@Jaywill

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Are you people going to admit that your trinity is a product of metaphysics or are you
not?

I would say not. I believe it comes from what is termed Epistemology.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I would say not. I believe it comes from what is termed Epistemology.

Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica therefore in your opinion wrong when it states that an
attempt was made to describe the relationship between father and son in metaphysical
terms.

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
he also gave no consideration to the idea that he was equal to god, ooops, how
embarrassing for you, now are you going to admit that your dogma is a product of
metaphysics, why indeed would the Encyclopaedia Britannica make it up, are they also
trinitarians?

The Holy Bible also says He humbled himself to take on flesh even though
He was equal with God and was God. So for a short time while dwelling as
flesh and blood he was lower than the angels. But after His resurrection
He obtained all authority in heaven and earth making Him above all things.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Is the Encyclopaedia Britannica therefore in your opinion wrong when it states that an
attempt was made to describe the relationship between father and son in metaphysical
terms.

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

Whoever wrote that article is ignorant of the facts and does not know. 😏

Originally posted by RJHinds
The Holy Bible also says He humbled himself to take on flesh even though
He was equal with God and was God. So for a short time while dwelling as
flesh and blood he was lower than the angels. But after His resurrection
He obtained all authority in heaven and earth making Him above all things.

it says nothing of the sort, Christ never claimed to be equal to God, you are of course
reflecting your dogma, which has its basis not in scripture but in Neoplatonic
metaphysical concepts, that is why you constantly portray elements that are not
explicitly stated in scripture and just for the record, after his resurrection Christ
subjects himself to God, now please stop portraying elements that are not explicit in
the text, admit that your dogma is extra biblical and stop the pretence, again, is the
Encyclopaedia Britannica wrong, if so, on what basis is it wrong when it states,

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

Originally posted by RJHinds
Whoever wrote that article is ignorant of the facts and does not know. 😏

ok, why are they wrong, you have stated that the article is inaccurate, on what basis is
it inaccurate?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it says nothing of the sort, Christ never claimed to be equal to God, you are of course
reflecting your dogma, which has its basis not in scripture but in Neoplatonic
metaphysical concepts, that is why you constantly portray elements that are not
explicitly stated in scripture and just for the record, after his resurrection Christ
subjects hi ...[text shortened]... nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

The following is a better place to go than the Encyclopedia Britannica to
learn about spiritual matters concerning the Trinity of God:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
The following is a better place to go than the Encyclopedia Britannica to
learn about spiritual matters concerning the Trinity of God:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

You have stated that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, on what basis is it wrong
RJH,

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You have stated that the Encyclopaedia Britannica is wrong, on what basis is it wrong
RJH,

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

Originally posted by RJHinds
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15047a.htm

It doesn't mention anything about the encyclopaedia Britannica nor neoplatonism, so I
will ask you again, is the encyclopaedia Britannica wrong when it states that the trinity
is an attempt to explain the relationship between God and Christ in metaphysical terms
and why is this wrong, you said it, surely you know why?

Christian theology took the Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy] of substance as well
as its doctrine of hypostases [essence, or nature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
It doesn't mention anything about the encyclopaedia Britannica nor neoplatonism, so I
will ask you again, is the encyclopaedia Britannica wrong when it states that the trinity
is an attempt to explain the relationship between God and Christ in metaphysical terms
and why is this wrong, you said it, surely you know why?

Christian theology took ...[text shortened]... ature] as the departure point for
interpreting the relationship of the ‘Father’ to the ‘Son.’”

That is because it has nothing to do with Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy],
Spanky.

Originally posted by RJHinds
That is because it has nothing to do with Neoplatonic metaphysics [philosophy],
Spanky.

yet the encyclopaedia Britannica says it does, so either its lying, or you are lying. Now
why would the encyclopaedia Britannica, a well respected publication resort to printing
inaccurate statements.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yet the encyclopaedia Britannica says it does, so either its lying, or you are lying. Now
why would the encyclopaedia Britannica, a well respected publication resort to printing
inaccurate statements.

I doubt if they do it on purpose. They apparently do not know any better.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I doubt if they do it on purpose. They apparently do not know any better.

yet apparently you do, yet you cannot say why, interesting phenomena!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yet apparently you do, yet you cannot say why, interesting phenomena!

I gave you a reference that will explain all about the trinity. Apparently,
you don't really want to know the truth. You only want to read false
staements about it.