Freethought & Rationalism Archive

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clivedurdle

Is the son equal to the father?

According to the Bible? No, not exactly.

Malachi151 · 10-09-2006, 11:44 AM

Trinity is a concept that was decleoped later by theologeans, it comes out of the so-called pagan traditions, especially Greek/Egyptian culture.

Some info on this:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/relics.html

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Here "the Spirit of God" and "the Holy Spirit" are implied to be "the same Spirit," are they not?

In a purely strict literal interpretation that you required when you started this thread (implied with "inerrant", I guess, although really you confused the terms), then no. The Spirit of God prevents Jesus from being called accursed, and the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord. Likewise, Romans 8.9 doesn't mandate the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as the same. And if they do, Spirit of Christ doesn't have to be Christ himself. You're imposing your own views of Trinity on what could be a very complex spirit structure.

Does it work? It can. It's possible. That's why you ought to avoid the idiotic inerrancy/strict literality position.

dzim77 · 10-09-2006, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Here "the Spirit of God" and "the Holy Spirit" are implied to be "the same Spirit," are they not?

Along those lines, Peter (according to the author of Acts) and Paul both seem to equate the Holy Spirit as being God...

Quote:

Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. And we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord's glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit. 2 Corinthians 3:17-18

Quote:

Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn't it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn't the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

In a purely strict literal interpretation that you required when you started this thread (implied with "inerrant", I guess, although really you confused the terms),

I haven't confused them. Inerrancy does not necessarily require a literal interpretation, but it does require a reason to depart from a plain reading. I see none such here.

Quote:

then no. The Spirit of God prevents Jesus from being called accursed, and the Holy Spirit calls Jesus Lord.

I don't see how you can read it that way. Let's take it step by step...

"Now concerning spiritual gifts..."
What are the spiritual gifts?
"speaking by the Spirit of God"
"[speaking] by the Holy Spirit"
Okay, so there are two gifts and two spirits, right? Apparently not, because:
"There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."

A plain reading, therefore, shows us that "the Spirit of God" and "the Holy Spirit" are "the same Spirit."

Quote:

Likewise, Romans 8.9 doesn't mandate the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ as the same. And if they do, Spirit of Christ doesn't have to be Christ himself.

Romans 8:
9 But you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not His. 10 And if Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who dwells in you.

As you can see, "the Spirit of God," "the Spirit of Christ" and "Christ" are all used interchangeably. Given that, it is apparent the author at least considered them very closely interconnected.

Quote:

You're imposing your own views of Trinity on what could be a very complex spirit structure.

These are not my views--that is, I don't believe the Bible is inerrant, and so of course I don't believe in any Trinity. However, what I'm getting at is that if you presuppose inerrancy, a Trinity doctrine is strongly implied.

Quote:

Does it work? It can. It's possible. That's why you ought to avoid the idiotic inerrancy/strict literality position.

It can work, of course. So can nontrinitarianism. The question is, which is the most natural, unbiased interpretation?

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Inerrancy does not necessarily require a literal interpretation, but it does require a reason to depart from a plain reading. I see none such here.

No it doesn't. All that inerrancy requires is that the text is without error. That has nothing to do with plain readings or otherwise.

Quote:

It can work, of course. So can nontrinitarianism. The question is, which is the most natural, unbiased interpretation?

According to which book of the Bible? Realize that they are not all from the same.

You can't eat this one and have it too.

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

No it doesn't. All that inerrancy requires is that the text is without error. That has nothing to do with plain readings or otherwise.

Sure it does, but we digress...

Quote:

According to which book of the Bible? Realize that they are not all from the same.

Inerrancy means it is from the same author (God), if not the same hands.

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Sure it does, but we digress...

Inerrancy means it is from the same author (God), if not the same hands.

Where are you getting these definitions from? They are accepted by any mainstream fundamentalist or inerrantist that I know.

hatsoff · 10-09-2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Weimer

Where are you getting these definitions from? They are accepted by any mainstream fundamentalist or inerrantist that I know.

Inerrancy, strictly speaking, is merely the belief that the Bible is without error. However, it almost always goes hand-in-hand with beliefs in divine inspiration and doctrinal authority.

Chris Weimer · 10-09-2006, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hatsoff

Inerrancy, strictly speaking, is merely the belief that the Bible is without error. However, it almost always goes hand-in-hand with beliefs in divine inspiration and doctrinal authority.

Almost always doesn't cut it. The fact is that it doesn't have to. We need to be as concise as possible if you're discussing hypothetical theology.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-09-2006, 11:44 AM	#12
Malachi151 Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Colorado Posts: 8,674	Trinity is a concept that was decleoped later by theologeans, it comes out of the so-called pagan traditions, especially Greek/Egyptian culture. Some info on this: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/relics.html

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.