Thoughts about Trinity beliefs

[TheLightWithin]

But of course this information is a subject for debate.

Correct.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Bible says conquer the evil with the good.

Very good sounding, the challenge with interpretation is the broad words evil and good.
The meaning of those terms, so powerful yet so fuzzy, and how the rule, "conquer good with evil" could be applied actionably to specific concrete instances.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The scriptures say to even love your enemies, to pray for those that persecute you, to love your neighbor as yourself, to do unto others like you would want them to do unto you, if we consider all the scriptures I think it sheds a different light on other scriptures,

Wouldn't Paul's words be an example for us to follow?

How can we be reliably sure that people will go to helpful scriptures to help them interpret more challenging or even harsher sounding scriptures?

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Jewish people that followed the old law, The Greek and Hebrew Jews that believed in Jesus, The Romans, and many others considered the other religions to be heretics, each one thought they were correct and the others were heretics.

Still going on too

 

[TheLightWithin]

Don't you think that people that give out false information comes in many shapes and sizes and uniforms?

That is not in doubt

 

[TheLightWithin]

rattle off all kinds of things about how they want to treat others like joel webbon does.

I don't know this person and I don't know what he teaches.

You may be better off not knowing. He's an extremist pastor. You'd have to look him up. If you want to. He's not very nice. I occasionally refer to him as an example of troubling trends in certain corners of evangelicalism, as his attitudes are extreme and harsh -but I rarely post links to him, not to give him too much traffic, and also some of his rhetoric gets into political territory which we are not doing on I/O forums anymore.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It is not important for me to debate this point or that point, what's important to me is to explain my fundamental beliefs with scriptures alone, and then look at the other person's fundamental beliefs and the scriptures they use to explain each belief.

That sounds healthy.
Some people want to fight and prove they are right. Your attitude seems more useful.

One thing I admire about Judaism is their long history of debate amongst rabbis and scholars, and how their tradition recognizes and embraces the fact that different readers will interpret various texts differently. The sage rabbis manage to debate and respect varying opinions at the same time.

 

[Thomas]

... still others like Jehovah's Witnesses get their information strictly from the Bible alone...
But of course this information is a subject for debate.

Clearly, as I'm afraid by singling that out, the response is the JW's New World Translation is neither accurate nor trustworthy.

 

[walter]

Clearly, as I'm afraid by singling that out, the response is the JW's New World Translation is neither accurate nor trustworthy.

 

[walter]

Clearly, as I'm afraid by singling that out, the response is the JW's New World Translation is neither accurate nor trustworthy.

I use studybible.info, Biblehub.com and Biblegateway.com I purposely use other people's Bibles because so many people feel the way you do. I wish there wasn't so much division in our thinking when we all believe in and love Christ and his Father.

I think you will find all religions that believe in Christ to use some or many scriptures to support their beliefs.

 

[Thomas]

I wish there wasn't so much division in our thinking when we all believe in and love Christ and his Father.

So do I. Why can't everyone believe as I do!

I think you will find all religions that believe in Christ to use some or many scriptures to support their beliefs.

But not the NWT, that was my point.

 

[walter]

But not the NWT, that was my point.

I use other people's Bibles anyways, so it doesn't really matter to me.

 

[Clear]

I have heard there is translation questions about the word interpreted as “eternal.” As I recall the original word (Greek?) was Eons or something like that. Some interpretations say it means a long time, but not necessarily forever. I agree that eternal damnation is inconsistent with a loving God. A loving God would allow for, and probably assist, a transformation process in which souls finally align with the Harmony of the Source, Ground of Being (Being being a harmonious wholeness in and of itself), God. I sometimes personify the I-amness, Being (as in fully being) nature of God as “BOB” (Base Of Being,” a variation of Tillich’s Ground of Being). “Hey, Bob, please help me…” Or “Dear Bob, thanks so much for…”, etc.

Hi otherbrother

You are correct. There is no specific word for "eternal" in greek. "αιων" (eng "eon") is an undetermined period of time. "εισ τουσ αιωνασ των αιωνων" or "for eons of eons" is often used to enhance the indeterminant and LONG period of time to try to express the modern concept of "eternity". The same is true for the hebrew עוֹלָם (olam). It is an unspecified time with an unknown ending.

 

[Adrian Mole]

If you can think of a word for all three of them, I'm interested.

Well, how about 'God' as the word for the 'Three combined' and 'manifestation' (of God) for each, individually?

Let me explain my thinking: The fullness of the nature and form of God is utterly beyond human understanding and comprehension - and those who try to explain, justify, or criticise God's actions (or lack of action) in human terms are paddling their canoes uphill (so to speak).

In the Hebrew Bible, various theophanies occur, in which God 'manifests' himself in various ways - usually involving thunderstorms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or other powerful works of 'nature'. But there are also other, more intimate theophanies: the Burning Bush, from which he reveals himself to Moses; the pillars of cloud/fire, by which he identifies himself as Israel's guide and protector, to name but two. But the overarching doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is that "no man can see God" (and survive the experience).

With the arrival of Jesus, we have a fuller revelation of God and the way he interacts with his Creation: three different manifestations of the same, single God:

The "Father" is (in some ways) equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH - the invisible, indefinable King of Heaven.

The "Holy Spirit" (a term already used numerous time in the Hebrew Scriptures) is the force by which God can (and does) inspire humans to proclaim his word, perform miracles in his name, et cetera. In the NT, it is also used (sometimes) as the force behind theophanies (like shaking houses where the apostles were meeting).

The "Son" (Jesus Christ) is God's manifestation of himself 'among us' (Immanuel = "God with us"). It is interesting to note that Jesus often defers to 'the Father' and (on at least one occasion) elevates 'the Spirit' to a 'holier level' than himself (those who sin against the Spirit cannot be forgiven).

Of course, there is nothing to prevent God from manifesting himself in any number of other ways - but these Three are sufficient from a doctrinal perspective, and they are the 'canonical' manifestations that he has given to us and proclaimed to us.

Why Three? Well, that's not for me to say - but there are numerous passages in Hebrew Scripture that allude to the Trinity: The three 'men' that Abraham saw when the LORD appeared to him at Mamre (Gen 18); the "Holy, Holy, Holy" song of the cherubim in Isaiah's vision, and others.

 

[Longfellow]

Well, how about 'God' as the word for the 'Three combined' and 'manifestation' (of God) for each, individually?

Let me explain my thinking: The fullness of the nature and form of God is utterly beyond human understanding and comprehension - and those who try to explain, justify, or criticise God's actions (or lack of action) in human terms are paddling their canoes uphill (so to speak).

In the Hebrew Bible, various theophanies occur, in which God 'manifests' himself in various ways - usually involving thunderstorms, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, or other powerful works of 'nature'. But there are also other, more intimate theophanies: the Burning Bush, from which he reveals himself to Moses; the pillars of cloud/fire, by which he identifies himself as Israel's guide and protector, to name but two. But the overarching doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is that "no man can see God" (and survive the experience).

With the arrival of Jesus, we have a fuller revelation of God and the way he interacts with his Creation: three different manifestations of the same, single God:

The "Father" is (in some ways) equivalent to the Hebrew YHWH - the invisible, indefinable King of Heaven.

The "Holy Spirit" (a term already used numerous time in the Hebrew Scriptures) is the force by which God can (and does) inspire humans to proclaim his word, perform miracles in his name, et cetera. In the NT, it is also used (sometimes) as the force behind theophanies (like shaking houses where the apostles were meeting).

The "Son" (Jesus Christ) is God's manifestation of himself 'among us' (Immanuel = "God with us"). It is interesting to note that Jesus often defers to 'the Father' and (on at least one occasion) elevates 'the Spirit' to a 'holier level' than himself (those who sin against the Spirit cannot be forgiven).

Of course, there is nothing to prevent God from manifesting himself in any number of other ways - but these Three are sufficient from a doctrinal perspective, and they are the 'canonical' manifestations that he has given to us and proclaimed to us.

Why Three? Well, that's not for me to say - but there are numerous passages in Hebrew Scripture that allude to the Trinity: The three 'men' that Abraham saw when the LORD appeared to him at Mamre (Gen 18); the "Holy, Holy, Holy" song of the cherubim in Isaiah's vision, and others.

That might agree with some definitions and common usages of “manifestation,” but maybe not others.