Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Real Trinity
November 9, 2006 | Brion James

Posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:45 AM PST by policyforever867

The Holy Trinity


TOPICS: Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: catholic; trinity
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last
Ok, I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as I am commanded to. I have grown up believing that the Son is the Father, the Spirit is the Son, and the Father is the Spirit, otherwise known as the Holy Trinity. But I have started to wonder if that was actually what i should believe. If we look in the Old Testment, countless number of times we here that God will send his Son. Even in the New Testament, Jesus himself says that the Father sent Him, he never says that I am the Father and the Father is Me, but He is referring to them working together or with each other. Is it wrong to believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and them working together as one, or do I have to believe they are all the same?
1 posted on 11/09/2006 8:44:48 AM PST by policyforever867
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
The current trinity doctrine is a traditional, theological explanation of the Godhead. Like you, I have been unable to reconcile it to scripture. The definitive statement of the Godhead is found in John 1:

Joh 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Joh 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God.
Joh 1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

No entity called "the holy spirit" is there with them. Also, every vision of heaven never includes a myserious 3rd person called the holy spirit. For example:

Rev 7:10 And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.
Rev 7:11 And all the angels stood round about the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, and worshiped God,
Rev 7:12 Saying, Amen: Blessing, and glory, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, and honor, and power, and might, be unto our God forever and ever. Amen.

Notice that they are not worshipping anyone called "the holy spirit" in heaven, but they are worshipping the father and son. The holy spirit is the presence and power of God on earth. It is not a separate person in the Godhead.

2 posted on 11/09/2006 8:52:24 AM PST by DouglasKC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867

These are all terms than man ascribes and are limited by our perspective. Imagine a two year old describing the workings of Quantum Physics. Anytime a human must describe the supernatural, we have already created a problem in that our perspective is so limited. IMHO, God transcends all of these descriptions and they are simply attempts by man to describe aspects of God's nature/being that he cannot find a better description for.

Note: What I say could apply to all dogma, not simply the 'Trinity'..


3 posted on 11/09/2006 8:53:15 AM PST by mnehring (Did 'True Conservatives' stab our troops in the back by not voting?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
Oh Boy! Free Republic -- JUST the place for a calm dispassionate examination of Trinitarian Theology.

The usual "explanation" is

The fun greek words to think about in this connection are hentos (?), ousia, hypostasis, and prosopon. Just to clarify: I believe in the Holy Trinity as it is set forth in the creed (or "symbol") commonly called "The Nicene Creed" and would just as soon not discuss the "filioque" this morning.

horate hoti ex ergon dikaioutai anthropos kai ouk ek pisteos monon.
-- James 2:24
Just saying ...

4 posted on 11/09/2006 9:03:42 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
I have grown up believing that the Son is the Father, the Spirit is the Son, and the Father is the Spirit, otherwise known as the Holy Trinity. But I have started to wonder if that was actually what i should believe.

This position is not orthodox Trinitarianism. This is known variously as "Monarchianism," "Modalism," "Sabellianism," or "Patripassianism" when it first arose in the second or third century. This belief is common today among the "oneness" Pentecostals but it is simply a resurrection of an old heresy.

Check out the article on "Monarchiamism" at the Catholic Encyclopedia for more information.

These two articles are also relevant:

- An overview of modern Anti-Trinitarian heresies.

- A brief survey of anti-Trinitarianism.

-Theo

5 posted on 11/09/2006 9:04:28 AM PST by Teófilo (Visit Vivificat! - http://www.vivificat.org - A Catholic Blog of News, Commentary and Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg

Good post, well stated.


6 posted on 11/09/2006 9:07:16 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867

Just as a check on our thinking, whenever one thinks any person of the Trinity is not God, then that thinking is following a wrong premise or past thought. God reveals Himself though simple faith in Him.


7 posted on 11/09/2006 9:09:35 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DouglasKC

John 14:26
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.


8 posted on 11/09/2006 9:14:22 AM PST by Augustinian monk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
Thanks. Is "hentos" correct? (I could look it up, but sheesh. Increasing brain failure here.)

I also liked what you said. It seems to me that the classic doctrinal formulations are, in a way, cautionary. That is, if I find myself in a line of thought that divides the substance or confuses the persons -- or in Christ confuses the natures or divides the person, I'm probably messing up.

One of my favorite moments in my education happened when i was tangling with one of my best-loved professors and I said, "You're dividing the person!" and he laughed and replied, "I am NOT -- YOU'RE confusing the natures!" And we both laughed.

Mind you, we both used to go around muttering at each other, "None is orthodox but me and thee, and sometimes I have my doubts about thee ..."

9 posted on 11/09/2006 9:18:14 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
If you look to the Older Testament for understanding,
it becomes crystal clear.

It is the Father who forgives us;

it is the Son, who is our Salvation as it is His Name
His real Name is not Jesus that is an English version
of Greek which is a version of the
Hebrew Name He was given: Yah'shua
Which means "YHvH is become our Salvation".

and the Ru'ach HaKodesh (Eliezer or Comforter )
who provides us with living pools of water.

Isaiah 12:1 In that day you will say: “I will praise you, O LORD.
Although you were angry with me, your anger has turned
away and you have comforted me.

Isaiah 12:2 Surely God is my salvation; I will trust and not be afraid. The
LORD, the LORD, is my strength and my song; he has become my salvation.”
Isaiah 12:3 With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation.

Isaiah 12:4 In that day you will say: “Give thanks to the LORD, call on
his name; make known among the nations what he has done,
and proclaim that his name is exalted.

Isaiah 12:5 Sing to the LORD, for he has done glorious things;
let this be known to all the world.

Isaiah 12:6 Shout aloud and sing for joy, people of Zion,
for great is the Holy One of Israel among you.”

b'shem Y'shua

10 posted on 11/09/2006 9:20:41 AM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 144:1 Praise be to YHvH, my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
I and [my] Father are one.
John 10:30 (KJV)

Sounds pretty self explanitory to me

11 posted on 11/09/2006 9:23:26 AM PST by The Bard (http://www.reflectupon.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867

It sounds to me like you don't really believe, you're just being obedient.


12 posted on 11/09/2006 9:44:58 AM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867

They are one God. He is revealed to us in three persons.

It is a fabulous study for each and every believer to follow through first making sure we are in fellowship with Him by turning our thinking to Him and confessing our sins, known and unknown to Him and He is sure and just to forgive us those sins. By remaining in faith through Him, He conitinues to guide us appropriately.

Here is another interesting aspect of the Trinity.

In the Old Testament, believers were endued with the Holy Spirit, but today, in the Church Age believers are indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Indwelling is not experiential, ut the filling of the spirit may be experiential. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit provides a temple in us for the indwelling of the Son and in dwelling of the Father.

Some fascinating studies are paying close attention of the relationships between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost; their ministries, their role in salvation, and role in prayer.

It is interesting to note that the Holy Spirit makes our prayers known to the Father in fashions where we are incapable. Also, there is a vast distinction between OT theology and names of different persons of the Godhead and the NT language. They are still the same Word of God and revealed by an immutable God.


13 posted on 11/09/2006 10:58:33 AM PST by Cvengr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
It sounds to me like you don't really believe, you're just being obedient.

They have trouble explaining this doctrine. In the end it has to be accepted it by faith. Even Catholics will tell you its a paradox.

14 posted on 11/09/2006 11:38:55 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: The Bard
Sounds pretty self explanitory to me

You must be God too then since Jesus prayed that all beleivers would become one with him and the father.

15 posted on 11/09/2006 11:41:15 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
If you ignore or bypass what the Bible teaches about the authority of the Church, and especially if you don't even read Hebrew and Greek --- it's hopeless. There's nothing more I can say.

So, let me ask first: Do you accept what the Bible says about the Church being "the pillar and foundation of the Truth"? (If you do not, then I have another question: "Do you believe the Bible?")

If you do believe the Bible, then your frame of reference should be the "pillar and foundation of the Truth." the Church; not your own inclinations and not your fellow FReepers. For guidance on difficult matters having to do with Divine Revelation, read what the Ecumenical Councils taught (starting with Nicaea in 325 AD.)

It's very beautiful and very meaningful, but not something you can arrive at without the God-authorized teaching authority of the Church.

16 posted on 11/09/2006 11:58:36 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (God bless you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

I've never understood why some paradoxs are OK, and others are not.


17 posted on 11/09/2006 12:08:56 PM PST by stuartcr (Everything happens as God wants it to.....otherwise, things would be different.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
par-a-dox
–noun 1. a statement or proposition that seems self-contradictory or absurd but in reality expresses a possible truth.
2. a self-contradictory and false proposition.
3. any person, thing, or situation exhibiting an apparently contradictory nature.
4. an opinion or statement contrary to commonly accepted opinion.

[Origin: 1530–40; < L paradoxum < Gk parádoxon, n. use of neut. of parádoxos unbelievable, lit., beyond belief. See para-1, orthodox]

Sorry, but I'm a Catholic, and I'm here to tell you that the Trinity is no paradox. It is, however, a mystery, the technical definition of which is a "revealed truth of the faith which cannot be fully grasped by created human intellect".

Frank Sheed (the late Catholic apologist, not the FReeper) very clearly explains the Trinity in Theology and Sanity.

18 posted on 11/09/2006 12:10:53 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

The church is to be the defender of Truth, not the originator of Truth.


19 posted on 11/09/2006 12:24:11 PM PST by jkl1122
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Sorry, but I'm a Catholic, and I'm here to tell you that the Trinity is no paradox. It is, however, a mystery, the technical definition of which is a "revealed truth of the faith which cannot be fully grasped by created human intellect".

Ok I stand corrected. "Mystery" instead of "paradox". (although it is true I've been told by certain Catholics its a paradox) Since it can't be explained to be understood by the human intellect my point remains ya gotta take it by faith.

20 posted on 11/09/2006 12:31:59 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jkl1122

God is the originator of Truth. (Who else?) He is also the originator of the Church, which He founded to teach the Truth ("whoever hears you, hears me") Luke 10:15-17


21 posted on 11/09/2006 1:09:34 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (God bless you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o; All; drstevej; OrthodoxPresbyterian; CCWoody; Wrigley; Gamecock; Jean Chauvin; jboot; ..

I would suggest for those with budding faith to find the Gospel and read, and absorb. Jesus did not directly speak of the Trinity, but did tell us to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19) in the Great Commission. It is indeed a mystery, something which might be beyond our understanding until we are all called home. But Nicene Creed explains what we DO know about the whole thing.

Jesus and His Word are the cornerstone of the Church, and what He says in the Gospel is enough to bring us to God. And communion with the Body of Christ is not just a help, but essential to growth in the faith. The brothers and sisters in a church can guide you and support you in ways that you might not realize.


22 posted on 11/09/2006 2:25:40 PM PST by Ottofire (Fire Tempers Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Oops. That should have been addressed to policyforever867...


23 posted on 11/09/2006 2:28:04 PM PST by Ottofire (Fire Tempers Steel)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867

Source, please, or is this a vanity?


24 posted on 11/09/2006 2:52:47 PM PST by Salvation (With God all things are possible.;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
The Holy Trinity

Trinity Sunday (and the Trinity season)

Trinitarian Mystery

HaSheeloosh HaKadosh: The Holy Trinity

MARY’S RELATIONSHIP WITH THE TRINITY

The Divine Trinity

25 posted on 11/09/2006 2:54:41 PM PST by Salvation (With God all things are possible.;)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant; Campion
Since it can't be explained to be understood by the human intellect my point remains ya gotta take it by faith.

Astronomers tell us the universe is expanding. But if the universe is everything how can it be expanding and what is it expanding into? Although they can measure it in scientific terms, they can't explain it. I suppose we just have to take it on faith that what they say is true.

26 posted on 11/09/2006 3:14:42 PM PST by HarleyD (Mat 19:11 But He said to them, Not all receive this word, except those to whom it is given.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Astronomers tell us the universe is expanding. But if the universe is everything how can it be expanding and what is it expanding into? Although they can measure it in scientific terms, they can't explain it. I suppose we just have to take it on faith that what they say is true.

Not really. Doppler effect pretty much convinces me about the universe expanding. 3 is 1 and 1 is 3 hasn't been explained to my satisfaction yet. BTW, because the universe is expanding doesn't necessarily mean its everything. That's your spin.

27 posted on 11/09/2006 3:31:57 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stuartcr
I've never understood why some paradoxs are OK, and others are not.

Some say paradox, some say mystery. Apparently they're not on the same page yet. :-)

28 posted on 11/09/2006 3:35:07 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I think that especially in thinking and trying to talk about the "nature" of God or of the Incarnate Son of God we have to do some good preliminary work on how reason and language work and fail to work in talking about God.

My glib approach is that nothing we say about God is true, but some things are even further from the mark than others. Also, God being the only one of his kind and a priori different from everything and relationship which language deals with, all the things we same a bout him should be preceeding by "sorta like".

For example. God isn't even "one" the same way other things are one. When we attribute "oneness" to God, we Tgrinitarians find ourselve simmediately in trouble and have to say, well He's Three, also, But He's not three the way other triads (for example, the tri-lateral commission, Sahdrach, Meshach, AND Abednego, Tinkers, Evers Chance)are three and He's not one the way any thing we ever thoguht of as one is. (remember the campaign slogan, "Nixon's the One" - to which I always wnated to say, "He IS? You sure coulda fooled me!") He's just "sorta like".

And if I then say that something else is a better "sorta like" I end up in REAL trouble.

That's how I do it, anyway.

29 posted on 11/09/2006 3:40:58 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867; DouglasKC; Eagle Eye; The Bard; Invincibly Ignorant

To support the idea of a three-in-one Godhead you must use terms not found in the Bible, rely on false scripture based on twisted interpretations that contradict extremely clear scripture and create a convoluted theory that no one really understands....forcing its adherents to declare it a mystery.


30 posted on 11/09/2006 4:22:16 PM PST by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
That's how I do it, anyway.

Your entire post was a mystery. In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.

31 posted on 11/09/2006 5:01:23 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
"Since it can't be explained to be understood by the human intellect my point remains ya gotta take it by faith."

That's true. But keep in mind that "mystery" doesn't mean it can't be understood at all. It means it can't "all" be understood. Like your love for your child. You can explain it in part, but there are parts that go beyond your conscious grasp.

And trying to understand more and more, is a good thing, worth your effort. Psalm 119:34 --- Give me understanding, that I may keep your law and obey it with all my heart.

32 posted on 11/09/2006 5:19:08 PM PST by Mrs. Don-o (God bless you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Since it can't be explained to be understood by the human intellect

Oh, but I never said that. I said it can't be fully grasped by created intellect. Why would you think an infinite and transcendant God would be otherwise?

I gave you a reference where it's explained, explained clearly, and explained so that any literate person can understand it.

33 posted on 11/09/2006 5:41:27 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Your entire post was a mystery.

That's a good thing, right?

In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.I don't think this conversation can be carried on to anyone's benefit using an adversarial approach. I'm not saying you're doing that. I'm preemptively excusing myself from the conversation if it gets anything but easy going and meditative.

If you will reread my post, you will see, I think, that I didn't say anything about any language that God has given us, or, for that matter, any language we have managed to come up with one our own, with or without God's help. What I am trying to say is something like this. God is more unlike anything else than He is like anything else. I would suggest, that the most basic predication, namely: that something "is, is made about God in a way defferent from the way it is made about anything else. God "sorta like" is.

Yes, one means one. But "one" is attributed to, ah, wine bottles, in a way different from the way it is attributed to God. For one thing, THIS wine bottle is one, but one among many. If monotheism is true, then God is one, but not one among many.

So, someone might say, well God is one among all the things that are. I would say back, that God "is" in a manner different from the other things that "are" because His "being" lets them "be", since they exist at His will and are only because He is.

Creatures "are" in a dependent way. God "is" as the source of Being. Creatures "are" for a while. God always "is" (by definition). A dog who eats a powerful explosive, is only "one dog" for a while, then he is many pieces of dog, while the dog is only a memory.

Is a car "one" or is it a mess of parts, and does the word we use just means something like "a bunch of parts which together sometimes move humans around, and other times make money for mechanics, or, as parts, make money for junkyard owners." So one and many is sometime hard for even dogs and cars.

But God, they say, and it seems smart, has no parts. He is "one" through and through.

But, while God has no Father, sometimes Jesus, who is God, addresses Himself to "The Father". If they're one, why Jesus address anything to the Father. It would be like an itch telling itself it itched. If they're not one, either Jesus is not God, or God has a father who is not God. Or, maybe, just maybe, when we say, "Shema Yisroel, Adoshem Elohenu, Adoshem ehad," maybe "ehad" isn't exactly as simple as we thought it was, no matter what language we speak, and especially when attributed to the LORD our God.

As I said, "Sorta like" one. "Sorta like" three.

But yeah, ontology is a mystery, pretty much. I'll cop to that.

34 posted on 11/09/2006 5:44:51 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
In any language that God has given us one means one and three means three.

Yes. But in the language of metaphysics, person and nature are not the same thing. Person is an identity. "George W. Bush" is a person. That's his identity, his "who". His what is a nature. It's the collection of qualities and capabilities that are proper to the class to which he belongs, that of human beings.

God is three persons with one divine nature. You know about things that have nature without person; a rock has a rock nature but there is no "rock person", so a rock exhibits a zero-to-one relationship of person to nature. You, yourself, have a human nature, and are a human person; that's a one-to-one relationship of person to nature.

God has a three-to-one relationship of person to nature. This is without precedent in the created world, which has only one-to-one (humans and angels) and zero-to-one (inanimate objections, animals) relationships of person-to-nature. But it is not illogical, or even paradoxical.

35 posted on 11/09/2006 5:49:23 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Campion
I gave you a reference where it's explained, explained clearly, and explained so that any literate person can understand it.

why can't you explain it to me?

36 posted on 11/09/2006 5:49:53 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Campion
inanimate objects, not objections. It's terrible to type in words, especially when you use the wrong ones.
37 posted on 11/09/2006 5:51:40 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

See post 35, but that's a (very partial) summary of something that's much longer. See Sheed's book.


38 posted on 11/09/2006 5:52:43 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
And when one looks in the Tanakh itself at the frequency and usage of the two words - echad and yachid - it is very quickly and easily seen that echad, not yachid, is in fact the standard Hebrew word for a simple one. Echad is used over 900 times in the Hebrew Bible, making it the most frequently used adjective in the Tanakh. Here are some examples of its usage where the word "one" is translated from echad: "one place" (Gen. 1:9); "one man" (Gen. 42:13); "one law" (Ex. 12:49); "one side" (Ex. 25:12); "one ewe lamb" (Lev. 14:10); "one of his brethren" (Lev. 25:48); "one rod" (Num. 17:3); "one soul" (Num. 31:28); "one of these cities" (Deut. 4:42); "one way" (Deut. 28:7); "one ephah" (1 Sam. 1:24); "one went out into the field" (11 Kings 4:39); "one shepherd" (Ezek. 37:24); "one basket" (Jer. 24:2); "one [thing]" (Ps. 27:4); "Two are better than one" (Ecc. 4:9); "one day or two" (Ezra 10:13).

Sometimes it is simply part of a number, like "eleven" (echad + 'asar, one plus ten), in , for example Genesis 32:22. Sometimes it is as well translated by an indefinite article (a[n]): "a new cart" (1 Sam. 6:7); "a juniper tree" (1 Kings 19:4,5); "a book" (Jer. 51:60).

Perhaps most importantly, echad clearly has the meaning of single, alone, ONLY one, or JUST one, the ideal of a limit of one (Num. 10:4; Josh. 17:14; Esth. 4:11; Isa. 51:2). In Deuteronomy 17:6, for example, it really isn't precise English to translate echad merely as "one". For if the "one" witness referred to is the second of the third witness, then that one witness is enough to convict the hypothetical person of murder. The meaning is that a person must not be put to death of the evidence of only one witness (which is the way the NRSV translates it). Echad means "one" and ONLY one.

39 posted on 11/09/2006 6:06:29 PM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
Thats fun info. Thanks.

I don't see how it relates to the problem I'm rasing about predications about God.

If you look in the tanak you will find that God's nose got hot on more than one occasion. Between you and me, I don't think God really has a nose. (Not counting the Incarnation, I mean) They must be making a predication analogically. In fact it's an analogy piled on an analogy, like Pelian on Ossa - and still unable to reach as high as the Olympus of non-analogical attributions about El Shaddai. It's "sorta like" his nose got hot.

YEAH, I get that there's a jump from noses to number. But I tried to say "one" isn't such an easy idea even when used about dogs and cars. It gets totally out of control when applied to the LORD. (Trying to approximate RSV usage when referring to the Holy Name here, out of respect, not to say terror.)

Now listen class: if ANYONE, I repeat, ANYONE, starts singing "One is the Loneliest Number" heads will ROLL! DO I make myself CLEAR?

40 posted on 11/09/2006 6:16:33 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
why can't you explain it to me?I will just as soon as you explain Quantum mechanics to me -- on a forum -- with me reading our posts carelessly, with interruptions.

Some things really work better in other environments, y'know? Some ideas don't match up with high school or even college forensics.

(BTW I half agree and half disagree with you on the universe thing. All the phenomena suggest expansion. But if universe [there's that pseky "one" again] means what it seems to mean, how good there be any thing, not IN the universe. [Space, BTW, may not be a thing.])

If your ignorance is truly invincible, then what are we doing here?

41 posted on 11/09/2006 6:31:11 PM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: The Bard; Invincibly Ignorant; Jeremiah Jr; the-ironically-named-proverbs2
I and [my] Father are one.
John 10:30 (KJV) <<<

Sounds pretty self explanitory to me

Metaphors and other literary devices have been become incomprehensible parables.

ShemA Yisrael Adonai Elohenu Adonai echaD

is a simple statement of Torah truth.

42 posted on 11/09/2006 10:11:07 PM PST by Thinkin' Gal (As it was in the days of NO...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Campion

Appreciate your post.

Another description of "mystery" in this use is: Something about which you can constantly know more, but never all.


43 posted on 11/10/2006 3:24:16 AM PST by D-fendr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant; HarleyD
"3 is 1 and 1 is 3 hasn't been explained to my satisfaction yet."

Well, don't think of it as a mathematical absurdity, because it's not about arithmetic or numeration at all. It's about love.

The most basic things we know about God are that God is One, and that God is Love. But Love can't be One in the most singleton solitary sense, because a "love of one" would be a profound egotism, a stuck-on-yourselfness which is not actually love at all, but quite a monstrous opposite.

So God who is Love is a Tri-unity. There is an inner back-and-forth of love, a giving and receiving and back again, a dynamism.

This has to do with the inner life of God within Himself, not as three "aspects" of one person, but as three Persons united in one Nature: a kaleidoscope.

And this is a Mystery, not because we can never understand any of it, but because we can never understand all of it.

And think: what could this possibly mean: that we were "created in the image and likeness of God"?

44 posted on 11/10/2006 6:32:45 AM PST by Mrs. Don-o (I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and Giver of Life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawg
If your ignorance is truly invincible, then what are we doing here?

Good question. Dunno. But then if I can make one mad dog serene it will all have been worth it.

45 posted on 11/10/2006 7:46:39 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
But then if I can make one mad dog serene it will all have been worth it.

Speaking for the rabies-challenged everywhere, I want to say thank you, from the bottom of my salivary glands ....

You know, people see a foaming at the mouth, grolwing dog who seems to take no regard for his own personal safety and seems to intend to compromise the personal safety of anyone who gets close enough ... and they react negatively! Can you imagine?

I'm tired of putting up with this hydrophophiaphobia!

46 posted on 11/10/2006 8:50:08 AM PST by Mad Dawg (Now we are all Massoud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant
II,

You are one of my favorite Freepers. You like to question faith as if it were scientifically provable. How the heck are you? I think the Trinity is a wonderful topic for you to attack. I bet you can't get 100% proof on this topic!

Please now question the dual nature of Christ. And be sure to ask the average Christian about these deep topics and act like you are so amazed that they cannot explain them scientifically or that they need to refer to a written document. Never mind that these average Christians may be devoted to the Trinity and/or Christ and that they pray to them everyday. Just squish another person's articles of faith without explaining why your personal faith is so much more rational.

Did the school bully at the Christian school you were forced to go to give you a whirly? Please offer up the history to your angst toward us Trinitarian believing Christians. We'd all love to hear about the pain it has caused you. I for one would be more than willing to listen. This has to be good because your focus is so intense and unrelenting.
47 posted on 11/10/2006 8:59:02 AM PST by klossg (GK - God is good!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: policyforever867
Ok, I believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as I am commanded to

Well believing isn't enough anymore. You need to KNOW - not just take someone else's word for it.

48 posted on 11/10/2006 9:01:47 AM PST by x_plus_one (Franklin Graham: "Allah is not the God of Moses. Allah had no son")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: klossg
You are one of my favorite Freepers.

Very nice of you to say. I have no problem with any of you. Godspeed.

49 posted on 11/10/2006 9:19:13 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
This has to do with the inner life of God within Himself, not as three "aspects" of one person, but as three Persons united in one Nature: a kaleidoscope

My response is that there's no possible way you can KNOW this. It must be taken by faith. Not that there's anything wrong with that but then there are those who get offended and act surprised if, God forbid, somebody asks a question about it. Not saying this describes you but I thought this is the FR a place to discuss these kind of things. :-)

50 posted on 11/10/2006 9:39:44 AM PST by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-207 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson