Posts by Slappy

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

Wasn't posting everything so I just deleted all of it...sorry

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Um, that's a good question dig. I've heard that question before, but never from the angle that you present it. I cannot give any definitive answer, and I'm not sure I should even try, seeing that I may confuse the issue even more. But I will make an attempt, and this is more me just putting some thoughts down and seeing what comes of them.

Let's start with John 15:15 since that's the first portion that came to my mind: "No longer do I call you servants, for a servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all things that I heard from My Father I have made known to you."

This seems to suggest that, since Jesus only knows what the Father gives Him to know, Jesus is not omniscient and therefore not God. However, let's try to stay away from pulling one verse and forming a doctrine around it. Let's instead view everything within the context of the entire Bible and let other portions build and/or balance the idea that is presented in any specific portion (a very healthy and systematic way to understand the Bible).

Chalam has already given Philippians 2:5-11 so I won't quote all of it again. (Philippians is my favorite book btw; chapter 3 verses 12-16 is imperative to keep in mind as we seek to know God, for it keeps us grounded. If Paul didn't think he had reached a 'pinnacle' of knowing God, then why should we?) However look at verse 7. Quoting from the NASB, held by many Bible-wise people to be the most literal word-for-word translation yet, we get "...but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men..." This portion in Philippians is the strongest evidence for the manifestation of God in the flesh, and one that I, as of yet, have yet to hear refuted. So what is meant by "emptied Himself"? First off, there must be something there to be emptied of. Secondly, it was only once He had emptied himself that He was able to come in the likeness of men. So by emptying Himself of His "godness" as it were, would not knowledge be a part of what was emptied? I can't say with certainty, but it does make sense. So being emptied of His omniscience, He was dependent on the Father (shown through His many prayers; which also gives us the example to follow) to reveal what was necessary for us to know; the knowledge of the "last day" not being a part of what we needed to know.

Not sure if that helps in any way or just muddies things more. If it's the latter, then I apologize; if the former, then thank God.

ps. The first five chapters of Hebrews present an excellent in-depth look at the person of Christ and the reason for the need of God to come in the form of man (Heb. 4:15 is awesome on this point!).

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

Tenebreux, right there with you. I had always failed to see how sending someone else off to die was an act of love. Seems more selfish than anything. "I want this, so you go die for me."

And if Jesus is just a man, then what's the big deal? Moses offered to die for the people and there have been other men and women across the millenium who have sacrificed their lives in order to save their fellow man. So if Jesus was just a man, then this "great sacrifice" is nothing special. Now, however, if Jesus is actually the physical manifestation of God, in the form of His Son, that's a different story. A God and Creator who loves His creation so much that He is willing to suffer and take their punishment upon Himself...now that's just awesome!

Furthermore, when you look at the fact that God required a perfect physically perfect sacrifice in the OT, it would stand to reason that He would require a spiritually/morally perfect sacrifice to forever reconcile us back to Himself. We're told that none of us is perfect, and if we're honest, we don't even need the Bible to tell us that. God is the only one who is perfect. Therefore if a perfect sacrfice is required, it must be God Himself for nothing else can meet the requirements.

Although, that being said, I can't say that I understand it all...cause I don't.

That's a high level of confidence you speak with Gill. There aren't many people I know that speak with that level of surety on much of anything, let alone spiritual things.

16

The Knowledge of good and evil

by ldrnomo in

so what's the deal with this anyway?

did he not want man to know the difference between good and evil?

if he gave us free will wouldn't he want us to have all the knowledge we could so we could make a decision based on that knowledge?.

Slappy

"So what's the deal with this anyway? Did he not want man to know the difference between good and evil? If he gave us free will wouldn't he want us to have all the knowledge we could so we could make a decision based on that knowledge?"

Why do you make the assumption that knowing the difference between good and evil was necessary before a decision could be made? Do you suggest that, had they had such knowledge beforehand, they would have made the right decision?

We have proven that idea wrong on countless occassions. We know what's good, yet we, more often than not, choose what is evil. This is a problem and we know it; however, that makes things very uncomfortable. It would be much easier if we could just blur the line between the two until there is no discernable difference.

Am I missing anything?

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

Good to hear dig692!

As for your questions I'll answer as best I can. It may still be difficult to see things without that "JW lens" skewingthings, but as much as is currently possible for you, take the words of Scripture to mean what they say; don't read into or apply any interpretation to the Bible. For ease of reading without losing any of the ideas conveyed in the original languages, I recommend the ESV Bible. I'm very impressed with it (even though I use the NKJV to study) and find it's use of modern verbiage and punctuation to be incredibly enlightening.

Question #1: We're never told who God was speaking to, but can we not infer from what is given us in the rest of Scripture?

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made...And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth..." John 1:1-3, 14

"And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was." John 17:5

See also John 1:10; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Colossians 1:16; Hebrews 1:2; Daniel 3:25 for portions that convey the same idea. Daniel 3:25 is of special note because this clearly happened before the birth of Jesus, yet here is a mention of the Son of God. Which agrees to what Jesus said in John 17:5 (above) and John 8:58.

It looks like some of the portions I've listed may also answer your second question. Someone else may tackle it in more depth...I gtg to lunch.

32

Women as second class citizens

by iMARX in

i don't know about anyone else, but even when i was 14 or 15 i had an issue with the fact that women are weaker vessels than men and we are to be submissive to our "head" of the house etc.... people just assumed i was a moody teenager trying to be cool by disagreeing with those scriptures but i was a feminist in the making.. i even asked an elder's wife about it and i said to her: "you're a headstrong woman, how do you feel about this?

do you think you should succumb to paul's every word and do as he says all the time??".

she replied: "i hate that scripture too sarah.

Slappy

Please don't take JW teaching and attribute that to the Bible, to God, and to Paul. That is unfair on all three counts. The GB is men; men who have taken and twisted what Paul said and used it for their own devices. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if these weak men who have applied the words of Paul in such an extreme form have done so because they fear(ed) their wives and view(ed) this as the only way to gain power over them.

In no way do true Christian men view women in the light that JW do. Women are our helpmate and equal. Without them we would be lost and listless. We are told to love, cherish, and respect our wives (Eph. 5:28, 33) which it appears a good many JW husbands don't do. It is true that, physically, women, for the most part, are the "weaker vessels". Although in pain tolerance you blow us men away. In Romans 15:1, Paul tells us who are strong to look out for those who are weak. While this is in relation to faith, I don't think it a stretch to also apply in the physical sense.

Furthermore, what's the hang up with submitting? Men submit to all sorts of people: parents, wives (this happens a lot), superiors (bosses, etc...), and others. It doesn't mean that they're better than us. So why do women/wives get the idea that in submitting it means that man/husband is better than they? The only reason to think this is because of the interpretation that self-serving men have put forward.

As a side note, look at the example of Abraham and Sarah. According to the laws and traditions in Abraham's time, he would have been justified in putting Sarah away and finding another wife due to Sarah being barren. Yet he didn't, why? Because he loved her! While Sarah did submit to her husband, there were a couple instances where she quite clearly shouldn't have (when she agreed to be his sister and not his wife).

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

Jeremiahjs said: "Romans 10:9 God raised Jesus from the dead; if Jesus were God, God would have been dead and couldn't have raised Jesus. Jesus is the way to the Father not the Father himself."

Again, this is another example of taking a portion that seems to prove your point and using it while ignoring other portions that don't support the interpretation you have put forward. THIS is why it's sooo important to view things in light of the entire Word of God! Paul says that "ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

However, when we take this verse and compare it with John 10:17-18--"Therefore My Father loves Me, because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This command I have received from My Father."--we see see that the interpretation that you have put forward does not hold water. Ask yourself "Why does Jesus have power to take back his life (aka. raise himself from the dead)?" Perhaps because He is fully man and fully God and while His physical self did indeed die, His spiritual self was still alive and well (if a little worse for wear due to bearing the wrath that God had toward our past, present, and future infidelities against Him).

Please, I urge you, do not put physical limitations on God. The moment you do that, He becomes something less than God.

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

Jeremiahjs said: "The NT descibes and empasizes Jesus being one with God as two seperate beings and has many scriptures that can be read to view Jesus as God, but that is wrong."

I know this may be a novel idea, but why don't you just read things as they've been written? The only reason that there are so many different sects of Christianity in the world today is because some hotshot intellectuals read into what has been written. They say that while the Bible seems to say this, that's not really what it's saying. Preconceived notions are the #1 hinderance in understanding the Scriptures. For example, when we read John 20:28, is it such a stretch that Thomas said what he said fully believing that Jesus is the physical manifestation of God? Any other "interpretation" requires one to twist what has been clearly written. Why would we ever want to do that?!

Jeremiahjs said: "John20:17 If Jesus were God he woudln't have left to return to his Father; his Father would have been him and there with him (his God and our God = one God, not Jesus he is our Lord and Son of God.)"

Who are you, sir, to limit God? To say where He can be and where He can't be? Is it such a stretch to have an omnipresent God be in two places at once? If so, then I pity your weak God who is apparently subject to the same physical limitations that we are. Thankfully, the Bible does not present us with a weak God who is physically limited. In John 4:24 we're told that "God is spirit..." and that is key to understanding and knowing our God.

32

Trinity, Trinity, Trinity...

by Mazzie Brossmann in

can anyone tell me if there are names for the different variations in trinitarian belief?

or could any one point me to anything explaining what different chritians subscribe to in thier belief of the trinity?

i have googled my fingers off trying to find out, but all i come up with is the "oneness" doctrine of the penticostals.

Slappy

First, let me say that I have, as of yet, to understand the significance and necessity of believing in the "Trinity". As such, I cannot and do not defend or refute it in anyway. I have asked some "Trinitarian" friends to explain to me the importance of such a belief, but that simple and honest question has stumped them.

However, that being said, I do understand the utmost importance of believing that Jesus is God. JW (and LDS) put forward that believing in Christ is necessary for salvation but that He is not God. Others, such as myself, agree that faith in Christ is necessary for salvation, but disagree on who they say Jesus is. We cannot both be right. One of us is believing in a Jesus who does not exist! He is either God or He is not. If He is not God, then I need to be shown this because the Jesus that I believe has saved me does not exist! And if my Savior is non-existent, so is my salvation non-existent. This is the most important precept of the Christian faith and without it everything else falls apart.

Keep in mind that when we attempt to show why Jesus is, or is not, God (sola Scriptura), we need to take all of Scripture into account and not just those portions that seem to prove our point. Furthermore, we cannot take the explanations of another in order to defend our position. If we cannot defend our position from our own understanding of the Bible, then we need to shut up until we are able to do so. Because if we don't understand it ourselves in a way that allows us to defend and confirm our position, then who are we to say what we believe?

(Not sure what the character limit is for these posts, so I'll end this one and start another.)