- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121961
342d
@philokalia saidI’ve just demonstrated a biblically sound rationale for this not being the case. A rationale which explains John1 and yet is in keeping with the wider narrative that god is one.
And yes, God is ONE, but with three distinct persons with one essence.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121961
So God is a thing outside of the universe - hard to imagine
Creates a way for himself to interact with and manage the creation of the universe - called the word in the bible
Then becomes flesh, a veil of flesh in order to interact with humankind called Jesus on earth.
The reason the disciples baptised in the name of Jesus is that they recognised the ONE entity which was God, the word wrapped in that veil of flesh.
I don’t see any issue with this thinking and interpretation
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121961
342d
@pettytalk saidPerhaps you can offer an alternative PettyTalk.
Using the Bible as evidence of its own truth is akin to a defendant on trial for murder who doubles as his own witness and alibi, claiming he was not present at the scene of the crime when the murder took place.
I mean despite all your extended performative waffle, who here knows what you even believe about god. I’ve asked you several times if you are a Christian and you duck out.
@fmf saidNo, this is wrong: the trinity was fully known and developed right away.
As for those giant fissures that make the Bible now contradictory and completely fallible...
Hence, hundreds of years after the Gospels were written, the theology of the Trinity had to be concocted.
It's all throughout the Book of John and in the other Gospels, but John 1 especially.
It's also in the very greetings in some fo the Epistles:
1 Peter 1:2 who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood: Grace and peace be yours in abundance.
It's also brought up in 1 Colossians 1:
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.
16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him.
17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
So, of course, it is codified, and we know that in the very early days of the Church in the writings of the earliest sub-apostolic church fathers they are believing in the Trinity.
You are just taking the far less popular perspective in the debate about the Trinity because it tarnishes the religion in your eyes.
@pettytalk saidAt some point you have to acknowledge that this stuff can be about a specific point of theology...
Using the Bible as evidence of its own truth is akin to a defendant on trial for murder who doubles as his own witness and alibi, claiming he was not present at the scene of the crime when the murder took place.
Going up to Christians and others interested in rthe religion discussing the doctrine of the Trinity and providing some snotty comment about how the Bible itself might be fake is just crashing a party to put yuor foot in your mouth.
342d
1 edit
@divegeester said"manifested in several ways"
Ah ok, my version of the “godhead”… ok
I believe in the oneness of God. One spirit, one God, manifested in several ways.
You ok now?
How many ways?
I'm gonna take a wild stab here and say, three?
342d
@divegeester saidKinda sounds like Trinity to me.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
The word became flesh
Firstly in the beginning was the word, I believe refers to the beginning of time, the beginning of the universe. The word was the first thing made, a way of god interacting with the universe because god existed outside of the uni ...[text shortened]... with humans as so became flesh. But it’s all still the same one god. Not distinct people/identities.
342d
@divegeester saidTrinitarians believe that God is one.
I’ve just demonstrated a biblically sound rationale for this not being the case. A rationale which explains John1 and yet is in keeping with the wider narrative that god is one.
Your "Godhead" idea is the Trinity.
Kind of a weak milquetoast (as I said) "kinda" sorta way, but, you know. It's so you.
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
342d
To kill two birds here with one stone. If God has certain individuals here acting as His advocates to defend His honor and His word, then it can be concluded that God must either be mad or a fool. However, I personally know God, and I am aware that no one was hired as His lawyer or as a contract/covenant specialist.
"I will now retreat to my vantage point and observe what further nonsense emerges.
342d
@philokalia saidIt matters not to me if it "tarnishes" the religion. The problem with it, for me, is that it is mumbo-jumbo created in the C4th because there was a gap between the contrived ideology corporate Christianity needed and the simple teachings attributed to Christ, and I do not find it credible. If it floats your spiritual and intellectual boats, so be it. The dogmas that you subscribe to do me no harm and I don't care who thinks they are "tarnished" and who thinks they are polished.
You are just taking the far less popular perspective in the debate about the Trinity because it tarnishes the religion in your eyes.
- Joined
- 16 Feb 08
- Moves
- 121961
342d
@philokalia saidWhen you say “developed” you are accidentally acknowledging that the trinity is a man made construct.
No, this is wrong: the trinity was fully known and developed right away.