This is exactly why St Roymonds model fails. He likes to try to turn God into part of science, to be bound by science in some way…God transcends science he isnt bound by it or to it and certainly isnt “a part” of it (such as an electron). I simply took the family approach because the bible is absolutely full of stories about “family”. That just makes sense to me as an explanation of the trinity. The individual members/persons in a prefall sinless family would be in complete harmony and unified…we would be like the Godhead. It is sin that separates us from not only God, but each other and ruins the trinitarian model of family.
I dont see why the need to go outside of the scriptures to explain God? People love to overcomplicate the trinity.
Basically because the Trinity is not defined by the Bible. All the elements are there and there are a couple of places where all three are mentioned but never as a unit and, of course, the name Trinity is not there at all.
As it happens, it is the personality of Jesus that causes division. If you take the Gospels at face value Jesus is clearly portrayed as a man. His divinity is hinted at by Mark and more robustly by John. Luke and Matthew rely on the Nativity.
The whole point is that God is supposed to have sacrificed his son, going one further than Abraham, but if Jesus is not His direct offspring then that does not work. All that is left is to decide whether the Son is still part of the Godhead or not. In truth Jesus defers to the Father in a manner that does not reflect the Trinity model.
And again you resort to a lie. I consistently reject linking theology and science, which is a major part of why I oppose YEC. All I insist on is sticking to the actual text – which is the primary reason I oppose YEC.
So why bother with all the attempts to make science match scripture, or scripture match science, which is what YEC is about?
Not if you read them as a first century resident of Palestine or even the rest of the Roman empire and its neighbor to the east. The real issue is that Jesus talked and acted like He was God so often yet actually managed a three-year ministry before getting crucified!
Just as examples, the story of Jesus commanding the storm declares Him to be Yahweh, so does the assertion that He is greater than the Temple, and that He is Lord of the Sabbath.
For a second-Temple Jew there was no problem here – they understood that there was YHWH who was unseen in heaven and YHWH who walked on Earth as a man – two Powers in Heaven – so there was no problem deciding that the second YHWH had become an actual man. And the “second” YHWH always deferred to the “first” YHWH anyway.
Richard, despite your need for the word trinity, i would dissagree with that position.
Given you are a man of science who seeks evidence, then that demands you align with the trinitarian view because the biblical evidence for it is substantial. There are other biblical words and/or doctrines that do not meet your standard there:
Accountability
Penal substitution
Hallelujah (isnt in the King James bible)
Depression
Responsibility
Mission
Shekinah
Holy of holies
Apple isnt mentioned in the genesis account of the garden of eden
No mention of angels wearing wings
We develop doctrines based on a range of evidences, not necessarily a word gives us those evidences. I think its rather difficult to attempt to defend non trinitarian views…rarely have i seen a trinitarian scholar lose a debate on that belief.
Instead of barking out a word…and intentionally not adequitely quoting what its responding to…do the right thing, include the appropriate context, and then reference your dissagreement with supporting evidence.
What youve done here is academic nonsense.
Not a aingle statement in any of you long response there has any referencing.
All of it is your own novel and this is why you are wrong most of the time. Start referencing your claims…instead of publishing a novel of your own works.
I quoted luther and the reformation on these forums for a reason. I am not a conspiracy theorist…i dont get consumed by a shadowy world order lead by the Rothschilds, a women in the back passages of the united nations who holds they keys to the world monetry vaults, the Kabal, Q/QAnon or any of that stuff…whether or not its true i dont really care.
The reformation started because of what he perceived the catholic church had become. The irony was, that was prophesied in the bible long before it happened. Satan corrupted the Christian church exactly as prophesied in the references i have repeatedly given you but that you ignore. So my wolf in sheeps clothing statement stands! You seem to portray a belief that the Roman Catholic church we know of is the Christian church of Peter…it is not! So when you talk about a history lesson…look in the mirror and start giving yourself one, because you do not know the difference between the christian church and the pagan papal roman one guided by the efforts of constantine and justinian - both roman emperors keen on combining church and state for the purposes of improving their own power and influence in the roman empire.
There is so much more to this that most ignore…particularly the effects roman persecution had on the jewish faith, and then on the christian faith. Roman emporers continued to swing between one and the another for centuries. The fact that the papal roman catholic church rose up out of the ashes of the roman empire is easily supported historically, there is no mystery there. (btw, one side of my family is catholic…some very devout too i might add. My dads raised in catholic brothers school in Sydney, his sister a catholic school principal, her husband taught maths, her son a catholic teacher)…my wife lived eith them for 6 months after our house burnt down in 2009…
I will add references to the theological claim above when im not on my phone in bed at 5am in the morning.
I am not a Catholic and there are elements of the Catholic doctrine that I am uncomfortable with but to call it corrupted is going one step too far (IMHO)
I think you have taken Scripture beyond where it is meant to go if you are claiming any sort of prophecy against Christianity, or any part of it.
I accept that richard, but he evidence supporting it is overwhelmingly strong. The fact we had the christian reformation in which denominations moved away from catholicism should be more than enough of a red flag here…but it doesnt suprise me that its not on these forums, as theologically that history doesnt walk these passages. I would suggest it stems partially from this notion on these forums that biologos doesnt have doctrines.
When something looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck…
It is not only me that thinks this btw, note the following reference where a defender of the view it isnt catholicism even states its[catholicism is the entity in Revelation] not a unique view…
and no his claim EGWhite also adds up to 666 is not evidence she could he the beast…the number by itself is but 1 of a number of evidences. Many peoples names add up to the number, however many people do not fufill ALL of the characteristics of Revelations prophecy about it …one of which seeks to change biblically appointed times and laws. Adventism has changed no bible dates…the sabbath has always been a jewish tradition…we havent changed that.
In any case, personally i align with the doctrine because of 3 main issues:
The changing of the sabbath day of worship to sunday
The catholic church has corrupted and introduced praying through christs mother Mary (i dont see that as biblical…the lords prayer certainly doesnt support tue idea)
That the pope intercedes on our behalf to God (this is fundamental christian church heresy…only christ can do that. The old testament priests doing it was symbolic, not literal (as i think the catholic church teaches)
The problem here being that the Reformation was not about the Pope. Catholicism rejected Protistants not the other way around,
Yes Trinitarianism is Catholic, but it is also Protistant. My denomination is The United Reformed Church and the Trinity is specified a part of our doctrines.
And I am still unhappy with Biblical interpretations that claim any sor of corruption within the Chrstian (catholic with a small c) church.
We can argue about the Pope, or praying through Saints and or Mary, confession and pennance, transubstantiation and any other Catholc prcatice you cae to mention, but, it is not the organisation (denomination) that matters, only the individual believer.
yep i pretty much align with a lot of that Richard…especially that its the individual who looks to the cross because ultimately the institution isn’t saved.
I understand that you do not align with what id suppose is an SDA driven doctrine against the pope and the catholic church as an institution and that’s ok…its just that when we look at the kinds of killings and oppression that communities such as the Waldenses incurred…the persecution of the populace by the church was abhorrent to say the least and history clearly shows that to be true. One always seeks to find only those stories within the Christian church that portray an organisation that followed Christs model, however, as I’ve said, once the persecutions began, that is not the same institution that Peter started…it is not the same “catholic” church. Id suggest it fell to the same corruption the Christ fought against (Pharisees and Sadducees)
For me it comes back to the reformation… we cannot ignore the 1521 Edict of Worms and the effect that had on what the institution perceived was its God given right…to excommuniate those who disagreed with what were clearly corrupt practices and doctrines of the church which the pope himself sanctioned and history suggests actively sought out.
Now i want to be clear, i don’t hate the pope or the broader catholic church community (my second youngest daughter attends catholic school and we love the place, they are doing a fabulous job and i would recommend sending any child to that school), just that i believe it does fulfill the book of Revelation prophecies because i have enough evidence that convinces me of that claim. Personally, i would love someone to be able to lead me into believing it was communism or Islam or something of that nature…I’ve tried to make the prophecy stick to both of those all to no avail, I’ve even argued theologically with my dad about this (given he is a retired SDA minister with a bachelor degree in biblical theology), he’s wiped the floor with me every time…so i continue to search for evidence but no luck yet.
Nothing I posted is novel in any way, it’s references to actual history.
Your statement is false even by your own words: “Satan corrupted the Christian church”. If your statement just above is true, then Jesus was a liar – He said that the gates of Hell would not be able to prevail against the church, which was a way of saying that the church would trample Satan.
Where? As far as I know this is the first thing you’ve said about the topic.
Would you please start actually reading what is written and stop projecting things that aren’t there? I said no such thing.
What I bolded is historical fiction. It’s the sort of thing that idiots like Dan Brown fill novels with, but there’s no substance to it. Just for starters, the only “guidance” that Constantine provided was “get your act together and agree” – from the minutes of the Council and everything else we know, what was all he cared about. The only remotely pagan idea involved was that the pagan temples all got along and he saw no reason why Christians shouldn’t all get along.
Both he and Justinian were aiming to have order in the empire, and for both that included getting all Christians to agree. Constantine was very relaxed about it, essentially considering the results of the Council sufficient; Justinian had been raised with a far stricter sense of order both in political terms and philosophically and so turned to using the law to enforce doctrine.
The Sabbath was not “the day of worship” to begin with, it was a day of rest. Every day was a day of worship, as someone who emphasizes the temple ritual should know. So there was no changeof the day of worship.
We are all admonished to intercede for each other, so there’s no heresy there. In fact James implies that some people’s prayers are more effective, so thinking that the pope’s intercession is somehow better is no big deal.
Where is that in the text?
Even Rome says that the person in Purgatory advances by grace.
To be honest this is the first I have heard of it.
You have peaked my curiosiy. You may have alluded to bits of Revelation but perhaps for my sake, you could lay out the whole scriptural backing for your doctrine.
As far as I can ytell, looking at Rev 13 there is a timescale of 42 months that makes no sense,along with a second beast. So…
I will reserve criticism until I have the full texts.
