chimaira

Matthew 28:19 Baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit

yes but they are not 1 Jesus say:Jean CH 17 v 11: I am not any more in the world, and they are in the world, and I go to you. Holy father, guard on your behalf those which you gave me, so that they are like us.

JoyJuice

In order to understand where one is going, it's good to know where one came from. The trinity is no different.

~take care

Chili

. . . they were his disciples to be raised and the point here is that you can't be 'an apostle short' and still get into heaven.

itsmebeckyg

i couldn't help but smile as i read through the first few biblical "inconsistencies" that were listed on your link. in my ever-so-humble opinion, inconsistencies can be found anywhere they are pulled out of context.
hundreds of religious sects flourish because the foundation of their faith is i built on bits and pieces of the bible pulled out of context. the bible is a series of accountings, is it not? all written after the fact, by different people, and in some cases very different times... there are discrepencies throughout all of history, depending on who was telling the story. but there is truth in every story, so the real truth lies somewhere in the mix. things are not always as they appear to be...

chimaira

mat 5,10 :Blessed [are] they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

the disciples or those which are persecuted for righteousness' ?

Mark ch 3 v 35 jésus say its disciples who they are his/her brothers because they make the will of God, thus those which make the will of God are also 1 with God and jésus !!!

SLD

Welcome Aboard BeckyG!

Did you mean to quote this in another thread though? This thread is on the Trinity and early church fathers not so much as on inconsistencies within the bible. But a quick point - the Bible is supposed to be the word of god - if god is perfect so should his word. And also, I don't think the resurrection narrative discrepancies are taken out of context. There is no logical version of events that adequately encompasses what happens in all four gospels. But that's for another thread.

In any event, it's good to see another theist on these boards. Don't let anyone here give you too much shit for being one, or let me know, and I'll come over and defend you personally.

SLD

Chili

Well I am glad you at least recognize that the bible is supposed to be perfect and therefore beyond human understanding (which is imperfect, to be sure, or we would not have 20,000 opinions).

So why are we arguing about the trinity if it is an inspired concept used to explain to us humans that since we cannot make our own mind the subject of our inquiry (in our human capacity), the HS is identified as the secret agent that helps us out along the way to self discovery. In the reality behind the trinity we are both the father and son and since we (many or most of us) do not recognize ourselves as father or son we should be glad that the trinity remains intact whether we believe in it or not.

SLD

No. My point is that the Bible is not perfect and therefore cannot be the word of God. If it is not the Word of God, then the Bible cannot be trusted as a true source of the "one true religion" (whatever that may be).

Well first of all we're not really arguing about the trinity. We are figuring out the biblical basis for the concept. The point about it is that it has no real basis in the Bible. The one passage that unequivocally creates a trinity has been shown to be a later interpolation (1 John 5:7). Some other passages point to somewhat of a threesome divinity, but are not clearly stating that there is a trinity in the way that the Catholic Church has envisioned it for centuries. And where in the Bible does it say that the Holy Spirt is any kind of Secret Agent helping us out along the way to self discovery.

A heretical statement which would have had you burned at the stake just a few hundred years ago. You really aren't Catholic are you? You sound rather Gnostic? But then again, maybe I've missed something in Catholic doctrine lately.

SLD

Chili

I understand but since we are not perfect we cannot judge that which is perfect. True, we are just wondering if we should believe in the trinity or not and my guess here is that sola scriptura christians should not believe in the trinity if they are not allowed to reach for the concept behind the trinity.
No, they'd never burn me.

If our mandate in the bible is to obtain the mind of God we should not be surprised that the infinite wisdom of God is extended to the church that created him. We hold that the Church has many such concepts that could only come into existence after the fact. . . which, as in this case, is why Jesus told us that it was better that he left with the promise that he would send the HS so we could become son of man in our turn and eventually drink of the cup he drank, etc.

This actually contradicts the idea that Jesus died for our sins and suggest that we must die to our own wherefore the trinity is resolved already before the Gosples begin with "the father and I are one" (along with the simultaneous descend to the HS).

The point here is that the trinity does not and cannot exist in the mind of Christians who have been born of God (are son of man) because it is a contradiction to be born of God and believe in the HS.

judge

One of the things that makes the idea of the "trinity" difficult is that the ideas were first expressed in Aramaic. These same ideas were then translted into greek, however the greek language did not have the exact same words to express the ideas.
The Aramaic understanding is that there are not three persons in the "trinity" but rather there are three qnome of the one God.

This diagram may help.
When the word qnome was brought up earlier SPIN suggested that it seemed to signify "member of a taxonomic group" and I think SPIN's suggestion here was pretty good.

The following may help from Mar Barwai (sixth? cent a.d.)

“A singular essence is called a ‘qnoma’. It stands alone, one in number, that is, one as distinct from the many. A qnoma is invariable in its natural state and is bound to a species and nature, being one [numerically] among a number of like qnome. It is distinctive among its fellow qnome [only] by reason of any unique property or characteristic which it possesses in its ‘parsopa’. With rational creatures this [uniqueness] may consist of various [external and internal] accidents, such as excellent or evil character, or knowledge or ignorance, and with irrational creatures [as also with the rational] the combination of various contrasting features. [Through the parsopa we distinguish that] Gabriel is not Michael, and Paul is not Peter. However, in each qnoma of any given nature the entire common nature is known, and intellectually one recognizes what that nature, which encompasses all its qnome, consists of. A qnoma does not encompass the nature as a whole [but exemplifies what is common to the nature, such as, in a human qnoma, body, soul, mind, etc.].�

Fourth Memra, Book of the Union, Published by Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium, Paris, 1915, A.
Vaschalde, ed.


The following may help as well.

“Concerning this, we believe in our hearts and confess with our lips one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, whose Godhead does not disappear, and whose manhood is not stolen away, but who is complete God and complete man. When we say of Christ ‘complete God’ we are not naming the Trinity, but one of the qnome of the Trinity, God the Word. Again, when we call Christ ‘complete man’ it is not all men we are naming, but the one qnoma which was specifically taken for our salvation into union with the Word.�

Synodicon Orientale