The Trinity

[sojourner]

No it's not, that's half the argument here whether the text alludes to it or not. We're saying here that it doens't, and that the interpretations of such are wrongly used, and I'm saying that such interpretations show no evidence of being interpreted as such until the 2nd century. To say that it's alluded to in the texts basically is a cheap jump around the entire discussion on what the text actually says about the issue.
Not the way you're using it. Even Paul referred to church members as "False brothers" so even Paul wouldn't agree that the people themselves are the "organic" body in that they get to decide how to interpret it as they wish. My definition of organic stands: That which is grown from the original soil without any later artificial additions.

Please explain how I deliberately twisted and what you meant to say that you feel I twisted it out of context. How do you even know which parts of scripture are correct in the first place? I asked why your view isn't fantasyland. Which parts of your view are not fantasyland, that's not a fair question? The parts you like? Calling it infantile while avoiding the actual topic is not a good way to score points. I challenge anyone else reading to show why my quote there is taking what you said out of context, or being "infantile", you made an assertion, you called my view "fantasyland", and then when asked why your view is NOT fantasy land, this is your response? Nice. What YOU do all the time is look for cheap ways out of the legitimate contentions.

Are you trying to say that the text itself got in the way of interpreting the "transmitted tradition"? What transmitted tradition? Whose? Peter's? Paul's? James's? Judes'? Marcion's? Yours? Explain in more detail what you mean. As for "Hermeneutics", do you really not know what that word even means? Apparently so by your usage of it.

How does that in any way address what I said? Explain. And feel free to elaborate on how you know which parts correctly convey the "original transmission" and which ones don't. I imagine they coincidentally match with what you want to believe.

So the Law is the tool for forming the intended relationship the scripture states. Great. You're on track to actually getting honest here.

But the other "tools" are contradictory. You're saying you can deny what the tool says in favor of your own tool.

And of course, your idea of "building the kingdom" somehow trumps and supercedes what the idea of "Building the kingdom" in terms of the context of the original tool was? Why is your tool the Chainsaw but my tool is only the Hacksaw? My tool has way more teeth, yours is if anything a reduced way from its original form with teeth that go in opposite ways (i.e. contradictions). Are you calling the Law itself a mere rock compared to a chainsaw which is the anti-law position? If your view is such a chainsaw just because its a modern view, why are scholars so heavily divided about how to even interpret it? Does everyone get their own chainsaw? My rock does a fine job felling trees, it must be made out of adamantium or something. I imagine you have a radically different idea of what it means to "build the kingdom" than I do and that has to do with your reply.
I agree that everyone who claims to know God has their own relationship with them. That has nothing to do with whether that relationship is good or a relation He wants from them. Especially when it involves outright contradicting the text to make up your own manmade ideas about what this relationship entails outside of the scriptural context.
The Law.
So you agree that perhaps the Acts of the Apostles contains things that didn't actually happen? Next up on the Chopping block: The Council of Jerusalem.

"The love of god is obedience to the commandments" 1 John 5:3.

That's why he loved Israel. Or at least the Israelites who held fast to His commandments. Which you seem to be indicating aren't necessary to be obeyed.

You seem to take a singularly literalistic and syncretic view of texts that were never intended to be read literalistically and certainly were not written to be syncretistic. It completely skews your analysis of them.

 

[Shermana]

Once again, the idea that the texts were "never intended to be read literally" is a completely modernistic idea that defies virtually all of the Church Father writings on the subject. Perhaps you'd like to link to something that can demonstrate which parts we know for a fact were meant to be literal and figurative, and perhaps you'd like to actually specifically state which parts in question to the argument are so figurative.

As for "Syncretic", excuse me? No no no. I'm accusing YOU of being syncretic. Do you even know what Syncretic means? Or is it like your use of "hermeneutical"?

Even Jayhawker seems to agree that the idea that the texts weren't meant to be read literally is absolutely wrong if not outright dishonest, if there's one thing we agree on.

But anyways, I'll take that as your concession to all my points, so we can leave it at that.

 

[Oryonder]

I believe I asked you to prove that the idea had roots earlier than Tertullian's time when you made this assertion and your answer was:

It does not matter whether or not the Trinity had roots earlier than Tertullian.

When Tertullian did start spouting this doctrine the Church decried it heresy.

Wherever the doctrine came fom .. the early Chuch did not believe in it.

 

[sojourner]

As for "Syncretic", excuse me? No no no. I'm accusing YOU of being syncretic. Do you even know what Syncretic means? Or is it like your use of "hermeneutical"?

Pitch is negative, altitude is 2000' AGL, power is out, terrain below is rough. What's your first clue, Shermana, that it's time to bail out because you just don't know how to fly this plane?

I'll take that as your concession to all my points

Please don't.

 

[Shermana]

Pitch is negative, altitude is 2000' AGL, power is out, terrain below is rough. What's your first clue, Shermana, that it's time to bail out because you just don't know how to fly this plane?

Projection is one of your most shining attributes. Hope you packed a parachute. So yeah, it appears you have no idea what "Syncretic" means, perhaps you'd like to explain how I'm being Syncretic while you're not. Because I've been accusing you of being syncretic, and then you just turn it around like that and refuse to explain how I'm being Syncretic? Is that supposed to be your own version of "I know you are but what am I"?

Please don't.

Why am I supposed to cater to your demands again? I'm sure the reader can make an honest assessment of why you're acting like this.

For the record, here's the definition of Syncretic. If anyone else reading would like to back Sojourner's claims that it's me who's being Syncretic and not him, please by all means enlighten me, I'll pay a shiny frubal for the enlightening.

the attempted reconciliation or union of different or opposing principles, practices, or parties, as in philosophy or religion.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Syncretic?s=t

 

[Oryonder]

Relationship = community. It takes people (plural) to have relationship. We are pack animals. God-as-Trinity is an expression of God-in-community, or God-as-community.

Interesting idea but certainly not anything traditionally Christian about it.

Sounds more of an eastern philosophy "God is everywhere" or Gnostic where God is viewed as various emanations from Godhead known as Aeons.

 

[sojourner]

perhaps you'd like to explain how I'm being Syncretic while you're not.

Love to!

I considered my choice of terms carefully, and almost didn't use "syncretic." But I decided, after all, that it does fit the bill.

It appears from your use of the texts in presenting your arguments that you seem to think that James backs up the gospels. It's quite possible (in fact very probable) that James was not aware of the gospels. Further, you seem to make broad arguments about "the gospels," as if they are all simply different versions of the same story, when, in fact, each one of them presents us with a quite unique theological take on the Jesus Event. That, to me, represents a syncretic treatment of them.

Since you're capitalizing the term, perhaps you have something different in mind?

 

[sojourner]

Interesting idea but certainly not anything traditionally Christian about it.

Sounds more of an eastern philosophy "God is everywhere" or Gnostic where God is viewed as various emanations from Godhead known as Aeons.

well...
isn't God omnipresent?

I suppose it isn't "traditional." But it makes a lot of sense to me, given the application of theology to what we now know about the universe scientifically.

 

[Shermana]

Love to!

Great. Finally, nice to see you try to actually back your accusations for a change.

I considered my choice of terms carefully, and almost didn't use "syncretic." But I decided, after all, that it does fit the bill.

Ah, and I assume you don't think you're Syncretic at all?

It appears from your use of the texts in presenting your arguments that you seem to think that James backs up the gospels

Most certainly he may back up the core Jewish teachings and works-based ideas that Jesus taught. I assume you either think he doesn't or that it's unwarranted to make this claim as if there's no need to discuss the specifics or you can just dive around the entire issue of what the Gospels even teach to begin with.

. It's quite possible (in fact very probable) that James was not aware of the gospels.

While that's true, the issue is what exactly he was teaching and what the gospels teach. It seems it boils down to you simply hand-waving any arguments about the gospels matching with what James says. I don't recall ever saying that James had read the gospels. If anything, I'd say Matthew would be a collection of ideas that the Jerusalem Church retained, not the other way around.

Further, you seem to make broad arguments about "the gospels," as if they are all simply different versions of the same story, when, in fact, each one of them presents us with a quite unique theological take on the Jesus Event.

I think you're basically ignoring what exactly I'm saying they all have in common. Granted they have different perspectives, but it's where they all meet which is the concern: And that's with the Upholding of Jewish Law and the works tradition. This topic alone is worthy of a thread. Maybe I'll make one in the new scholar's forum.

That, to me, represents a syncretic treatment of them.

Well then you'd have to believe that they have OPPOSING views to come to that conclusion if you're going to ignore and leave out the basic reason why I say they have a nonetheless collective base of similar foundation, which is in teaching Jewish tradition. It appears you're ultimately strawmanning my point by attempting to bypass the actual details.

Since you're capitalizing the term, perhaps you have something different in mind

Huh? I think I asked you also to explain why YOUR views aren't syncretic. I think I asked twice. I hope I don't have to ask each time why you don't think your views aren't syncretic. If your main concern is the Capitalization, I guess I'd have to deflect any question of yours that has a spelling or grammar issue?

Anyways, I made a thread on the new scholar's forum about this.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...-jerusalem-church-where-they.html#post2956264

 

[sojourner]

I'd say Matthew would be a collection of ideas that the Jerusalem Church retained, not the other way around.

I think I disagree with that statement. Matthew wasn't written in Jerusalem, so the gospel would have had to have time to get back to the Jerusalem Church for them to read and retain.

I think you're basically ignoring what exactly I'm saying they all have in common. Granted they have different perspectives, but it's where they all meet which is the concern: And that's with the Upholding of Jewish Law and the works tradition. This topic alone is worthy of a thread. Maybe I'll make one in the new scholar's forum.

I'd be interested to look at that further. you and I are obviously in different camps on that issue. I don't think they're as law-based as you seem to think they are.

Well then you'd have to believe that they have OPPOSING views to come to that conclusion if you're going to ignore and leave out the basic reason why I say they have a nonetheless collective base of similar foundation, which is in teaching Jewish tradition.

I think their opposing points of view lie within two spheres: Mark's construction of a literary tragedy, as opposed to, say, Luke-Acts version of human history having been drastically altered by the Jesus Event and its aftermath, and the presentation of Q and Thomas of a very rural aspect, as opposed to the very urban aspect, as presented by the canonicals.

Huh? I think I asked you also to explain why YOUR views aren't syncretic. I think I asked twice. I hope I don't have to ask each time why you don't think your views aren't Syncretic.

What, specifically, leads you to make that call? maybe I am... I don't know until I'm aware of what you're spotting.

 

[Shermana]

]I think I disagree with that statement. Matthew wasn't written in Jerusalem, so the gospel would have had to have time to get back to the Jerusalem Church for them to read and retain.

I don't think Matthew was written in Jerusalem necessarily, I think its original version, which was perhaps the "Gospel to the Hebrews", was written by a member of the Jerusalem Church Community. He/She/they/it could have written it on a trip to Rome for all we know, but the point being is that it was most likely written by a member of a Jewish-Christian sect, perhaps the original Jerusalem Church Jewish-Christian sect.

I'd be interested to look at that further. you and I are obviously in different camps on that issue. I don't think they're as law-based as you seem to think they are.

Indeed it's a matter of interpretation. The entire Messianic Jewish community, even if we have disagreements on particular details on doctrines and issues on the books themselves, agrees with the base of my interpretation, as do many independent scholars. It seems those who reject this interpretation are apologists for the remnants of the Pauline anti-Judaizing "orthodox" movements.

I think their opposing points of view lie within two spheres: Mark's construction of a literary tragedy, as opposed to, say, Luke-Acts version of human history having been drastically altered by the Jesus Event and its aftermath, and the presentation of Q and Thomas of a very rural aspect, as opposed to the very urban aspect, as presented by the canonicals.

I still don't understand what exactly "urban" entails in such a usage of the term in regards to the Theological issues. I even said last time that "Urban" if anything could imply Syncretism. I don't see how taking place in the city or the countryside makes a difference in the details. And as I said, Luke's authorship of Acts is now heavily disputed. Even Luke retains the Jewish Law theme, (16:17-31 for starters). You made it out like there was an actual difference in Theological issues, now you're saying its a matter of thematic issues. I agree that they have different styles, that's not being disputed. What's being disputed is the general ideas, philosophies, beliefs, and teachings which is in these Thematically-different accounts. And for Mark being a "literary-tragedy", you could say the same for all four gospels.

What, specifically, leads you to make that call? maybe I am... I don't know until I'm aware of what you're spotting.

For just a starter, you said Paul was wrong about his condemnation of male-male relations because "He didnt know what we know today" or something. How is that not syncretic? And then we can discuss your whole view about your definition of "Organic" and how the "culture trumps scripture".

 

[tumbleweed41]

MOD POST

Keep the thread on topic and refrain from personal attacks.

RULE 1: Personal attacks are strictly prohibited either on the forums or by Private Messaging, Signature Lines and Visitor Messages. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff.
​

 

[Oryonder]

well...
isn't God omnipresent?

I suppose it isn't "traditional." But it makes a lot of sense to me, given the application of theology to what we now know about the universe scientifically.

The idea certainly fits in with an omnipresent God. There are other seemingly Eastern influences that can be found in the bible as well for example, when Jesus is asked where God is he responds something like ..

"false prophets will say " God is here God is there" .. I tell you that I have been with you all along.

This seems to suggest that God is within.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The idea certainly fits in with an omnipresent God. There are other seemingly Eastern influences that can be found in the bible as well for example, when Jesus is asked where God is he responds something like
"false prophets will say " God is here God is there" .. I tell you that I have been with you all along.
This seems to suggest that God is within.

Please post the Scripture verse that says 'God' is here/there?
- Matt. 24 vs 23,24

Many people apparently believe God is omnipresent although Scripture does Not teach that because 1st Kings [8 vs 30,39,43] establishes heaven as God's dwelling place. The resurrected Jesus appeared before the person of God located in heaven.-Hebrews 9 v 24

In Jesus' model prayer didn't Jesus place our Father who art in 'heaven' ?
So, from that heavenly fixed location God can accomplish his purpose.
-Deut. 26 v 15 A; Psalm 104 v 30.

 

[SageTree]

"false prophets will say " God is here God is there" .. I tell you that I have been with you all along.

This seems to suggest that God is within.

100% agree.

Duality has it's time and place... but in the Ultimate relational sense, I feel, it creates a bit of a barrier in understanding.

 

[Muffled]

The idea certainly fits in with an omnipresent God. There are other seemingly Eastern influences that can be found in the bible as well for example, when Jesus is asked where God is he responds something like ..

"false prophets will say " God is here God is there" .. I tell you that I have been with you all along.

This seems to suggest that God is within.

However Jesus taught His disciples to pray "Our Father who art in Heaven." Since He is in all places that men are in and in Heaven also, it should be evident that God is everywhere.

I am supposing that you are referring to historical aspects of the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Please post the Scripture verse that says 'God' is here/there?
- Matt. 24 vs 23,24

Many people apparently believe God is omnipresent although Scripture does Not teach that because 1st Kings [8 vs 30,39,43] establishes heaven as God's dwelling place. The resurrected Jesus appeared before the person of God located in heaven.-Hebrews 9 v 24

In Jesus' model prayer didn't Jesus place our Father who art in 'heaven' ?
So, from that heavenly fixed location God can accomplish his purpose.
-Deut. 26 v 15 A; Psalm 104 v 30.

Ps 68:16 Why look ye askance, ye high mountains, At the mountain which God hath desired for his abode? Yea, Jehovah will dwell in it for ever.

He is proably referring to this scripture in Mat that you supplied and the answer was: Mat 24:27 For as the lightning cometh forth from the east, and is seen even unto the west; so shall be the coming of the Son of man.

The truth is that people who don't understand the scritpure teach that God is not omni-present. The scripture teaches us that He is.

 

[kjw47]

Bravo to all the non-Trinitarians here, infidels, heretics and all; and Zadoc, I suggest that you study infidel math before counting your change in the supermarket. A key element of the "Trinity" doctrine, is that Jesus is (1) God and (2) Co-equal with "God the Father". There are several references in the Bible which contradict this. Let's start with the following:

Eph.1

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
[2] Grace be to you, and peace, from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:

According to Trinity doctrine, this would be:

Eph.1

[1] Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by his divine will, to the saints which are at Ephesus, and to the faithful in Christ Jesus:
[2] Grace be to you, and peace, from God, Who is both our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
[3] Blessed be God the Father and God Jesus Christ, who have blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Themself:

We have all seen Zadoc's "new math". We will now be entertained with extreme sports, beginning with mental gymnastics.

[By the way, Zadoc, there is nothing personal here. You and the other Trinitarians here have simply chosen the wrong side of an unwinnable debate. It is a debate that has left the church finely splintered in schisms since 325 AD; but it has its comical aspects]

Here is another thing the trinity religions would have to teach-- At Revelation 3:12 Jesus says my God 4 times in 1 paragraph( telling everyone that he has a God)--they would have to be teaching this: God has a God with another God over there as well.
Jesus also said --The Father is greater than i as a mortal, and i and the Father are one as a mortal--proving that one means in purpose not in being--because if it was in being then there is no equality because the Father is greater---proving there teachings are twisted. Jehovah is the only true God=reality--Jesus is his son.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ephesians 1 vs 2,3 uses the connecting word 'and'. 'And' connects one separate person with another separate person. Not connecting the same person with the same person, but two separate persons are mentioned by using the conjunction 'and'.

 

[BlandOatmeal]

Uravip,

I don't see exactly what you're trying to say. Both kjw and I are asserting that Eph 1:1-3 describes Jesus as being in a subordinate standing to God, nor part of a "godhead". Do you agree, or disagree?