. Thomas Aquinas's definition of divine personhood is very precise: "The Son is a subsisting person by virtue of his relation [namely, filiation]: for his relation is his characteristic personhood" (sua enim relatio est sua personalitas).”

You are giving me the thoughts, and ideas of philosophers, but what I want to know is, which scripture says that? Specifically which scripture says that God is one essence in three persons, and person means something very different from our modern understanding?

They constitute in themselves and conceived abstractly as to the essence which person each Is, only one single divine Mind in three distinct instantations of that self-same being, yes.

Could you please tell me, which scripture says that?

Correct, distinct only in terms of 'relation' or relatively, whereas in the absolute sense they are one (God conceived as He is to Himself is three relations of the same essence, whereas in Himself He is one essence and each of the three Persons just is that one God entirely with all of His attributes, both distinctly and together without parts or divisions).

Again, you mention three persons, but not to be understood, as we understand, so I need the scripture and verse that reveals this to you.

In themselves, they are but the one divine nature and essence. To themselves, they are 'related' by subsisting relations of origin: the Father is Father because He eternally (in a perpetual and unceasing 'present' beyond time) generates the Son by begetting a 'mental' self-image of His own being as an object, the Son is Son because He is intellectually begotten (in a perpetual and unceasing 'present' beyond time) of the Father and the Holy Spirit is Holy Spirit because He 'proceeds' from the Father and Son's mutual love by 'spiration' as the bond of love between them.

"generates the Son by begetting a 'mental' self-image of His own being as an object"?
Begetting a mental self image?
Where in the Bible does a say the son is the father's mental self image, which he begat? ...and what do you mean by that image being an object? Where can I find all of that in the Bible?

Without the 'relations' there are no Persons, because what defines the 'personhood' of the persons are their relations: they are these subsisting relations.

Could you show me where that is true? Or is this just your own philosophical view of personhood?

So, we are discussing here the 'three' distinct subsisting relations by which the one God relates to and knows Himself. And this is all taking place in the 'inner life' of God (i.e. unlike the Sabellian modalist heresy, it is not just 'how' God appears in relation to us His creatures, rather these 'distictions' are actually real in God although 'relatively' speaking).

So you are saying that the son is not actually a separate person, but a part of God's mind, so that all God has to do is stop thinking about that mental image, and the son will be no more. Is that correct?

By intellectual generation, like how we would conceive a 'mental image' inside our minds of ourselves and delight in 'knowing' ourselves in that self-image that we have 'generated'. However in God, this 'process' is not an 'accident' but essential to His being: so the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are real (not just imaginery as they would be in our heads), distinct objects of the one Mind knowing and loving Itself, such that we can call them "subsisting relations" of that essence. You don't get this with human minds, which is why it is perilous to ever try and conceive of the Trinity in human terms by reference to human persons.

Perhaps you are not saying what I mentally pictured.
So the mental image is no longer an image, but a real entity? Is that what you are saying?
So in that case, how would that entity be God?
Since you are indicating you understand these things, you would need to not only explain them, but also provide the scripture(s) that say such things.

The 17th century Anglican theologian Bishop William Beveridge (1637 – 1708) explained this by citing a psychological analogy first conceived by St. Augustine of Hippo in the fourth century and further developed by St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century.

I invite you to consider what he says closely, as it is orthodox:

The Theological Works of William Beveridge, D.D.

View attachment 42701


View attachment 42702

Yes, I read the philosophy, in support of the "Holy Trinity", but I didn't read the scriptures that support any of that. Did he provide any scriptures, and where in the Bible do we find anything saying there is a Holy Trinity?
I see Holy Spirit, but not Trinity.

Also, I did not read any scripture saying the Holy Spirit flows from both the father and son.
i read,
(John 14:26) . . . But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name. . .
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;

The son received holy spirit from the father.
(Mark 1:10, 11) 10 And immediately on coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens being parted and, like a dove, the spirit coming down upon him. 11 And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”
(Acts 2:33) . . . Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear.

John 12:49, ESV: "For I have not spoken on my own authority, but the Father who sent me has himself given me a commandment—what to say and what to speak."

Jesus notes later in the gospel: "Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began." (17:4-5) He refers in this instance to His eternal 'pre-existence' with God the Father as God before the creation of the universe.

So, when he says above 'the Father has sent me' this is referring in our interpretation to God the Father in eternity conceiving this distinct image of Himself (one in essence and being) and in this image God 'coming into the world' incarnate as Jesus. The Son is thus from the Father by relation of origin in eternity but He only says and speaks that which the Father does beyond time, because He is one God with Him having a single essence, being, mind etc.

Sorry. I meant the words ... I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. ...I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. - John 12:49, 50

On another occasion, Jesus said, "But for the world to know that I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do.. . ." (John 14:31)

Acts 2:32 "Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear" is referring to how the pre-existent divine Son now incarnate as the fully human Jesus (which nature He has assumed without losing His divinity) has been exalted in his glorified humanity (not just pre-existent divinity) to the Father symbolically at 'his right hand' (not literally, because God the Father has no 'hands', this is just anthromorphic spatial imagery for a spiritual reality) where He is now given all glory and honour as the redeemer of the human race.

I can agree with you that Jesus was fully human, but how do you arrive at Jesus being fully human, and yet "without losing His divinity"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Which scripture says that Jesus did not lose his divinity?
Philippians 2:7, 8, and John 1:14, both say he was fully human - a complete physical being. Hebrews 2:9 says, he was made lower than even the angels.

What do you mean by "His eternal 'pre-existence' with God the Father as God before the creation of the universe"?
how is his preexistence eternal, if God begat him... according to you, generated him?

 

[nPeace]

I believe so and we are.

You believe that, but the scriptures do not say we are God.

 

[metis]

You are giving me the thoughts, and ideas of philosophers, but what I want to know is, which scripture says that? Specifically which scripture says that God is one essence in three persons, and person means something very different from our modern understanding?


Could you please tell me, which scripture says that?


Again, you mention three persons, but not to be understood, as we understand, so I need the scripture and verse that reveals this to you.


"generates the Son by begetting a 'mental' self-image of His own being as an object"?
Begetting a mental self image?
Where in the Bible does a say the son is the father's mental self image, which he begat? ...and what do you mean by that image being an object? Where can I find all of that in the Bible?


Could you show me where that is true? Or is this just your own philosophical view of personhood?


So you are saying that the son is not actually a separate person, but a part of God's mind, so that all God has to do is stop thinking about that mental image, and the son will be no more. Is that correct?


Perhaps you are not saying what I mentally pictured.
So the mental image is no longer an image, but a real entity? Is that what you are saying?
So in that case, how would that entity be God?
Since you are indicating you understand these things, you would need to not only explain them, but also provide the scripture(s) that say such things.


Yes, I read the philosophy, in support of the "Holy Trinity", but I didn't read the scriptures that support any of that. Did he provide any scriptures, and where in the Bible do we find anything saying there is a Holy Trinity?
I see Holy Spirit, but not Trinity.

Also, I did not read any scripture saying the Holy Spirit flows from both the father and son.
i read,
(John 14:26) . . . But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name. . .
(John 15:26) When the helper comes that I will send you from the Father, the spirit of the truth, which comes from the Father, that one will bear witness about me;

The son received holy spirit from the father.
(Mark 1:10, 11) 10 And immediately on coming up out of the water, he saw the heavens being parted and, like a dove, the spirit coming down upon him. 11 And a voice came out of the heavens: “You are my Son, the beloved; I have approved you.”
(Acts 2:33) . . . Therefore, because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out what you see and hear.


Sorry. I meant the words ... I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. ...I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so I speak. - John 12:49, 50

On another occasion, Jesus said, "But for the world to know that I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do.. . ." (John 14:31)


I can agree with you that Jesus was fully human, but how do you arrive at Jesus being fully human, and yet "without losing His divinity"? How did you arrive at that conclusion?
Which scripture says that Jesus did not lose his divinity?
Philippians 2:7, 8, and John 1:14, both say he was fully human - a complete physical being. Hebrews 2:9 says, he was made lower than even the angels.

What do you mean by "His eternal 'pre-existence' with God the Father as God before the creation of the universe"?
how is his preexistence eternal, if God begat him... according to you, generated him?

I just wish you'd see the Trinitarian concept for what it actually does teach as this has been explained so many times even in the last couple of months. If you don't agree with it, fine-- I'm not sure I do either.

IOW, all I see happening on this topic is a continuous "spinning of wheels going nowhere fast". So, here-- agree, disagree, or both: Trinity - Wikipedia

 

[nPeace]

Some people just want to believe. They are not interested in whether what they believe is true or not.

 

[Vouthon]

I just wish you'd see the Trinitarian concept for what it actually does teach as this has been explained so many times even in the last couple of months. If you don't agree with it, fine-- I'm not sure I do either.

Well said.

For my part, I am simply answering questions about what the doctrine of the Trinity 'amounts to' (not trying to prove it to be 'true', which is impossible either way and I'm simply not interested in such a fruitless exercise).

No one is asking anyone to believe in it, I'm only in this thread for explanatory purposes!

Specifically which scripture says that God is one essence in three persons, and person means something very different from our modern understanding?

It doesn't because the first to use this language was St. Theophilus of Antioch in 169 A.D. I alluded earlier to the fact that the 'language' used is postbiblical and an attempt to articulate concepts that can be found in the New Testament but not yet 'phrased' in the philosophically sophisticated ontology of Greek and Latin scholars.

The New Testament authors were Jews relying upon Hebraic phraseology (in Greek, which Hellenistic Jews had been using for quite some time by then) to express these same basic, underlying concepts in the way that they had available to them.

Nowhere have I said that the formula "one ousia in three hypostases" is biblical. However, I do think that the substance of the idea it is striving to articulate is evident in the NT writings.

"generates the Son by begetting a 'mental' self-image of His own being as an object"?
Begetting a mental self image?
Where in the Bible does a say the son is the father's mental self image, which he begat? ...and what do you mean by that image being an object? Where can I find all of that in the Bible?

The 'Son' is referred to as the Image of God ("who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3)) and also as 'begotten' (first-born, begotten means to be 'born') in a number of NT texts. “Monogenes” is the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). That is no accident. The Johannine author is therefore intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας​

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)​

From the Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, dated 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea:

“In their [referring to Arius and his followers] ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is unbegotten (ἀγεννήτος), and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature (φύσις μονογενής) of Him who is the Word of God, by whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father (ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος πατρὸς γεγέννηται), as the Lord Himself testified when He said, ‘Every one that loveth the Father, loveth the Son that is begotten of Him (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον)’ [1 John 5:1]” (NPNF2 3.39 modified).
​

 

[nPeace]

Well said.

For my part, I am simply answering questions about what the doctrine of the Trinity 'amounts to' (not trying to prove it to be 'true', which is impossible either way and I'm simply not interested in such a fruitless exercise).

No one is asking anyone to believe in it, I'm only in this thread for explanatory purposes!

Why do you feel it's impossible to prove the Trinity doctrine true?
I do agree, as it can be proven false, but I'm interested in why you feel it's impossible to prove it, and also why you think it is good for someone to just believe in a teaching which you think you can't prove.
Do you agree with the words of the apostles, or do you disagree with them? (1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 John 4:1)
What you say, seems to suggest you can't prove a teaching of demons. (1 Timothy 4:1)
If that is what you believe, would it not be the same as saying, you don't know if you have the truth?

It doesn't because the first to use this language was St. Theophilus of Antioch in 169 A.D. I alluded earlier to the fact that the 'language' used is postbiblical and an attempt to articulate concepts that can be found in the New Testament but not yet 'phrased' in the philosophically sophisticated ontology of Greek and Latin scholars.

The New Testament authors were Jews relying upon Hebraic phraseology (in Greek, which Hellenistic Jews had been using for quite some time by then) to express these same basic, underlying concepts in the way that they had available to them.

Nowhere have I said that the formula "one ousia in three hypostases" is biblical. However, I do think that the substance of the idea it is striving to articulate is evident in the NT writings.

So, is it safe to say, you believe these ideas, not because they are Biblical teachings, but because you think the ideas can fit NT writings?
Forgive me if I am not getting you clearly. I am trying.
You think the "New Testament" writers were relying on their own ideas, rather than what Christ their leader, taught them?

The 'Son' is referred to as the Image of God ("who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3)) and also as 'begotten' (first-born, begotten means to be 'born') in a number of NT texts. “Monogenes” is the Greek word used for “begotten” in John 3:16, John 3:18, John 1:14, John 1:18 and 1 John 4:9.

In every scriptural verse where John employs the word MONOGENES, it is in a context in which he simultaneously relies on the term GENNAO “new birth” (see John 1:14, 18; 3:16, 18; 1 John 4:9). That is no accident. The Johannine author is therefore intentionally making a distinction between the new birth that believers experience and the Son’s unique begottenness from the Father.

(John 1:14 YLT) And the Word became flesh, and did tabernacle among us, and we beheld his glory, glory as of an only begotten of a father, full of grace and truth.

[Jhn 1:14 MGNT] (14) καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας​

"The Son is the image [eikon] of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in Him all things were created" (Colossians 1:15)

"For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son;
today I have begotten you”?" (Hebrews 1:5)​

From the Epistle of Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, to Alexander, Bishop of Constantinople, dated 324, the year before the Council of Nicaea:

“In their [referring to Arius and his followers] ignorance and want of practice in theology they do not realize how vast must be the distance between the Father who is unbegotten (ἀγεννήτος), and the creatures, whether rational or irrational, which He created out of the non-existent; and that the only-begotten nature (φύσις μονογενής) of Him who is the Word of God, by whom the Father created the universe out of the non-existent, standing, as it were, in the middle between the two, was begotten of the self-existent Father (ἐξ αὐτοῦ τοῦ ὄντος πατρὸς γεγέννηται), as the Lord Himself testified when He said, ‘Every one that loveth the Father, loveth the Son that is begotten of Him (τὸν υἱὸν τὸν ἐξ αὐτοῦ γεγεννημένον)’ [1 John 5:1]” (NPNF2 3.39 modified).
​

I'm not sure why this came up.
Can you explain what was the point of this?
I don't understand what relation that has to what I asked, or said.

 

[Muffled]

You believe that, but the scriptures do not say we are God.

I believe, of course they do.

John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you

 

[metis]

Why do you feel it's impossible to prove the Trinity doctrine true?
I do agree, as it can be proven false

Logically false. We can't even "prove" there's one God, let alone any specific characteristics of that one God-- or is it "Gods"-- or is it "none of the above"? I have my belief, but I can't "prove" my belief is correct.

It's important to know our limitations or we'll likely get into deep "theological" debates, such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

 

[nPeace]

I believe, of course they do.

John 14:20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you

I would rate that funny, but I think you are serious.

 

[nPeace]

Logically false. We can't even "prove" there's one God, let alone any specific characteristics of that one God-- or is it "Gods"-- or is it "none of the above"? I have my belief, but I can't "prove" my belief is correct.

It's important to know our limitations or we'll likely get into deep "theological" debates, such as "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?".

I thought you might use that.
I think it's - no offense - a very very poor comparison*.
However, for one who does not think they can trust the Bible, and yet uses it, I would expect nothing less. No offense.

@metis
If you are interested in how it's a very poor excuse, you can ask. I don't want to write something for no reason.

 

[metis]

However, for one who does not think they can trust the Bible, and yet uses it, I would expect nothing less. No offense.

There's an old saying that goes "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is doing the thinking". To blindly believe in any one source, regardless how much one may use and take guidance from it, puts one into that category

There is a difference between using the Bible as if it's an idol versus realizing that it is not something that is somehow miraculously perfect. The Bible is about God but is not God, nor can it be classified as being "perfect", capice?

Therefore, your comment above is nothing less than a childish slam and a lie. For example, right near me is my "Oxford Desk Dictionary". Is it inerrant? I assume not. Have I still used it nevertheless? Yes. Obviously, the Bible is far more important to me that the dictionary is or I wouldn't be using and citing it.

If you are interested in how it's a very poor excuse, you can ask. I don't want to write something for no reason.

I have nothing in common with one who believes in idolatry, therefore post what you want.

The Bible is great book that I literally read and study every day of the week, but I don't believe for one minute that it is 100% inerrant. If you do believe that it is, you have my condolences per my first statement at the beginning of this post.

Thus, if you want to have an adult conversation, then maybe avoid such nonsense. No offense though.

 

[nPeace]

There's an old saying that goes "If two people completely agree, then only one of them is doing the thinking". To blindly believe in any one source, regardless how much one may use and take guidance from it, puts one into that category

There is a difference between using the Bible as if it's an idol versus realizing that it is not something that is somehow miraculously perfect. The Bible is about God but is not God, nor can it be classified as being "perfect", capice?

Therefore, your comment above is nothing less than a childish slam and a lie. For example, right near me is my "Oxford Desk Dictionary". Is it inerrant? I assume not. Have I still used it nevertheless? Yes. Obviously, the Bible is far more important to me that the dictionary is or I wouldn't be using and citing it.

I have nothing in common with one who believes in idolatry, therefore post what you want.

The Bible is great book that I literally read and study every day of the week, but I don't believe for one minute that it is 100% inerrant. If you do believe that it is, you have my condolences per my first statement at the beginning of this post.

Thus, if you want to have an adult conversation, then maybe avoid such nonsense. No offense though.

I think for a blind man to say someone is blind, just because he is blind, is ridiculous. don't you?
So because one has blind faith, and admits to it, that does not mean that others blindly believe.
As for childish behavior, I think your response, pretty much sums it up.

 

[firedragon]

Logically false. We can't even "prove" there's one God, let alone any specific characteristics of that one God-- or is it "Gods"-- or is it "none of the above"? I have my belief, but I can't "prove" my belief is correct.

I think you are absolutely right. Yet, the discussion should be based on literature rather than the question "is there divinity".

I enjoy reading your analyses. Im suggesting that going to the literature and analysing them in relation to the trinity question of the topic is far more productive, and you do that.

My notion is that the Bible opposes the trinity without question. (By "trinity" I refer directly to the Athanasian creed).

Cheers.

 

[metis]

I think for a blind man to say someone is blind, just because he is blind, is ridiculous. don't you?

That only is true of the person is "blind" to begin with. In this arena, blind is believing in something even of there is no evidence for it. Certainly it's one's right to believe as such, and if it makes them a better person for it then I certainly don't have a problem with it. But what I do have a problem with is your accusation that just because I don't regard the Bible as being perfect, thus idol-like imo, then I don't believe in Jesus and his message. That's absurd.

As for childish behavior, I think your response, pretty much sums it up.

Yes, because it was childish on your part, and then you tried to cover up your insult by saying "No offense", as this supposedly excuses your insulting remarks. All I did was to use your own strategy and your own words back at you, so the fact that you are obviously chafing over this demonstrates your hypocrisy on this.

In closing, you're quite clearly stated implication that I am somehow less of a believer in Christ just because we look at the scriptures in a somewhat different way should be well beneath you, but it's obviously not.

 

[metis]

I think you are absolutely right. Yet, the discussion should be based on literature rather than the question "is there divinity".

I enjoy reading your analyses. Im suggesting that going to the literature and analysing them in relation to the trinity question of the topic is far more productive, and you do that.

Thank you for this.

My notion is that the Bible opposes the trinity without question. (By "trinity" I refer directly to the Athanasian creed).

It's an attempt to mesh the scriptural words of God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit, but whether the Trinitarian concept does this correctly obviously is highly conjectural, much as it was when it was formulated during the fourth century. Notes from these sessions showed that there was plenty of arguing and dissention, much like there was when the Christian canon was selected. Thus my opinion being "Whatever it was, it was" [or something like that]. I don't know and, frankly, I don't lose even one nod of sleep over this.

Cheers.

Back at ya!