Thoughts about Trinity beliefs
- Thread starter Longfellow
- Start date
Yahweh kid
I am blessed!
The sheep and the goats have a different fate. That is pretty clear, or do you deny that?
Matthew 25:31-46
Are the goats and the sheep brother's and sister in Christ?
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
The sheep are the ones who gave meat to the hungered, gave drink to the thirsty, took in the stranger, clothed the naked, visited the sick, and came to people in prison.
33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.
The goats are the ones who didn't.
41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:
42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
Maybe grammatically it could be "God," or "his only begotten Son," but either way it's God.
That isn't what I said. I do see it in John 3:16. I see John 3:16 saying that Jesus is the redeemer.
What I do not see is this:
"No one can be saved unless they know the magic words," whatever the words might be. "Jesus is God." "Jesus is the only begotten Son of God." "Jesus died to save us from our sins." "Jesus is the redeemer." "Jesus paid the price and took the punishment for our sins." "God sacrificed His only begotten Son to save us from our sins." Whatever the magic words might be, I don't see John 3:16 saying that a person has to know any of those magic words, before they can be saved.
I do see how a person could think that John 3:16 is saying that a person needs to know that Jesus is God's only begotten Son, that God gave because of His love for the world, before they can be saved. I can see how a person could understand it that way, but even then, it doesn't mean that they would have to know the right words for it. They would need to know it in their heart, but they wouldn't have to know how to say it in words. And knowing the right words doesn't mean that they know it in their hearts.
Yahweh kid
I am blessed!
God saves from everlasting fire.....
God curse them to everlasting fire....
This is just to tell us that not all will receive everlasting life.
No magic words are going to give us Salvation.....
I agree, I believe I did say that our belief must not come from the mind alone, but also the heart. Again this means there will be a huge amount of people that will not be Saved. (many do not have Jesus in there heart)
That's a bit of an extreme viewpoint..
What we need to "give up", is lying, cheating, profiting from other people's misfortunes, usury etc.
What we have have earnt through hard work is our own .. to spend on our family and community.
"G-d has forbidden usury, and encouraged almsgiving"
..but yes, I agree with you from a "city of London" point of view.
i.e. guilty of financial/political corruption
Yep. I withdrew it ... might repost.
The Gospel – taken literally – says otherwise ...
Well, taking Scripture literally is highly problematic..
..just look at the Creationist/Evolutionist debate that goes on and on in the US.
The middle way is best .. I don't like speeding along the outside lane on a motorway!
We can learn more from "the whole" than we can from a few cherry-picked verses.
- Messages
- 2,879
- Reaction score
- 1,479
- Points
- 108
What is it about it that is silly and/or stupid?
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I don't know how to explain why all this matters to me, and I can't think of any reason why anyone should care why it matters to me. This is just a message in a bottle.
I'm honestly not sure how much more benefit anyone can get in our time from reading the Bible itself than from reading books from a Christian bookstore. Maybe not even as much. If there can be any more benefit, I'm thinking that what Jesus would want for people most of all would be to see God in Him, to see Him inviting them into His kingdom, and to walk into it by learning together to live the way He says to live. Mostly what I see today in Christian beliefs and evangelism looks to me like hiding that from people and diverting and even repelling them away from learning about it. That's focusing on the conservative side, but I do think that the liberal side is hiding it and diverting and repelling people away from learning about it also, but in different ways. Anyway, for whatever reason, I'm distracted more by what's happening on the conservative side. Yes, I do have better things to do in my life than worrying about this, but it's a temptation that I don't always resist.
One of the ways that I see as hiding his kingdom from people and repelling people away from learning about it is the belief that Jesus took a punishment that we deserve for our sins. Another is the idea that He didn't actually take the punishment for all of us, but only for the people who believe the right things about who He is and what He did, that the punishment is still hanging over us, that we can escape from it simply by believing this or that about who He is and what He did, and insisting that's the only way that we can escape. That's part of a larger problem of making the gospel all about salvation instead of about the kingdom. In my understanding, salvation is not an end in itself, it's freeing us to enter His kingdom. There's nothing we have to do or think to have that freedom, we already have it, He already broke our chains and cleared the way, and a person doesn't need to know anything in words about who He is or what He did, to enter it.
I'm honestly not sure how much more benefit anyone can get in our time from reading the Bible itself than from reading books from a Christian bookstore. Maybe not even as much. If there can be any more benefit, I'm thinking that what Jesus would want for people most of all would be to see God in Him, to see Him inviting them into His kingdom, and to walk into it by learning together to live the way He says to live. Mostly what I see today in Christian beliefs and evangelism looks to me like hiding that from people and diverting and even repelling them away from learning about it. That's focusing on the conservative side, but I do think that the liberal side is hiding it and diverting and repelling people away from learning about it also, but in different ways. Anyway, for whatever reason, I'm distracted more by what's happening on the conservative side. Yes, I do have better things to do in my life than worrying about this, but it's a temptation that I don't always resist.
One of the ways that I see as hiding his kingdom from people and repelling people away from learning about it is the belief that Jesus took a punishment that we deserve for our sins. Another is the idea that He didn't actually take the punishment for all of us, but only for the people who believe the right things about who He is and what He did, that the punishment is still hanging over us, that we can escape from it simply by believing this or that about who He is and what He did, and insisting that's the only way that we can escape. That's part of a larger problem of making the gospel all about salvation instead of about the kingdom. In my understanding, salvation is not an end in itself, it's freeing us to enter His kingdom. There's nothing we have to do or think to have that freedom, we already have it, He already broke our chains and cleared the way, and a person doesn't need to know anything in words about who He is or what He did, to enter it.
Last edited:
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I see now that what I've been doing is like playing whack-a-mole, and ignoring my own wisdom about not tilting at windmills or boxing with shadows. There are no shortcuts. Just tell my story.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
It really is like boxing with shadows. What I've been arguing and whining about is only shadows, and boxing away at them will never get rid of them as long whatever is blocking the light is there.
(later) But what is casting the shadow?
A shadow of something inside of people ...? Attachments?
(later) But what is casting the shadow?
A shadow of something inside of people ...? Attachments?
Last edited:
Me being short-tempered and outspoken – the temperature is soaring here (for a Brit) – bear with an old man!
OK ... what was the irritation:
"The vast majority of Christians today and I'm talking at least 95 percent of Christians today believe in the Trinity for no other reason than they've always believed in it because that's what they've always been taught ... "
OK. But if you're going to debunk the doctrine, tackle the doctrine, not the people who believe in it.
0:16: "all right we want to just rattle around the cage a little and say why don't you start to really look what the Bible actually does teach and then you'll get an understanding that the Trinity is not real, that God is the Supreme Advanced Creator and sustainer of this universe ... "
Baptism, from the earliest records, was in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Ghost ...
0:29 " ... Supreme Advanced Creator ... " what does that actually mean?
Trinitarians teach God as 'Creator', and God as 'Supreme' – but I have no idea what 'advanced' means in context.
0:37 "... that he did have a son who was separate, physically separate, from him ... "
Agreed. But what about spiritually? Surely that's the point.
He's not addressing the doctrine. It's just tub-thumping rhetoric.
0:44 "... his holy spirit Power is exactly that his power upon which the whole universe is governed and is controlled by that power it is not a living entity or a creature that has a mind of its own that's really what the Bible teaches ..."
That's not what the Bible teaches at all.
John presents that Holy Spirit as Paraclete, from the Greek term para 'beside/alongside' and kalein 'to call' – someone who is called to be alongside someone else. The idea of 'advocate' comes from the meeting of the Greek and Roman world. The Greek word was coined as the equivalent of the Latin advocatus, a person of high social standing who speaks on behalf of a defendant in a court before a judge.
In the Jewish mind such as that of John, the term can be used to imply angels, prophets and 'the just' as advocates before God's court. In the LXX of Job 16:2, parakletores carries the meaning of 'one who consoles'.
The term 'paraclete' refers to a person, not a power.
So in the mind of educated Jews, Greeks and Romans, parakletos has a specific meaning in the legal context. In John, the Holy Spirit comes as advocate and a witness: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you." (John 14:26) Note the 'He', and that 'He' will know the individual. It's not just power resting in us. It's to do with the mind, the intelligence.
+++
6:21 "now the trinitarian when he opens up Acts 10 verse 38 he is really forced with his understanding of the Trinity he's forced to read that verse like this very simple God anointed himself with himself because they're all one they're all co-eternal they all have the mind of their own they're all a person they're all an entity but they're all one being it does not make sense ... "
Hang on ... read the text:
"How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
So we have God (the Father) anointing Jesus of nazareth, the man. It's no more God anointing himself than Jesus baptising himself ... it's just a silly argument and reflects poorly on the person making it. It's a Straw Man fallacy as far as Trinitarians go.
And might I remind you that the Bible presents Jesus anointed 'with the Holy Spirit and power' – two things, so to say the Holy Spirit is 'just' power is clearly skating over what the Bible is actually saying.
+++
If you want me to go through the whole transcript, I will (although I'd rather not), I've got a pretty good sense that he's not talking about 'what the Bible actually does teach' but 'our interpretation of what the text means.'
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
I'm thinking that in any description of the Trinity faithful to the Bible, "person" does not mean what it does in any other context, so I don't see why people try so hard to prove that it does mean that for the Holy Spirit, quoting passages that fit that and ignoring ones that don't or trying to squeeze a square peg into a round hole. All that does is discredit the belief, because it's so obviously cherry picking and fingers in the ears. God is what He is, and that goes for all of His Persons(T). The Holy Spirit is what they are, and can't be reduced to any category including "person" or "not a person." That's one of the pitfalls of using the word "person" in describing the Trinity, the spectacle of people trying to prove that the Holy Spirit is a person as if they were what "person" normally means.
Last edited:
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
It just grieves me to see people thinking that the only thing that matters is knowing the right words to say, without knowing or caring what the Bible says about it in its own words, other than cherry picking and quote mining and mental gymnastics to prove that whatever a person thinks the words mean is what the Bible says.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
My apologies to everyone for my outbursts. I know that when I see what looks to me like false and harmful ideas, I should just say what I think and not argue and whine about it, but I keep forgetting.
It looks to me like different people are thinking different things when they say "The Trinity," but what they all have in common is that God is one God and three persons. I think that a lot of confusion and grief comes from people thinking that "person" means what it does in everyday language. I don't think that it can mean what it does in any other context, and still be faithful to everything that the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so to avoid confusion and misunderstandings I say "Persons(T)." It's a very specialized meaning of "persons" that applies only to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and all it means is that they are not the same person, without saying that they actually are what anyone would otherwise call a person, except maybe the Son. The reason for saying that they are not the same person is because there is a relationship between them that a person would never have with their own self. They talk to each other and about each other in ways that can't just be play-acting or one person talking to their self.
It looks to me like different people are thinking different things when they say "The Trinity," but what they all have in common is that God is one God and three persons. I think that a lot of confusion and grief comes from people thinking that "person" means what it does in everyday language. I don't think that it can mean what it does in any other context, and still be faithful to everything that the Bible says about the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, so to avoid confusion and misunderstandings I say "Persons(T)." It's a very specialized meaning of "persons" that applies only to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and all it means is that they are not the same person, without saying that they actually are what anyone would otherwise call a person, except maybe the Son. The reason for saying that they are not the same person is because there is a relationship between them that a person would never have with their own self. They talk to each other and about each other in ways that can't just be play-acting or one person talking to their self.
Last edited:
Trouble is, 'person' means something today it never meant in Antiquity, so what we have is the fruits of the language is the same, but the meaning has changed.
At core, the idea is that the relationship between the Divine and the human is personal.
Love is personal, because it's not so much a thing as a dynamic way of being with regard to other beings – in short, 'open' to exchange.
I would prefer the term 'hypostasis' because that was used, and is more suitable and fitting ... it's just alien now, except to scholars.
Longfellow
Well-Known Member
There are several things that make the Son and the Holy Spirit God, for a person that believes the Bible. I won't list all of them, for one reason because everyone has already seen them possibly dozens of times. One example is the apostle Thomas calling Him "my Lord and my God," and Jesus not correcting him. What makes them one God is for example that Jesus agrees with Thomas calling Him God, and He would not allow that at all if it were contrary to God's prohibition against worshiping other gods.
What makes them one God is not anything that we can understand, it's just trusting Jesus that He would not allow anyone to call Him God if He and the Father were not the same God.
What makes them one God is not anything that we can understand, it's just trusting Jesus that He would not allow anyone to call Him God if He and the Father were not the same God.
- Messages
- 2,879
- Reaction score
- 1,479
- Points
- 108
Uh... that's not quite right. Specifically obsession is not quite right, is not the right word or concept. Carries unsavory implications - think of it this way - if someone who knew nothing about religion asked what was the obsession with Jesus or the Bible or the Trinity or anything else important - how would that sound?
Words themselves though - well Jesus is referred to as the Word and the bible is referred to as the Word.
Clarifying any differences there are between the meaning of the word Word - the theological concept as expressed in the person of Jesus and the Bible as a whole (according to theology) and just plain words, vocabulary words - maybe that needs clarification?
Believers do rely heavily on the words in the Bible, the idea being that all theology relies on the words in the Bible
But here's another thing -kind of a general thing - Whenever we hear anybody talk about anything, and we try to put those ideas into our own words, or convey them to someone else, we run the risk of them saying "That's not what I said"
Sometimes you have to explain how you got THIS (your idea) out of THAT (someone else's words, spoken or printed)
And it is necessary to put things in other words -think of it this way - when someone tries to answer a theological or doctrinal question by just quoting a long bible passage out of context - it makes no sense. You need words to explain what it means. Or what you think it means. Yes, it will almost certainly mean using words that aren't in there. You just need to make the connection between what is on the page and what you are explaining, IF the idea is to help someone else see something or agree that the scripture or the theology/doctrine drawn from scripture is "right" or "true"
Now, historically, many denominations accuse other denominations of being "unscriptural"
What does that mean?
They think the denomination they are criticizing teaches something not in the Bible.
With something like a sacred scripture, which gets translated many times and holds its place of importance and authority for what may be thousands of years - and you are leaning on it always -
Well, if you have a theological concept (such as the Trinity) that you think is VERY CRUCIAL that RELIES ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE SCRIPTURE yet NOT EXPLICITLY STATED IN THE SCRIPTURE - You might have to explain many times, to many people, why that is - pointing out the connection between the scripture and the idea, and explain what made it necessary to choose the new word, or why such a crucial word or concept was not in the scripture transparently in the first place.
It's not a crazy thing, if I summarize or paraphrase something you say about any topic, maybe I would need to explain my new choice of words. Or if I were correct, I interpreted you correctly, and other people found you confusing, and I helped other people understand you, they might ask why YOU did not use the words I used in the first place.
If you have an idea that you think is scriptural but the words go beyond the words of scripture, yep, you'll be asked for clarification many times. You may have to explain over and over why the idea is right - to different people, or the same people who don't get it but still ask in an effort to understand what you mean. I think that's okay... that's kind of the point of theological discussion -Does anybody think that is not okay?