Posts by Halcon

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

This is particularly true when the mind, leaving the ground of experience beneath itself, rises toward the regions of the absolute Being, where, according to the strict requirement of natural theology, every metaphysical concept must be re-evaluated with the triple method of God-knowledge.

Again, you're quoting essentially verbatim the ideas of Plato and Plotinus. Plotinus especially very practically inferred the concept of striving to 'rise' to the upper echelons of reality, and to finally become unified with the One

The general rule of speaking about the Trinity is: everything in God is one, where there is no contrast of relations; therefore, if the excellence of nature is the predicate, the subject can be nature or a person; if the predicate is personal excellence, the subject can only be a person.

It is true, that if all things come from one being, God, it follows that all the things that come from it carry its essence and substance. This is why Plotinus could say that we should strive to unify our 'inner divinity' with the divinity of the One, since it only became separated by means of the limitations of the human mind, which you also explain and quote from the philosopher above.

Describing his relelationship with God using the terms "Father" and "Son" is of course a perceptive analogy, but this does not prove that the Son was created or that he is ontologically inferior to the Father, just as it is not in the human world.

At best, we can say that both interpretations (Trinity and non Trinity) are technically correct. Trinity because all things come from God and carry his essence. Non-Trinity because Jesus himself said "the Father is greater than I"..his very own words. And they cannot simply be discarded as words for the less enlightened or ignorant. Even if you did, we can say Jesus was saying the same thing in two different ways.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

aqwsed12345

The verses you quoted have nothing to do with what I was talking about. They do not praise learned ignorance or JW-style theological barbarism. By the way, even the apostles didn't understand everything that Jesus taught, since, as Christ said, the Holy Spirit would later make them understand the teaching

Jesus could not have used a more simple to understand example of a human relationship to describe the one between himself and God. Not only did he use the example of father and son once, he did it over and over, thereby affirming the impression of father and son into the minds of his disciples.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

Therefore, because the form of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man; but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on account of man whois taken. For neither by that taking is the one of them turned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed into the creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature into Divinity, so as to cease to be creature.

- from the first link above, from Augustine

This is 100% neoplatonist (and consequently Platonist). The essence/substance/divinity does not cease. It is the constant of the divinity, a common denominator so to speak (a constant also well explained by Plotinus) that allows for the Trinity interpretation.

It is a purely 'mental' idea that runs into trouble when it's applied to the physicality of things that are perceived as separate, like a father standing next to his son.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

contrast, this cult of ignorance (again) is a completely wrong and anachronistic attitude. When in the history of God's people was everyone given unrestricted biblical interpretation? When did every "ordinary person" have their own Bible? Where in the Bible does it say, "I was written for ordinary people"? Where? Where?! Well, I'll tell you: nowhere!
J

Matthew 11: 25 - 27

He thanked God for hiding the truth of "these things" from those who are wise and understanding and revealing the truth instead to little children

1 Corinthians 2:1

When I first came to you, dear brothers and sisters, I didn’t use lofty words and impressive wisdom to tell you God’s secret plan

Both Jesus and Paul would beg to differ.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

Please answer these questions:

1) Is the son a created being (having a beginning)?

2) When the son was on earth, did he pray to a completely separate superior father who was in heaven while the son was on earth

Good questions magnum

There's a video on YouTube where a priest starts off his explanation of the Trinity with "you must understand theology a lot" in order to understand the Trinity doctrine.

It makes for a good argument on the need for religious teachers perhaps. But Jesus taught a handful of uneducated fishermen. In fact Jesus stressed that what he had taught so far to them was simple stuff, therefore there's nothing complicated about the difference between a father and his son. The truly complex things he said would wait.

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

aqwsed

That the Father "taught" the Son does not mean that He is lesser in knowledge, but that the origin of His knowledge is the Father. If the Father has given "everything" to the Son, including all His knowledge, then He is not lesser than Him. It is also a dogma that: "Whatever the Son is or has, He has from the Father, and is the principle from a principle

Then God used the wrong word, "taught ".

Based on this explanation a better word would have been "reminded" since the Son already knew the information.

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

Souls can remember, talk, reason, ask questions, feel emotion, justice and rest. Presumably they can feel pain as well as comfort.

'Presumably' puts us back in the terrain of uncertainty and interpretation at best. Meaning your guess is as good as mine. I mean to point out the uncertainty of the interpretation versus pointing out who is wrong and who isn't. I think it's a good discussion.

Separating the soul from the body is still not the same as a dead soul. As you quoted, a soul can do a lot of things. However, all the things pointed out in the Revelation scripture you quoted don't require a physical body. God, the angels, demons all can talk , feel emotions, reason and rest despite having no physical body.

What does require a physical body according to the Bible? One example is sex. The angels transformed their non physical bodies into physical ones in order to feel the pleasure that only a physical body could feel. Jesus also stated that in heaven no one gets married therefore no one has sex either.

This is to say that God created the physical body for very specific purposes in mind. God further emphasized and reinforced the separation between physical and non physical bodies by prohibiting the angels to become human for the purpose of sex.

The human sensible experience is contrasted from the spiritual one (although both are living souls) repeatedly in the scriptures. Both experiences are given legitimacy, as highlighted by the need to offer a perfect human being in the form of Jesus in exchange for an imperfect Adam. Literal physical red blood, not symbolic or spiritual blood, had to be spilled.

But we are to presume that in a burning hell this contrast is suddenly abolished?

49

What the Trinitarian perspective on John 8.28?

by slimboyfat in

this is not a verse that i’ve seen feature heavily in trinitarian debates but it seems to me it presents a problem for the trinity.

if there are any around i’d be interested to know your perspective, or anything you can find on the meaning and how it doesn’t contradict the trinity.

the verse says:.

Halcon

The trinity doctrine is a platonist/neoplatonist concept. The Father and the Son are the same in "essence" aka the substance, presumably spirit. Much like my father and I are the same in the sense that we share the same DNA.

Where trinitarians get into trouble is when they attempt to explain that the Father and the Son are exactly the same person BUT also two different people.

As when trying to explain how the same person taught something he didn't know before to himself.

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

Ttwsyf

I believe the JWs don't believe in a physical literally burning hell of torture due to scriptures like Ezekiel 18:4 which states that the soul that sins will die.

It follows that if the sinful soul dies, it can't also stay alive at the same time, neither in heaven or hell.

But assuming Jesus really meant that the soul doesn't die, which would be contradicting, and is condemned to hell...does that mean that the soul is furnished a brand new physical body with the explicit purpose of torturing it eternally?

128

Why Do JW's Believe that Hell is Symbolic When the Disciples of the Apostles believed it Was Literal ?

by Sea Breeze in

looks like the early christians believed jesus when he warned about hell over 40 times.

why don't the jw's do the same?.

from “the epistle of barnabas” (70-130ad).

Halcon

Breeze

I'll follow your line of explanation then. So when I die my soul will separate from my body. If I'm condemned to hell, it's my soul that will go to hell (and my physical body will turn to dust).

Is my body then regenerated in hell so as to physically feel the pain of fire burning me? But then Satan and the demons in hell are now physical beings too? How else are we to physically experience pain otherwise unless we get a new body?