I repeat, Jesus spoke Aramaic. He also spoke Hebrew (which at the time of Jesus was strictly used in a liturgical context), and Greek.
Languages are not inspired, and besides, this is moving the goalposts.
1 Like
God chose to speak through Hebrew mouths
That’s not significant?
You’re the one moving words around, literally inverting “Son of God” backwards into “God the Son”
I couldn’t agree more. So we are on the same page that the Trinity is not a biblical doctrine?
No. I would not go that far. That would be like saying that the doctrines claiming God is omnipotent is not a Biblical doctrine. That is incorrect. Just because the doctrine is not stated in the Bible doesn’t mean that. Despite it not being in the Bible, I think it is the understanding of God which is most consistent with the whole canon. Anything else and I think you have to discard (or explain away) parts of the Bible.
That is why I am a Trinitarian.
Like I said. The fact that it is not actually stated in the Bible is one of the reasons I like it so much. The idea that the Bible contains all truth even about God is utterly absurd! And I love rubbing this fact about the doctrine of the Trinity in Christian faces to prove it.
1 Like
What is going on?
I guess it would depend on your definition of what the doctrine of omnipotence is, just like it would also depend on what your definition of the doctrine of the Trinity is. There’s not just one version of these things.
But I think that it would be very easy to defend most versions of omnipotence from the Bible, even though you may not find a neatly packed verse that says “God is omnipotent.” It would be hard to argue that it is not a biblical doctrine.
I see what you mean, something doesn’t have to explicitly be in the Bible to be a true doctrine. I can acknowledge that. However, when I am going for the “best fit” kind of doctrine, the Trinity solves no problems for my understanding of God, and creates quite a few others on the side, biblically and logically. I feel it tries to force scriptural understanding into a triangle mold of sorts. And since I don’t see it as a good fit, I reach for a more “biblical unitarian” (not universalist) understanding.
The doctrine was formulated with great effort to maintain the biblical teachings of God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This was necessary to ward of many heresies and is the central dogma of Orthodox Christianity.
1 Like
YES! That is true! I certainly do not support any version of the doctrine of the Trinity which says that God is three and only three. The original version is simply that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three distinct persons but only one God. It says nothing about God being limited to these three persons. When people say something like this they are exaggerating their own knowledge of God and equating what they know of God to God Himself.
Likewise, I will also quibble with some renditions of the God’s omnipotence to say that this does not mean that God can accomplish anything by whatever method someone cares to dictate. However I also disagree with those who equate this to making God incapable of things like self-limitation, taking risks, giving privacy, making sacrifices, all which sums up in my mind to an inability to love others. When the Bible says God is love, I take that to mean that God values love and freedom more than power and control to the point where he would set aside all power and knowledge to become a helpless human infant. The power to become whatever you choose is the most important power of all. A God confined to the definitions of human theology is nothing but a preposterous slave to religion.
Understood, but I see bigger problems in trying to remake God into our own image. I believe this is why so many intelligent people like Einstein have had a difficulty believing in a personal God. It just looked too much like a God made in our own image. Thus I suggest that if we would go beyond such a personal god in our own image, that we consider a trans-personal god (greater) rather than a sub-personal god (lesser), and that is another reason I like the doctrine of the Trinity, which teaches a God not limited as we are to a singularity of personhood.
True, and it’s the central belief also of Roman Catholic and mainline Protestant Christianity. But the heresies persist!
@ErikNelson, it shows the weakness of basing a theology on proof texts, many of which do no say what you say the mean.
Just because it says that no one has seen God does not mean that no one knows God. The Trinity means that Jesus is God as well as the Father and the Spirit. If you are saved, you are reconciled to the Father by the Son through the Spirit. Theology is primarily about salvation, rather than knowledge, but it is about knowledge also, which is why theology is also about philosophy.
We are forgiven when we accept Jesus Christ as the Savior and are in right relationship with the Father through the Love of the Holy Spirit. All three are God. Thank you, @beaglelady
1 Like
This is the doctrine of the Trinity:
That is far past what is revealed in scripture.
Several hundred years after Jesus died, the influential church leaders around the Mediterranean (not all of Christendom), felt a need to try to fully define God. That was inappropriate hubris.
I think you have forgotten the point about algebra, repeated not too long ago.
I am an engineer from Georgia Tech. I do know algebra. I have had my algorithms used for decades. I hold a patent on mathematical simulation.
If you think you can define the eternal, Almighty God with algebra, Dale, then you are confused.
You have entirely missed the point.
2 Likes
Feel free to elaborate the point and how you can define God.
I, on the other hand, recognize God is greater than we can define.
The point was and is that a book or The Book can teach a principle or a doctrine without its name being mentioned. If you think that that is ‘defining God’ and putting him in a box or putting a fence around him, you are again missing the point. That would be tantamount to saying that because you say that an airliner has wings and engines that you are crippling it.
1 Like
The doctrine of the Trinity is:
Are you pretending this is actually taught in the Bible?
Where in the Bible do you find “consubstantial” and “hypostases?”
Where in the Bible are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called “persons?” Why do you want to make them people, not God?
Yes.
Do you deny that you can teach algebra and calculus without using the words ‘algebra’ and ‘calculus’?
Still trying to turn the Almighty God into a math equation?
Where in the Bible do you find “consubstantial” and “hypostases?”
Where in the Bible are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit called “persons?” Why do you want to make them people, not God?
What does the image of God in man mean if it does not include the personal attributes of intellect, will, emotion, agency and language?
1 Like