agapeo

Hi Joel,
Thanks for saying so. I thought twice about doing so, but not out of anxiety over it's reception by others, but rather the profit. If it helps you somewhat in choosing the appropriate shoes to don in our discussion then I consider it worth it.
In a word -- No.

I have encountered various explanations for the doctrine of the Trinity. All of which make little sense to me.

I understand the orthodox definition of the Christian trinity to be that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God and together, not exclusively, they form one God. Together they are said to be co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal.

I do not believe the Bible teaches this. Contrarily I believe the Bible teaches that (1) God is the Father of Jesus Christ, that (2) Jesus Christ is the Son of God, that (3) God is Holy and God is Spirit, and that (4) many of the usages of Greek words pneuma hagion refer to the gift and not the Giver. This latter point isn't exactly presented in the Bible but IMO has been grossly misunderstood and has relevancy to the issue.

In other words, I am saying that Jesus Christ is not God, but the Son of God. They are not "co-eternal, without beginning or end, and co-equal." Jesus Christ was not literally with God in the beginning and neither does he have all the assets of God.

I have found the term "Son of God" used at least 47 times in the Bible and not once "God the Son." To say that "Son of God" means or equals "God the Son" totally negates the rules of language, leaving it utterly useless as a tool of communication and yet we (Christians) are to accept it.

So, in essence – No I don't accept the doctrinal teaching of the Trinity as being Biblically based. It is furthermore my belief that if Jesus Christ is God then mankind has not been redeemed/saved/call it what you will. But neither do I make a big deal over it with those who do accept it.

Having divulged this much of my theology I fail to see what argument you can make of it in relationship to the topic. I could very well make a case against Trinitarianism on Christians Boards but I choose not to. Most encounters I've had, with those who believe the doctrine, have not been fruitful and so I fail to see the point in debating the subject.

I hope this helps clarify my position, for you. I only obliged you because I felt it was merely a curiosity regarding my position and not a wish to engage me in debate over it.

Edited to add: I have yet to find time to adequately consider your more extensive post. Hopefully I will within the next few days and will reply earlier next year. So until then . . . Happy New Year to ya!

agapeo

Greetings Joel!

I've decided to approach your more extensive post in piecemeal. I will try to work on the other points you brought up as time permits but I "fear" that to clump it altogether would slow down the flow of this discussion. I hope this is acceptable to you.
:lol Have you ever gone fishing? I have, but never acquired much of a liking for it. Couldn't stand handling those squiggly worms and usually ended up pricking myself on the hook. :eek Translation: I'm very much like the worm. Let's see how much expertise you have in baiting the hook.
I won't take up valuable time pointing out the distinct usage of the words shamayim (which btw the KJV haphazardly translated either singular or plural and in the Hebrew should always be plural) and ouranoi. Besides having said this: "Don't think I did it for any reason other than showing-off value." I get the impression that you're really not that interested, but obviously you were unable to find any specific references where Hell was created. Correct? Nevertheless let me quote what I consider pertinent Scripture regarding your argument that heaven was not created in relationship to God's existence or abode. Meaning if Heaven is God's abode then He would not have had a place of existence prior to its creation.
The context speaks of things God has created/made and indicates neither one can contain Him as Isaiah alludes to with the phrase "where is the place of my rest?" The question implying that neither the Heavens, nor earth is the place of His habitation but merely places where His presence is known. I won't bother going into the figure of speech employed in relationship to heavens; or God's abode since you are already familiar with the use of them. In any case there are no words in the language of man that can adequately describe the "place of God's habitation (never-mind His properties) and the best we can obtain are figures to facilitate an understanding of it. See 1 Corinthians 13:12. But here's an interesting verse to consider regarding the place of God's habitation:
If he ascended up far above all heavens then there must be a place outside of the heavens where God abides.
My point is that we don't really know the nature of God's habitation but one could surmise from this verse that wherever it is it is "far above all heavens". Furthermore it cannot be assumed that Hell had it's existence prior to the creation of the heavens and earth for it is only spoken of in relationship to a place where the dead abide. But I assume you know of the usages of the words: gehenna; abaddon; abussos; sheol; qeber; mnemeion; hades.
Gehenna is used twelve times in Scripture and is always translated hell.
Abaddon is a Hebrew word translated destruction.
Abussos is a Greek word which is translated deep. (This word is transliterated into English "abyss.")
Sheol or "gravedom" is translated by three English words in the King James Version:
Hell thirty﷓one times.
Grave thirty﷓one times:
Pit three times.
And so on. These are words you can check out for yourself if interested. I won't further bore you with detailing them. The point is: When one studies the usages the words it can be surmised that it is referring to a place of the dead. If dead then there is no more suffering, no remembrance of life.
These verses describe the nature of hell or the figurative place of the dead. Would like to continue fishing on this subject?

Happy New Year!

Edited to correct formatting.

Celsus

Hi agapeo,

Happy New Year btw. Oh and a belated Merry Winter Solstice.

Sorry you took this the wrong way. When I said I was showing off, I meant that I was showing off because I've just learnt how to do unicode Greek on these boards. As for hell references, I didn't bother to look them up. The author of Matthew, Revelations, etc. assume hell exists and refer plenty of times to it. If as you say, the Bible as originally written, was the word of God, then its a long way off to before we get to any statements such as "hell does not exist". Anyway, in the case of the creation account, if Heaven (capital H) is the abode of God, then it must have existed prior to the Genesis creation, and hence there would be no references to its creation. Any further references to Heaven can thus be distinguished. Remember our discussion about metaphors.

Joel

agapeo

Hi Joel,
Oh yea, I forgot that one. Wasn't sure if you celebrated/observed it. Winter Solstice/Christmas -- What's the difference other than in the substitution of one thing for another. But I do (out of tradition for the season) celebrate the latter. Besides it's a fun time. So I hope ya got everything that was on your wish list. If not -- How far away is Singapore from the North Pole? You could let Santa have a piece of your mind.
Oh. My mistake. I wish I had the time to learn such things. They are pretty cool!
Fair enuf.
True, but when they refer to it is it possible that they are making use of a metaphorical place of the dead? No one would dispute that death exists. It's a fact that is observable but what is not observable is the state (or condition) of death.
But I think I referred to an actual place of existence such as the Heavens and earth that we observe.
True. The creation account does not refer to the place of God's habitation but ours. It would seem to me therefore that any references to God's habitation would have to be figurative. Refering to what we can observe to give us a glimpse into what cannot be observed. Whether it adequately describes it is not the point of the figure. It just a reference to give us (believers) something to look forward to according to our understanding.