How easy is it for Trinitarians to misread the scriptures?

[YoursTrue]

yep different as night as day

I would say so. But some say good is bad and bad is good, so...the heart must be shown the light.

 

[sojourner]

Yes, and had he been God, he would have talked to himself an awful lot.

Don't we all? Don't we all have an "inner dialog?"

 

[sojourner]

I suppose there are a few hard to understand places in the scriptures, but the vast majority is written at about an 8th grade level, so it ought to be easy enough to agree on what they say.

But then you have two foreign and ancient languages, plus the translational barriers that exist. Then there are the cultural differences that tend to obfuscate meaning. Then there is the redaction process to wade through. So, not so easy as one might think.

Plus, the texts are multivalent; they will support any number of legitimate interpretations, so it becomes difficult for everyone to be "on the same page" where interpretation is concerned. But multiple denominations are a good thing, because, as you know, the Faith isn't about uniformity, but unity in diversity. The number of denominations accurately reflects the multifaceted nature of humanity.

For example, they want three gods and that's just what they find, despite the hundreds of time God declares Himself to be one.

No, we don't "want three gods." We know that God is one -- just as the scriptures tell us, and just as the doctrine says. The Nicene Creed begins: "We believe in one God..." Can't get any clearer than that. Please don't misrepresent us, and for God's sake, learn what the doctrine says before you dismiss it.

In what world is a son also his father?

The Son isn't the Father. The doctrine (and the creeds) make that very clear. You're presenting straw man arguments here.

 

[sojourner]

And yet:

1Cor 1:10,

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
​

Somebody's not reading what's written.

We can be together in mind and take different interpretations. We can differ in specifics and still speak love. We can be diverse without being divided.

 

[YoursTrue]

yep different as night as day

This scripture is of note:
New International Version
"This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil." John 3.

 

[YoursTrue]

But then you have two foreign and ancient languages, plus the translational barriers that exist. Then there are the cultural differences that tend to obfuscate meaning. Then there is the redaction process to wade through. So, not so easy as one might think.

Plus, the texts are multivalent; they will support any number of legitimate interpretations, so it becomes difficult for everyone to be "on the same page" where interpretation is concerned. But multiple denominations are a good thing, because, as you know, the Faith isn't about uniformity, but unity in diversity. The number of denominations accurately reflects the multifaceted nature of humanity.


No, we don't "want three gods." We know that God is one -- just as the scriptures tell us, and just as the doctrine says. The Nicene Creed begins: "We believe in one God..." Can't get any clearer than that. Please don't misrepresent us, and for God's sake, learn what the doctrine says before you dismiss it.


The Son isn't the Father. The doctrine (and the creeds) make that very clear. You're presenting straw man arguments here.

Since the son and father are not the same person...or do you think they are?

 

[YoursTrue]

We can be together in mind and take different interpretations. We can differ in specifics and still speak love. We can be diverse without being divided.

May I add that phrasing love may be a song, but doing love is a different song.

 

[YoursTrue]

And yet:

1Cor 1:10,

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and [that] there be no divisions among you; but [that] ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment.
​

Somebody's not reading what's written.

When I went to church, I heard the minister continually say after every Sunday service, "greater love hath no man that he should give up his life for his brother." And I always thought he meant it towards war, that is, if a person gives up his life to fight in a national interest. I learned later this is not what was meant.

 

[YoursTrue]

1Cor 1:12,

Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
​

When this verse was written it looks like there were 4 different denominations. Today we have 40,000 plus and counting!

I suppose there are a few hard to understand places in the scriptures, but the vast majority is written at about an 8th grade level, so it ought to be easy enough to agree on what they say. But, as you said, people already know what they want them to say and, to them, that's just what they say.

For example, they want three gods and that's just what they find, despite the hundreds of time God declares Himself to be one. But most already "know" there is a trinity before they even crack the book for the first time. Just shows the power of oft repeated lies, in this case 2,000 years worth of lies. Can't blame the individual. It's what they've been taught and that's what they will believe. Still, it's not hard to find verses that say Yahweh is the one true God and Jesus is His son (so the NT declares at any rate). In what world is a son also his father?

Take care.

Glad you said most know. Because I didn't see it at all. Later, when I studied the Bible, I realized that it's a theory, or maxim, imposed by powerful religious elements in many cases, historically to great harm.

 

[sojourner]

Since the son and father are not the same person...or do you think they are?

Isn’t that what I said? The doctrine asserts 3 persons — not one.

 

[sojourner]

May I add that phrasing love may be a song, but doing love is a different song.

This isn’t cogent to my post.

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn’t that what I said? The doctrine asserts 3 persons — not one.

So again, how are these three persons co-equal and one being? And I might add, three persons all without beginning just like that...three. all three co-equal. There just like that. You can say it's a mystery. I say it's not biblically supported.

 

[YoursTrue]

This isn’t cogent to my post.

It is cogent. Different phrases tickle some ears. But as Jesus said, men loved the darkness although the exemplar, Jesus, came into the world.

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn’t that what I said? The doctrine asserts 3 persons — not one.

Ok so they're not the same person. Except I guess when the spirit goes back and forth from one to the other? Just asking...

 

[YoursTrue]

Isn’t that what I said? The doctrine asserts 3 persons — not one.

The "doctrine" isn't true.

 

[rrobs]

I didn't always believe in God... especially not a trinity. When I studied with trinitarians they showed me John 1:1 and I thought ..what? How is Jesus God yet with God? But I stop there.

Yeah, why can't we just read John 1:1 as written,

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."​

For some reason it gets twisted into:

"In the beginning was Jesus, and Jesus was with God, and Jesus was God."
​

Even the way they capitalize the "Word" is highly misleading. In the original Greek there were no small and caps. They were all caps. The English translators, who were no doubt close to 100% Trinitarians, took it upon themselves to capitalize it to make us all think it is a proper noun, i.e. Jesus.

It's incredibly easy to see what the word "word" in John 1:1 really is. It is the greek word "logos." You will not find anything, anywhere, that says logos means the thoughts behind what is spoken, what is on someone's mine. Basically it is a plan. God had it all planned out in His mind what He'd do if Adam blew it. It was actually plan "B". His original plan, plan "A", went awry due to a variety of factors, none of which God contributed. He created a perfect world for man and gave him dominion over that perfect world. Unfortunately, they didn't use their dominion in the most expeditious manner. They gave it to Satan. That's why we have problems we have in life.

God is not in charge. He gave that to Adam who gave it to Satan. God can still lead people into doing His will (the scriptures) which will overpower Satan's hold on the material world. But if we don't believe what God says is functional, then we go with Satan's ideas and they are definitely as good as God's. Here's how I look at things in life:

God is always voting for me, Satan is always voting against me, I determine the election.

John 1:1 says God had a plan. Jesus is certainly the star of the plan, but is not the plan itself. Jesus was the man God hoped would put the plan into play. Basically, the scriptures are the plan, the blueprint, and Jesus is the builder. Jesus studied the plans for many years and then proceeded to carry them out. I can't imagine he was thrilled with the crucifixion part, but he went ahead and did by his own choice. Had he been God, a choice would be a moot point. The story is much more exciting when Jesus does what he does as 100% man.

By changing the words "word" in John 1:1 to "Jesus" they completely obscures the truth that God even had a plan. They may have some vague idea of a plan, but by bastardizing John 1:1 they make it quite impossible to get any real in-depth knowledge about that plan, the logos of John 1:1.

 

[sojourner]

So again, how are these three persons co-equal and one being?

They’re not “one being.” They’re of one being. As in essence, not as in particularity. I thought we’d covered this earlier?

I say it's not biblically supported

Others say it is.

 

[sojourner]

It is cogent. Different phrases tickle some ears. But as Jesus said, men loved the darkness although the exemplar, Jesus, came into the world.

No it’s not. “Song” was not part of my post.

 

[sojourner]

Ok so they're not the same person. Except I guess when the spirit goes back and forth from one to the other? Just asking...

No. Not the same person. Just the same essence.

 

[sojourner]

The "doctrine" isn't true.

1) The quotation marks are inappropriate. The doctrine is real.
2) Those who wrote it and espouse it believe it to be orthodox.
3) You haven’t proven it to be false. Therefore, your assertion isn’t fact, but unfounded opinion.