Holes in the trinity

[sojourner]

I thought God breathed the "breath of life" into Adam. that is not the same as God's spirit.

Ruach means "breath." it also means "spirit."

 

[savagewind]

This:

is clearly not what John 1:1 says, though. Clearly.

To wit:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."
The text says nothing referring to "reason for existence." It says nothing remotely referring to a "son."
It refers to the "word" being in existence in the beginning. It clearly says that that "word" was "with God" and "was God."

Yes, I know it is not what it says, but those words bear the truth of it imho.

 

[savagewind]

Doesn't matter. The intent is clear that the word is God and that the word became flesh and lived among us in the person of Jesus.

One person's intent. You might say that you are a disciple of John the apostle.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, I know it is not what it says, but those words bear the truth of it imho.

Then why assign such a "truth" to it, when you know that's not what it says??

 

[savagewind]

Then why assign such a "truth" to it, when you know that's not what it says??

I didn't do that. Opinion isn't truth fyi.

 

[sojourner]

One person's intent. You might say that you are a disciple of John the apostle.

One person's intent becomes the meaning of the church when the text becomes canonized.

No. I might not say that I am "a disciple of John." Why would you say such a thing? Do you not think that I hold other texts in as high regard?? What would lead you to come to that conclusion?

 

[savagewind]

YOU say what I say CAN'T be true. OK? I say it might be true and you say I am wrong. I have not said you are wrong if I am recalling correctly. I am saying you might be right but I think you are not right. That is opinion. God KNOWS. People have opinions. You are which?

 

[sojourner]

I didn't do that. Opinion isn't truth fyi.

I did't say anything about "opinion." I said, "this is what the text says," and you agreed with that. Then, you took off on your own opinion of what the "truth" was, which isn't even based on what the text says.

 

[savagewind]

One person's intent becomes the meaning of the church when the text becomes canonized.

No. I might not say that I am "a disciple of John." Why would you say such a thing? Do you not think that I hold other texts in as high regard?? What would lead you to come to that conclusion?

Because the writer of John is alone saying what you believe.

 

[sojourner]

YOU say what I say CAN'T be true. OK? I say it might be true and you say I am wrong. I have not said you are wrong if I am recalling correctly. I am saying you might be right but I think you are not right. That is opinion. God KNOWS. People have opinions. You are which?

No, I simply pointed out that the text didn't say what you stated it said. And you agreed. Then you changed your mind and stated that "those words bore the truth of it." So, does the text say what it says -- or doesn't it?

 

[sojourner]

Because the writer of John is alone saying what you believe.

Not the case. But John is what we're discussing now.

 

[savagewind]

I did't say anything about "opinion." I said, "this is what the text says," and you agreed with that.

It is a no wonder to me that you m ust lean on other people's understanding as you read what isn't there. I didn't say the scripture is right your way. I agreed that what I said I think it means is not what it says (exactly - but I didn;t post exactly).

Then, you took off on your own opinion of what the "truth" was, which isn't even based on what the text says.

I take some pride in the fact that I obey Proverbs 3:5. I see you lean on what people have said the canon is.

 

[savagewind]

Not the case. But John is what we're discussing now.

OK. Please support that pov. Who else has made the same case?

 

[savagewind]

No, I simply pointed out that the text didn't say what you stated it said. And you agreed. Then you changed your mind and stated that "those words bore the truth of it." So, does the text say what it says -- or doesn't it?

All scripture should be viewed from the point of view of the truth of its writing. Sometimes it remains unknown what was intended in the writing so some kind of spiritual algebra needs doing. I might know how to do spiritual algebra.

 

[sojourner]

It is a no wonder to me that you m ust lean on other people's understanding as you read what isn't there. I didn't say the scripture is right your way. I agreed that what I said I think it means is not what it says (exactly - but I didn;t post exactly).

I didn't read "what isn't there." I read exactly what's there. But your post does beg the question why you would think it means something other than what it says?

I take some pride in the fact that I obey Proverbs 3:5. I see you lean on what people have said the canon is.

First of all, your statement does't jibe with what the Proverb says. You are (apparently) "leaning on your own understanding" here, if you think the text means something other than what it says.

I don't understand what you mean by accusing me of "leaning on what other people say the canon is." Other people decided the canon -- not me. The canon was set around 450 C.E. I clearly wasn't alive then.

 

[sojourner]

OK. Please support that pov. Who else has made the same case?

that Jesus is Divine? Nearly every single early church leader made that case. Luke infers that Jesus is Divine by the very fact that he bothered to write a history of the Jesus Event, that is structured the same as every other contemporary history of divine figures in that culture. His birth narrative is an obvious ripoff of the birth narrative of Augustus.

 

[sojourner]

All scripture should be viewed from the point of view of the truth of its writing. Sometimes it remains unknown what was intended in the writing so some kind of spiritual algebra needs doing. I might know how to do spiritual algebra.

I agree. But a huge part of that truth is discovering to the best of our abilities what the text says. John is a little ambiguous, but not so ambiguous so as to mean what you say he means.

 

[savagewind]

I didn't read "what isn't there." I read exactly what's there. But your post does beg the question why you would think it means something other than what it says?

Actually you do not read exactly what is there.
in
beginning
was (obviously the wrong verb tense) "for they are all living to YHVH"
the
word
and
the
word
was
with
the
god
and
god
was
the
word

First of all, your statement does't jibe with what the Proverb says. You are (apparently) "leaning on your own understanding" here, if you think the text means something other than what it says.

It is in English. Is it not? It was written in an ancient and foreign language. Was it not?

I don't understand what you mean by accusing me of "leaning on what other people say the canon is." Other people decided the canon -- not me. The canon was set around 450 C.E. I clearly wasn't alive then.

"Other people decided the canon" and you lean on what they decided it means.

 

[savagewind]

I agree. But a huge part of that truth is discovering to the best of our abilities what the text says. John is a little ambiguous, but not so ambiguous so as to mean what you say he means.

What do I say it means? Do I say it means that every purpose of God is linked to God's son? Is this not true?

 

[savagewind]

Is every purpose of God linked to God's son? Can the will of God ever be separated from the love of God's son?