Understanding the Trinity

[bbyrd009]

please tell me you did not just say this.

but i apologize for being insensitive there, i just grabbed the first symbology that came to mind.

so what you are saying here is that even YOU dont know what you are saying?

i'm not sure why you chose that quote to make that point, but definitely, yes, i have even said as much. I do not know any more than anyone else knows, and you should not believe anything you hear, even if you heard it from me, if it does not fit with your own common sense and understanding. Conversely however, in some weird way, the whole of Scripture will now become available to one who has abandoned "knowing," as the Bible suggests.

Which let's admit, even if it was offensive on some level, the symbology was accurate enough, wasn't it? Although i guess i'll come up with a different example next time, more accessible perhaps. The only other one that springs to mind is about how we are drawn to sociopaths, who, naturally, gravitate to positions of power and authority, which is kind of nebulous? Lol

actually, no, the symbology was not accurate at all. to say a woman is drawn to a wife-beater is absurd. and now you say we are drawn to sociopaths as well? how exactly do you come to these conclusions?

ok and just since we are on the subject, "pastor" is one of the top 5 or 10 professions that sociopaths are drawn to; i think they are like #6? peace

[Jac3510]

Please don't confuse me. You're starting to sound like that other guy who doesn't believe Jesus is the Christ.

Maybe if you got the confidence up to beat your wife she'd be more willing to explain it to you.

But then again, what chance do we have? We can't even decide how a sentence ought to be punctuated. We might be paddleless in the proverbial creek.

---------------------

Seriously, Jac, are their many such passages that you find so unclear - or any that might have tremendous significance, per the uncertainty?

Actually, yes. The nuance here is what we mean by "tremendous significance." Does the signifance relate to the truth of any particular doctrine, as if without a clear resolution some core truth is suddenly without support? No, not one. But there are a lot of passages--and I do mean a lot--where how you read these sorts of things effects the main point you think the author is making. Just take this one as an example. If we take the normal reading "apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life . . ." you have this natural break between the sentences and you might even allow some space for the possibilit of some things just being there by necessity and therefore not necessarily made by through Christ. That latter point isn't a necessary conclusion to draw, but the reading might allow for that (the same way the first person plural language in Gen 1 allows for a Trinitarian reading). More important, though, would be the natural break. Verse 4 would say, "In Him was life . . ." so that you have this clear break in subject matter. Vv 1-3 relate Jesus as being God and specifically to His role in the creation of all things. Then, v4ff would switch subjects from Jesus as Creator to Jesus as Life Giver. And that's a perfectly legitimate reading, and the theology is easy to follow. Good theology! But suppose you take the other reading. Now there doesn't seem to be any room to see a shift in the subject matter. Vv 1-3 still talk about Jesus as Creator, but now the things which "came into being" are equated with "life." So it seems now you either have to say that John is narrowing his perspective to one aspect of "that which came into being" (i.e., life)--and that doesn't seem to me to be a tenable option--or else to see a connection between "life" and everything that came into existence. What's doubly interesting in this view is verse 6 starts with the same word we've been talking about at the end of verse 3! (Pull up the verse on BlueLetterBible and you can see it for yourself.) So given all this, it would seem actually that John isn't merely talking about Jesus as Creator in the first three verses, but rather really hightening Jesus' (God's) sovereignty over every single aspect of existence. On this view, we might paraphrase 1:3-6a to say,

• Everything comes about through Jesus; indeed, nothing comes about without Him. And what comes about in Him is Life. That life is the light of men. It shines in the darkness [and death] of this world; indeed, this dark world doesn't see or understand that light or life. Now one of the things that came about [through Christ] was a man named John . . .

Suppose that's right. I think that's significant. Does it change any major doctrines? No. But it does give a different flavor, if you will, to the text. I'm not saying that view is right. I'm undecided. I am saying, though, it is significant. And, yes, there are lots and lots and lots of passages like that. None of that means that you can't read your English Bibles and understand what it is saying. I mean, even if the suggested paraphase is right, the traditional translations still get 98% of that idea, and the other 2% can still be seen if you look closely enough. And that even more if you read enough translations where you are aware of the problem of translation.

When I went through the book of Philippians this way in seminary, almost all of the class every single week was discussions like this. We'd consider the various possible semantic classifications and what the implications of each would be. It was really fun. But, again, I emphasize that as common as these problems are, not one of them has anything to say about foundational Christian doctrine. More than anything, it's a matter of nuance, detail, and clarity on this or that point. Not unimportant and it is worth studying and forming and opinion on. But nothing that people should use to conclude that their English Bibles are trustworthy (unless you have a Message Bible. That's one is untrustworthy. Just get rid of it. )

[Philip]

Jac, the question: Wear the red socks or the blue ones? Ever been known to overthink it? Can you order from a menu in less than a half hour? What if your wife expresses herself ambiguously - what, do you just go by tone (usually a certainty)? Do you conjugate Greek to fall asleep at night?

Seriously, seems like Bruce Metger echoed the same thing about no major theological changes in the uncertainties.

[Jac3510]

Jac, the question: Wear the red socks or the blue ones?

Black, of course.

Ever been known to overthink it?

Always

Can you order from a menu in less than a half hour?

Yes

What if your wife expresses herself ambiguously - what, do you just go by tone (usually a certainty)?

I

Do you conjugate Greek to fall asleep at night?

No. Spanish.

Seriously, seems like Bruce Metger echoed the same thing about no major theological changes in the uncertainties.

Correct.

[jenna]

but i apologize for being insensitive there, i just grabbed the first symbology that came to mind.

so what you are saying here is that even YOU dont know what you are saying?

i'm not sure why you chose that quote to make that point, but definitely, yes, i have even said as much. I do not know any more than anyone else knows, and you should not believe anything you hear, even if you heard it from me, if it does not fit with your own common sense and understanding. Conversely however, in some weird way, the whole of Scripture will now become available to one who has abandoned "knowing," as the Bible suggests.

Which let's admit, even if it was offensive on some level, the symbology was accurate enough, wasn't it? Although i guess i'll come up with a different example next time, more accessible perhaps. The only other one that springs to mind is about how we are drawn to sociopaths, who, naturally, gravitate to positions of power and authority, which is kind of nebulous? Lol

actually, no, the symbology was not accurate at all. to say a woman is drawn to a wife-beater is absurd. and now you say we are drawn to sociopaths as well? how exactly do you come to these conclusions?

ok and just since we are on the subject, "pastor" is one of the top 5 or 10 professions that sociopaths are drawn to; i think they are like #6? peace

[Kurieuo]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

[Jac3510]

so what you are saying here is that even YOU dont know what you are saying?

i'm not sure why you chose that quote to make that point, but definitely, yes, i have even said as much. I do not know any more than anyone else knows, and you should not believe anything you hear, even if you heard it from me, if it does not fit with your own common sense and understanding. Conversely however, in some weird way, the whole of Scripture will now become available to one who has abandoned "knowing," as the Bible suggests.

Which let's admit, even if it was offensive on some level, the symbology was accurate enough, wasn't it? Although i guess i'll come up with a different example next time, more accessible perhaps. The only other one that springs to mind is about how we are drawn to sociopaths, who, naturally, gravitate to positions of power and authority, which is kind of nebulous? Lol

actually, no, the symbology was not accurate at all. to say a woman is drawn to a wife-beater is absurd. and now you say we are drawn to sociopaths as well? how exactly do you come to these conclusions?

ok and just since we are on the subject, "pastor" is one of the top 5 or 10 professions that sociopaths are drawn to; i think they are like #6? peace

FTFY

[jenna]

but i apologize for being insensitive there, i just grabbed the first symbology that came to mind.

so what you are saying here is that even YOU dont know what you are saying?

i'm not sure why you chose that quote to make that point, but definitely, yes, i have even said as much. I do not know any more than anyone else knows, and you should not believe anything you hear, even if you heard it from me, if it does not fit with your own common sense and understanding. Conversely however, in some weird way, the whole of Scripture will now become available to one who has abandoned "knowing," as the Bible suggests.

Which let's admit, even if it was offensive on some level, the symbology was accurate enough, wasn't it? Although i guess i'll come up with a different example next time, more accessible perhaps. The only other one that springs to mind is about how we are drawn to sociopaths, who, naturally, gravitate to positions of power and authority, which is kind of nebulous? Lol

actually, no, the symbology was not accurate at all. to say a woman is drawn to a wife-beater is absurd. and now you say we are drawn to sociopaths as well? how exactly do you come to these conclusions?

the symbology of a woman being attracted to a charismatic or self confident man is not accurate? https://www.google.com/search?q=symbolo ... e&ie=UTF-8

don't miss "Why Are Men With Dark Triad Personalities So Irresistible To Women."

And now i say we are drawn to sociopaths as well https://www.google.com/search?q=we+are+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

see "Why Are Women Attracted To Psychopaths?"

but you do understand that this is not universal, i hope. People wise up, and young people move in to take the old's place, etc. I didn't mean that you, personally are necessarily in any group, and it is even possible, i guess, that you never were. Never beguiled by another human being? Hmm.

1) you did NOT say women were drawn to charismatic or self confident men. you said women were drawn to wife-beaters. huge difference there. one makes me wonder exactly how far gone you really are if you do not even know what you say

[Jac3510]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

Don't forget the fruit of praising wife-beaters! And I don't mean these:

[Philip]

How come when chicks where those, they call 'em "tank tops?"

[jenna]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

Don't forget the fruit of praising wife-beaters! And I don't mean these:

oh, so THIS is the wife-beater that was referred to?? well, ok, now i understand, as yeah, i like those.

[RickD]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

Don't forget the fruit of praising wife-beaters! And I don't mean these:

oh, so THIS is the wife-beater that was referred to?? well, ok, now i understand, as yeah, i like those.

I have about 6 of those shirts. I wear them whenever my wife won't make me a sammich.

[jenna]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

Don't forget the fruit of praising wife-beaters! And I don't mean these:

oh, so THIS is the wife-beater that was referred to?? well, ok, now i understand, as yeah, i like those.

I have about 6 of those shirts. I wear them whenever my wife won't make me a sammich.

yea, that might be one way of getting her attention.

[Philip]

Philip: Seriously, seems like Bruce Metger echoed the same thing about no major theological changes in the uncertainties.

Jac: Correct.

Actually, it makes sense. I mean, as God views proper doctrine as important, and if Scripture is meant as communication that includes important doctrines, does it make sense that He would communicate important DOCTRINES in ways in which we could not correctly understand them, might dangerous MISunderstand them? There are the essentials, and then there are mysteries. I just don't buy into the likelihood of God making passages meant to convey important doctrines, in ways so vague as to be easily and wildly misinterpreted.

[bbyrd009]

I've thought on the whole fruit thing, and see some merit, specifically here with Bbyrd. I mean the whole time while at this board Bbyrd, I must say I'm not sure I've seen any fruit from you, other than uniting others against you and your beliefs.

Perhaps you need to revise what you believe accordingly, and I'd very much encourage you to do so and return to more fruitful and correct doctrine.

You also often mention witnesses, and I'm sure there are many witnesses here who'd agree.

you do me more honor than i deserve, imo, and reinforce the fruit of Trinity doctrine at the same time, it seems to me. What, because i am one of the only two here who have represented the other 50% of Christianity, i need to adjust my doctrine? Even though i have made plain that as far as i am concerned, Trinitarians are accepted? Tell me then, what agreement have you and your witnesses come to?