Christians..."Trinity"?

[BlandOatmeal]

I discuss all kinds of topics if you didn't notice, including Canonical issues, manuscripts, church history, interpolations and redactions, apocrypha and pseudipigrapha, ancient Israelite Theology specifics, Gnosticism, theistic arguments in general, evolution, world politics, state of Israel, etc. There's a reason I don't accept much of the scripture, just like there's a reason the "mainstream church" has rejected much of what I consider scripture (as well as certain things ancient "Church Fathers" considered scripture).

I don't see anything as a "no-win" argument. The only "no-win" I see is from those who tirelessly try to push Revisionism and hole-studded concepts as if they're matter of fact.

Hi, Sherm

I think that repeatedly posting to Trinitarians about the Trinity is a waste of time.

As for the scriptures, I have read many of them [canonical and not]. Unlike you, though, I consider their text in their context instead of dismissing them out of hand. It's more profitable to hear what Balaam's donkey actually had to SAY, than to listen to opinions that say he is a donkey. When you start dissecting Paul and Luke, and say that this part is real and that part isn't, all you're left with is your preconceived notions.

Paul admonishes us to avoid fruitless arguments. Whether you accept him or not, he is correct.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

The end times would be interesting to discuss, though I really consider revelations to be a very political middle finger to the Roman Empire rather than an actual prophecy.

Gods nature is always a fascinating one because I find it to be the one where people contradict themselves the most.

Hi, Franklin

I like your "middle finger" analogy, and your "devil's advocate" approach generally. I think it's easier to get to the heart of the matter that way, than to to drag Eusebius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus into a dogmatic donnybrook (as some do). There is enough matter for discussion in the Bible itself, to confound the wise. I would like to scrape the surface of it; but I need to find a common venue to do it -- a "Trinitarian" discussion is hardly the place. Please suggest a thread.

By the way, I am not that interested in the Book of Revelation as a source for prophecy, except as supplementary material. My main concern is with events that appear to be about to happen, such as Ezekiel 38-39, and perhaps Isaiah 19. Revelation, from my point of view, talks about broader issues. I am interested in them too; but I don't see anything in Rev that deals with specific current events. And yes, much of what Rev talks about is meaningless when taken out of its late-first-century Roman context.

 

[Shermana]

Hi, Sherm

I think that repeatedly posting to Trinitarians about the Trinity is a waste of time.

As for the scriptures, I have read many of them [canonical and not]. Unlike you, though, I consider their text in their context instead of dismissing them out of hand. It's more profitable to hear what Balaam's donkey actually had to SAY, than to listen to opinions that say he is a donkey. When you start dissecting Paul and Luke, and say that this part is real and that part isn't, all you're left with is your preconceived notions.

Paul admonishes us to avoid fruitless arguments. Whether you accept him or not, he is correct.

"Preconceived notions"

As opposed to those who accept the totality and simply snub all the manuscript evidence and scholarly opinions?

I agree it is futile to discuss the Trinity with Trinitarians, it is helpful however to expose their lack of valid arguments to those with an open mind.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

"Preconceived notions"

As opposed to those who accept the totality and simply snub all the manuscript evidence and scholarly opinions?

I agree it is futile to discuss the Trinity with Trinitarians, it is helpful however to expose their lack of valid arguments to those with an open mind.

Sherm, perhaps you should publish your own approved Bible, and send me a copy -- so that at least when we talk, we both know what we're talking about.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Hi, Franklin

I like your "middle finger" analogy, and your "devil's advocate" approach generally. I think it's easier to get to the heart of the matter that way, than to to drag Eusebius, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Erasmus into a dogmatic donnybrook (as some do). There is enough matter for discussion in the Bible itself, to confound the wise. I would like to scrape the surface of it; but I need to find a common venue to do it -- a "Trinitarian" discussion is hardly the place. Please suggest a thread.

By the way, I am not that interested in the Book of Revelation as a source for prophecy, except as supplementary material. My main concern is with events that appear to be about to happen, such as Ezekiel 38-39, and perhaps Isaiah 19. Revelation, from my point of view, talks about broader issues. I am interested in them too; but I don't see anything in Rev that deals with specific current events. And yes, much of what Rev talks about is meaningless when taken out of its late-first-century Roman context.

Hmm, I guess I can create a thread. Lately I've been reading through the scriptures and just pulling out the themes and looking at them from that particularly context.

Currently that context is the politics. What was going on during the time, who was in power, who was not in power, and then I compare them with archaeological and historical information from that time period. It has been rather amazing, because I'm so used to the theological viewpoint that when I start reading it in the political viewpoint it all makes so much sense.

 

[Shermana]

Sherm, perhaps you should publish your own approved Bible, and send me a copy -- so that at least when we talk, we both know what we're talking about.

I've actually wanted to do that, hire a team of scholars to put together a version of the Bible that has scholarly commentary on all the verses and books, and includes other books that were probably in circulation among early Nazarene groups, including Jewish Gnostics.

However until then, I see absolutely no reason to blindly believe the orthodox canon and simply snub all the scholars.

Also I really don't understand why you'd need my own private bible to know what I'm talking about. I can put it into words and summarize the arguments of MANY people in academia as well as religious institutions, including the early Church Father documents, who agree with what I say about the Canon and its interpolations and redactions and disputed authorships.

It seems to me that you're not interested in discussing the Bible outside of the traditional canon, am I wrong?

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Dear Shermana,

I look forward to the publication. In the meantime, I hope you understand how difficult it is to discuss anything with you. Are we discussing the Bible? no. The letters of Paul? Definitely not! They're not "inspired", so they're taboo. The books of Luke? Yes, but we must selectively delete references to Paul. John's gospels, epistles and revelation? Who knows? Only you.

Can you see why I have less trouble talking with Franklin, the devil's advocate, than I do with you? For myself, I don't even care whether a book is inspired or not. I read the newspaper now and then (usually just the comics and puzzles, I'll admit); but when I discuss, say, a cartoon with my wife, neither of us has to consult a scholar first to see if the thing is "inspired".

I think I understand our problem here, and it has nothing to do with whether or not a particular passage is "accurate", "inspired" or anything else. Correct me if I'm wrong -- I think the problem is that you actually think these books (the ones you think are somehow "true") are God's one-and-only "emanation", for want of a better word, to us; and that they need to be blindly followed if found to be genuine. NOTHING in scripture is like that. All of God's holy ones blundered in these things, some incredibly. How about some examples, off the top of my head:

1. Abraham and Sarah -- served milsching along with fleisching to their guests, who turned out to be angels. Also perpetrated a lie to Pharaoh and repeated the exercise with Abimelech.

2. Judah. Consorted with a woman he thought was a prostitute, after having neglected his legal obligation to levirate marriage.

3. Moses. Almost got himself killed by an angel, for disregarding his son's circumcision; then neglected it among all the Israelites for 40 years. God finally called him on blowing his top at Meribah.

4. Samson. Marrying a Philistine prostitute, and eating and drinking with Philistines.

5. David. Committed murder and adultery. God found fault with him, because he numbered Israel. A failure as a family man, and a polygamist.

6. Jesus. The descendant of adulterers and harlots. He wrongly thought Zechariah the son of Berechiah was killed between the porch and the altar.

God used jealous, vindictive Joab, to restrain David from completing the census, since that flawed man had more spiritual sense at the time than the "man after God's own heart". Balaam's donkey forbade the madness of the prophet. Are we to seek out the collected works of the donkey? Are we to disregard Balaam's prophecies of good for Israel?

Please don't bring up this "scholars" and "canon" stuff with me. I have told you, I don't CARE whether something's canonical or not! I just want to know exactly what it is we're trying to discuss with each other at any given time.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Hmm, I guess I can create a thread. Lately I've been reading through the scriptures and just pulling out the themes and looking at them from that particularly context.

Currently that context is the politics. What was going on during the time, who was in power, who was not in power, and then I compare them with archaeological and historical information from that time period. It has been rather amazing, because I'm so used to the theological viewpoint that when I start reading it in the political viewpoint it all makes so much sense.

Good, Franklin. Just let me know what the thread is and where, and I'll go there. Send me a private message, if I don't get the message elsewhere (such as here). Pick a favorite topic of yours. You mentioned Revelation "giving the finger" to the Roman Empire. I like that. Parts of Revelation are obviously addressed to churches of John's day, and many if not most interpreters do not think they were literal end-times prophecies concerning those churches. Romans 6 then has the "horsemen" prophecies, which some have said probably were fulfilled in the Kitos War (c. 115-117, perhaps 20 years after Rev. was written).

Other parts of Revelation, towards the end, seem to happen outside of time and space, in eternity. In between them and Rev. 6 are prophecies with a lot of OT symbolism, especially from Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah. They're a real hornet's nest to talk about, because (1) they require knowledge of the other scriptures, especially those three prophets, and (2) they often speak (I believe) of events before and after the current times (Some don't even seem like "events", but recurring happenings, like the persecution of the Jews); so lots of patriotic and denominational emotions get tangled in.

Maybe we could start a discussion, trying to identify passages that point directly to political, geographical and religious events of John's time and, bearing that context in mind, seeing if some of the prophecies have already been fulfilled and how.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Good, Franklin. Just let me know what the thread is and where, and I'll go there. Send me a private message, if I don't get the message elsewhere (such as here). Pick a favorite topic of yours. You mentioned Revelation "giving the finger" to the Roman Empire. I like that. Parts of Revelation are obviously addressed to churches of John's day, and many if not most interpreters do not think they were literal end-times prophecies concerning those churches. Romans 6 then has the "horsemen" prophecies, which some have said probably were fulfilled in the Kitos War (c. 115-117, perhaps 20 years after Rev. was written).

Other parts of Revelation, towards the end, seem to happen outside of time and space, in eternity. In between them and Rev. 6 are prophecies with a lot of OT symbolism, especially from Ezekiel, Daniel and Zechariah. They're a real hornet's nest to talk about, because (1) they require knowledge of the other scriptures, especially those three prophets, and (2) they often speak (I believe) of events before and after the current times (Some don't even seem like "events", but recurring happenings, like the persecution of the Jews); so lots of patriotic and denominational emotions get tangled in.

Maybe we could start a discussion, trying to identify passages that point directly to political, geographical and religious events of John's time and, bearing that context in mind, seeing if some of the prophecies have already been fulfilled and how.

lol I generally suck at making threads, but if you want to start one, I would say we can look at the prophecy of Daniel (the golden statue), some take it as a future to rise of empires, but I see some prophetic views but also some things that show it very ethnocentric (regional centric).

 

[BlandOatmeal]

lol I generally suck at making threads, but if you want to start one, I would say we can look at the prophecy of Daniel (the golden statue), some take it as a future to rise of empires, but I see some prophetic views but also some things that show it very ethnocentric (regional centric).

OK, Frank.

Let me try "Same Faith Forums" Abrahamic only --"Statue of Daniel 2"

If your religious roots are from south of Thailand or west of India, I'll accept you as Abrahamic. Pagans, of course, have counted themselves out of this one; but you don't claim that provenance. I'm typing it up now...

Sherm, you're more than welcome to come. How are you with Daniel's canonicity?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

OK, Frank.

Let me try "Same Faith Forums" Abrahamic only --"Statue of Daniel 2"

If your religious roots are from south of Thailand or west of India, I'll accept you as Abrahamic. Pagans, of course, have counted themselves out of this one; but you don't claim that provenance. I'm typing it up now...

Sherm, you're more than welcome to come. How are you with Daniel's canonicity?

Sure no problem

 

[EyeofOdin]

The idea of a trinity comes from many old European and North African spiritual ideas. For some times and some regions, Egyptians believed that all deities were aspects of Netjer (Egyptian word for God, singular) so it was common to create "hybrid" deities. Most common ones were deities who were seen as aspects of Ra such as Re-Ptah-Amun. There was also the belief that Isis, Osiris and Horus (arguably the most important deities in ancient Kemetic religion) formed a sacred Triad of gods, representing the holy father, holy mother and divine child.

In Rome the first major Triad was the Triad who were seen as patrons of the state. Jupiter, god of justice and order, Mars god of battle and fertility, and Quirinus god of war and weaponry. This however was replaced with the Triad of Jupiter, Juno and Minerva (Juno representing feminine order and Minerva representing wisdom and also cunning, organized battle skills).

To the Vikings, there was also another Triad (and some would call a "trinity", but this is a stretch) of the three most important deities to the Scandinavians. Odin, god of war and wisdom, Thor, god of protection and summer, and Frey, god of fertility and agriculture, were the most featured gods in the temple at Uppsala, where there were three immense representations of each.

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

This could be a long winded answer, could it not
Everything to me is evolving-consciousness. This means that, though everything comes through Source-Singularity (masculine-Father) and then through Image (feminine-Mother) we still see at some point later within that developing Mind, the son, who could (to keep the answer short) be seen as a third, thus, connecting also the feminine Bride, the Holy Spirit. Therefore three can be seen, BUT it comes from One, the Ultimate One, the Infinite Father from which the All emanates- 1Cor8.6

 

[ZooGirl02]

I do believe it is a fair thing to say. The Trinity is one of the dogmas of Christianity that has been believed since the earliest times and is even present in the New Testament.

 

[Redemptionsong]

The doctrine is central to orthodox Christian belief. Let's not get hung up on the idea that the word 'trinity' doesn't appear in scripture - it simply means that the three persons are one spirit (God).
It makes good sense. The Father is above all, the Son (the Word) dwelt amongst (in Jesus), and the Holy Spirit dwells within (those who are 'born again' through faith in Jesus Christ).
It's a brilliant and merciful plan! God has condescended to reach out and save a people lost in sin.
To receive God's spirit you must trust Jesus as Saviour. Faith in Jesus is what matters!

 

[Robert.Evans]

I am a Christian, but I reject the trinity doctrine. I have been told on more than one occasion by other so-called Christians that I can NOT be a Christian unless I accept the doctrine of trinity. Do you believe this is an accurate/fair stance to take?

Just as a thought, as I have used this verse elsewhere with no concrete answer, what about Hebrews 1.8. He is called God. Is that not two thirds of the Trinity? before we go farther that is.

 

[Redemptionsong]

I agree with you Robert. Hebrews !:8 is a significant passage. It's actually a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7.

 

[Desert Snake]

Just as a thought, as I have used this verse elsewhere with no concrete answer, what about Hebrews 1.8. He is called God. Is that not two thirds of the Trinity? before we go farther that is.

This backs Christian belief imo. They (real Christians), call Jesus God.

 

[Pegg]

I agree with you Robert. Hebrews !:8 is a significant passage. It's actually a quotation from Psalm 45:6,7.

to the Israelite king it was said:

Psalm 45:6 God is your throne forever and ever; The scepter of your kingdom is a scepter of uprightness. *7 You loved righteousness, and you hated wickedness. That is why God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of exultation more than your companions.


'your God, has anointed you'

If this is applied to Jesus in the same way it was originally applied to the Israelite King, then how can it be said that Jesus God? Are we to conclude that the Isrealite King was also God in disguise?

 

[Redemptionsong]

Pegg, Yet I am the lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me' (Hosea 13:4)

Jesus can be called God because he is worthy of worship and is the Saviour from sin.

Do you not believe that Jesus Christ is Saviour?