The Trinity

jlb32168

Posts: 10,303

Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Blü wrote:
'Good Shepherd' isn't explicit?

You said Christ didn’t want the term “good” applied to Himself. When Christ then went ahead and applied the term “good” to Himself. You changed the criteria.

That’s just hysterical. You change the evidence when the evidence doesn’t suit your argument rather than change your argument to suit the evidence – talk about disemboweling the meaning of statements!

Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Blü wrote:
No one is good but God alone'.

And He never says, “I’m not God” – something you seem to forget.

Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Blü wrote:
What Trinitarians believe is irrelevant (and, as we've seen repeatedly, a nonsense). Our topic here is whether the notion of the Trinity exists in the NT independently of your preconceptions.

Jun 24, 2012 -- 9:03PM, Blü wrote:
And in that you trail by 22-0.

If it didn’t exist, why did you say there were “Hints” of it in the NT?

If it didn’t exist, why did you suggest that the writers were adding dialogue to Thomas in attempts to deify Christ?

Why have you not addressed the twelve cases where the concept “Spirit of God” is mentioned as distinct from the Father?

Why have you not addressed the problem with your assertion that Theophilus of Antioch cooked up the theology of the Trinity in AD 180 and how that doesn’t explain why Tertullian writing about the Trinity hundreds of miles away, and in a different language altogether and at the same time?

Do you practice saying Taurine Fertilizer or does it simply come naturally?

Victim of this, victim of that, your mama’s too thin and your daddy’s too fat, get over it! - the Eagles

Daldianus

Posts: 29,855

Jun 24, 2012 -- 10:05PM, jlb32168 wrote:
And He never says, “I’m not God” – something you seem to forget.

He also never said 'I am not gay'. So?

>> Feed your brain with awesome!
“After your death you will be what you were before your birth.” - Arthur Schopenhauer
"Eternity is very long, especially towards the end." - Woody Allen

tfvespasianus

Posts: 1,740

I am writing from an airport so forgive any poor citation. Davidson's New Bible Commentary raises the important point that in Rev. "the application to Christ of the attributes of God is a constant phenomenon in this book". Thus the author sees one like a son of man, with white hair like the ancient of days, feet that shine like brass, and a voice like rushing waters. The allusions are from Daniel and Ezekiel and imply divinity. Putting aside the validity of the claims of Rev., it surely has to be conceded that the work pre-dates 180. Moreover, to posit that the son of man figure is something other than Jesus is not tenable.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus

Blü

Posts: 21,156

jlb

You changed the criteria.

I agree the argument has evolved. The criterion is what the text says and that hasn't changed.

Blü

Posts: 21,156

tfv

it surely has to be conceded that the work pre-dates 180.

Yes, but it doesn't demonstrate the Trinity. In the Trinity, there's no God except the Trinity, its three components are equal in power and divinity, and so on. None of that is present in Revelation.

There's no dispute that various authors in the NT want Jesus to be declared a god. That's the soil out of which the Trinity solution later grew - how to have two gods without letting go of monotheism. (The inclusion of the Ghost is overkill. In the NT he's always the errand boy.)

And that's before we get to the fact, which the Catholic Encyclopedia confirms [see OP], that the Trinity is irrational ie a nonsense.

Kwinters

Posts: 17,683

Jun 22, 2012 -- 11:46AM, davelaw40 wrote:

it becomes ambiguous; we would have to examine your other statements and put them in context

But Jesus never asserts divinity in any other statements, he only makes statements that - even if we read them as his assertion of being the son of man/god - show him to be different from God.

Mark 13:32 No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

If Jesus were fully god then he would have to know because he would be omniscient.

Again, the only reading that makes sense is that when Jesus say, only god is good, he means only god is good, not humans, and not even the messiah.

Jesus had two dads, and he turned out alright.~ Andy Gussert

“Feminism has fought no wars. It has killed no opponents. It has set up no concentration camps, starved no enemies, practiced no cruelties. Its battles have been for education, for the vote, for better working conditions…for safety on the streets…for child care, for social welfare…for rape crisis centers, women’s refuges, reforms in the law.

If someone says, “Oh, I’m not a feminist,” I ask, “Why, what’s your problem?”

Dale Spender

Miguel_de_servet

Posts: 16,876

TFV

Jun 25, 2012 -- 7:58AM, tfvespasianus wrote:
... Davidson's New Bible Commentary raises the important point that in Rev. "the application to Christ of the attributes of God is a constant phenomenon in this book". Thus the author sees one like a son of man, with white hair like the ancient of days, feet that shine like brass, and a voice like rushing waters. The allusions are from Daniel and Ezekiel and imply divinity. Putting aside the validity of the claims of Rev., it surely has to be conceded that the work pre-dates 180. Moreover, to posit that the son of man figure is something other than Jesus is not tenable.

No objection to all the above.

But you omit to say that Jesus, unquestionably represented as the Lamb, throughout Revelation is presented as distinct from "him who is seated on the throne" (Rev 6:16), "God who sits on the throne" (Rev 7:10), "his Father" (Rev 14:1), "Lord God the Almighty" (Rev 21:22) ...

MdS

Revelation is above, not against Reason

“The everlasting God is a refuge, and underneath you are his eternal arms ...” (Deut 33:27)
“Do you have an arm like God, and can you thunder with a voice like his?” (Job 40:9)
“By the Lord’s word [dabar] the heavens were made; and by the breath [ruwach] of his mouth all their host.” (Psalm 33:6)
“Who would have believed what we just heard? When was the arm of the Lord revealed through him?” (Isaiah 53:1)
“Lord, who has believed our message, and to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed?” (John 12:38)
“For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law will be declared righteous.” (Romans 2:13)
“Owe no one anything, except to love one another, for the one who loves his neighbor has fulfilled the law.”(Romans 13:8)

tfvespasianus

Posts: 1,740

The soil is the text from which the idea grew? How did it grow? By plausible inference? If so- I think that's all some people are asking for.

Ubi solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant - Tacitus

Blü

Posts: 21,156

Daldianus

He also never said 'I am not gay'. So?

John 13

23 One of his disciples, whom Jesus loved, was lying close to the breast of Jesus; 24 so Simon Peter beckoned to him and said, "Tell us who it is of whom he speaks." 25 So lying thus, close to the breast of Jesus, he said to him, "Lord, who is it?"

Known variously as 'the Beloved Disciple'. 'Cuddles' and so on.

The idea that the disciples were divided into 'Beloved' and 'Other' has a certain charm too.

Blü

Posts: 21,156

tfv

The soil is the text from which the idea grew? How did it grow? By plausible inference?

If it were plausible inference, why did it result in a nonsense? (Or 'mystery', as the Catholic Encyclopedia politely calls it.) See the OP.

TFV

Beliefnet On Facebook

What's Hot