- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Why isn't the Trinity mentioned in the bible?
Posted on 11/29/22 at 1:59 pm to Tomatocantender
Posted on 11/29/22 at 1:59 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:
Understood, but if you dismiss Big Bang as a cause from Science then you might as well dismiss gravity as a cause for why water runs downhill.
The only reason I dont' care about the big bang theory is science is already waffling on it and will change it in the future.
I've never thought that the universe being billions of years old disproved God. The 6,000 year old timeline was done by a Bishop Ussher, if I remember my Western Civ correctly. The universe is timeless, no telling what planets used to exist.
2
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:05 pm to RogerTheShrubber
The universe being billions of years old doesn't matter in terms of scriptures.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:07 pm to Jjdoc
quote:
The universe being billions of years old doesn't matter in terms of scriptures.
I would think not, but its strange how some people limit it.
The great thing about science is the outcomes keep changing as knowledge increases. What we know as truth today will be laughed at tomorrow.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:16 pm to L.A.
And my perspective is that you were posting on a thread just like any other member of the forum, and our exchange was far milder than things that happen here every day, with no repercussions.
From my perspective, it looked like you got your feelings hurt and abused your authority.
Water under the bridge. Let’s put it behind us. Again, I have enjoyed this thread.
From my perspective, it looked like you got your feelings hurt and abused your authority.
Water under the bridge. Let’s put it behind us. Again, I have enjoyed this thread.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:17 pm to ruffleforeskin
Why is this on a Political forum?
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:22 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Water under the bridge. Let’s put it behind us. Again, I have enjoyed this thread.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 2:27 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
I've never thought that the universe being billions of years old disproved God.
I agree. Even God's Particle doesn't disprove God and Christianity. Like AggieHank said, this has been a very enjoyable thread with quality content. I know it's given me a couple of ah ha moments.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:18 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
He called the Temple HIS house when he tossed out the money changers/gamblers.
In Matthew, sort of.
You don’t see a lot of quotation marks in the Bible. The passage should probably (using modern punctuation) read as follows.
quote:
(He) said unto them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called the house of prayer;’ but ye have made it a den of thieves.”
In the inner quote, he was quoting God, as recorded in Isaiah 56:7. John fails to quote the old testament verbatim, but probably gets closer to the spirit when he records the exchange as “Take these things hence; make not my Father's house (a) house of merchandise.”
The fact that in one book he says "My house" and in the others he says "My Father's house" was still a direct reference to his divinity as that phrase..."My Father" in context was directly equating himself with God himself and you can see this when he uttered the same phrase by the reaction of the Jewish leaders that he was indeed making claims of equality with God the Father.
Jesus made other statements, such as I said where he claimed to be "I am" in John 8:58. He claimed powers which were EXCLUSIVE to God as well, one of which was the power to forgive sin. He took Thomas' claim that he was God point blank. The problem you have with a lot of folks, is that when they ignore the three "C's" Consistency, Context, and Customs of the time...when one does that they are setting themselves up for confusion and/or mistranslations. This happens often when the term "Son of God" is used. In those times the words Jesus spoke to this effect had no meaning of inferiority to God the Father himself and the priests knew this, thus their reactions when the words were used.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:24 pm to Eli Goldfinger
quote:
Green bell peppers
Onion
Celery
I think the "three sisters" are corns, beans and squash.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:41 pm to Marquesa
I go away for two hours and I come back to find the thread anchored. Looks like the man has shut us down. Figueres. One of the best threads in ages, but some people complained quite a bit
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 5:50 pm to L.A.
quote:
Not all scientists agree that the Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. The Big Bang is problematic from a physics perspective since it begins with a singularity and infinite densities like singularities are evidently not possible
The problem is evidence strongly suggests a big bang as the start of the universe and current consensus strongly supports a distinct starting point for the universe.
This is important because a key assumption of first cause logic is that "everything that begins to exist must have a cause". The universe beginning with the Big Bang meets those conditions. An eternal material universe would not meet those conditions. Of course, there are also very strong arguments that conclude an infinite past is not possible within a physical cause and effect material universe. But then, a Big bang eliminates the need for those arguments.
Posted on 11/29/22 at 8:10 pm to oogabooga68
quote:
Is it somehow harmful that it morphed into the official doctrine?
Good question. What does it matter if they are three parts of one God, or 3 gods? Salvation still comes through acceptance of Jesus Christ, does it not?
To the earliest of Christians, who were first temple polytheists, who believed in the Father (El Elyon, aka God Most High, creator god, head of Canaanite pantheon), the Mother (Ruach Elohim, Spiritus Sancti, Mary, Asherah), and the son (YHWH who became incarnate as the Christ to be sacrificed) there was no issue. They were separate gods, and that was fine for them because they didn’t adhere to many of the tenets of the second temple faith including most of the Mosaic and Levitical priest law.
The issue arose when later early Christians wanted to claim “proper Jewish” ancestry including all their scriptures and practices. They wanted to convert not just second temple Jewish religious adherents but also the gentiles. They had to try to merge the beliefs and reduce conflicts. It would be difficult to have any legitimacy and success with conversions with a huge conflict of Moses’ first and most important commandment and the three gods they worshipped. Hence they came up with the mental gymnastics that the three gods were really just three persons on one god and that satisfied the first commandment and satisfied the second temple Jewish converts which at that time denied the existence of all but a single God.
ETA: the early Christians focused on converting gentiles precisely because they knew the second temple Jewish monotheists would not be accepting of the multiple deities. The Trinity became a conversion tool for monotheists. It was hotly contested until the Roman church decided once and for all during the first council of Nicaea I believe - that thing in the Nicene Creed about Jesus being consubstantial with the father, meaning they are of the same substance.
This post was edited on 11/29/22 at 8:28 pm
Posted on 11/29/22 at 11:51 pm to ruffleforeskin
This is a typical line of argumentation that Muslims use to call into question the very existence of belief in the deity of Jesus during the earliest Christian era.
The assertion is that neither the original disciples nor the earliest converts to Christianity had any concept of Jesus as divine, and that it was only through an accretion of pagan-influenced tradition over the course of subsequent centuries that Jesus came to be regarded and worshipped as such.
Unfortunately, the idea that early Christianity did not have an exalted view of Jesus really isn't defensible.
Paul's doxological hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 (ca. 60-67), known as the Carmen Christi, affirms the condescension, humanity, humbling, suffering, exaltation, and deity of Jesus in one fell swoop, ending with the application of the title of kyrios (the most frequent translation of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] in the Septuagint) to Jesus. It is likely that this hymn was already in circulation amongst early Christians, and Paul merely included it in his letter to the church at Philippi to address the situation there. James similarly addresses Jesus as kyrios in ch. 2, v. 1 of his letter, which was written ca. 48 A.D. and is widely considered to be among the earliest writings of the NT (New Testament).
If one ascribes to Markan priority among the Synoptic Gospels, Mark was written as early as 45 A.D. In a passage in ch. 14, which includes a narrative of Jesus' trial before the priesthood, He identifies Himself with Daniel 7's Son of Man and asserts that He would be seated at the right hand of Power, thus implying that he was on equal footing with God. In response, the high priest tears his garments, saying, "What further testimony do we need? You've all heard this blasphemy!" The rest of the priests subsequently deem him worthy of death; they understood Jesus' meaning with perfect clarity.
Contrary to the OP's assertion that worship of Jesus was something confined to an era long after the Crucifixion, the adoration of Jesus during His earthly ministry is well-attested in Scripture -- the Wise Men worshipped him (Mt. 2:11), as did the Disciples when Jesus walked on water (Mt. 14:33), made post-resurrection appearances (Mt. 28:9, Jn. 20:28), and ascended to Heaven (Lk. 24:52).
The so-called period of "low Christology" in the 1st century is a misnomer and utterly without attestation in the witness of Scripture itself.
The assertion is that neither the original disciples nor the earliest converts to Christianity had any concept of Jesus as divine, and that it was only through an accretion of pagan-influenced tradition over the course of subsequent centuries that Jesus came to be regarded and worshipped as such.
Unfortunately, the idea that early Christianity did not have an exalted view of Jesus really isn't defensible.
Paul's doxological hymn in Philippians 2:5-11 (ca. 60-67), known as the Carmen Christi, affirms the condescension, humanity, humbling, suffering, exaltation, and deity of Jesus in one fell swoop, ending with the application of the title of kyrios (the most frequent translation of the Tetragrammaton [YHWH] in the Septuagint) to Jesus. It is likely that this hymn was already in circulation amongst early Christians, and Paul merely included it in his letter to the church at Philippi to address the situation there. James similarly addresses Jesus as kyrios in ch. 2, v. 1 of his letter, which was written ca. 48 A.D. and is widely considered to be among the earliest writings of the NT (New Testament).
If one ascribes to Markan priority among the Synoptic Gospels, Mark was written as early as 45 A.D. In a passage in ch. 14, which includes a narrative of Jesus' trial before the priesthood, He identifies Himself with Daniel 7's Son of Man and asserts that He would be seated at the right hand of Power, thus implying that he was on equal footing with God. In response, the high priest tears his garments, saying, "What further testimony do we need? You've all heard this blasphemy!" The rest of the priests subsequently deem him worthy of death; they understood Jesus' meaning with perfect clarity.
Contrary to the OP's assertion that worship of Jesus was something confined to an era long after the Crucifixion, the adoration of Jesus during His earthly ministry is well-attested in Scripture -- the Wise Men worshipped him (Mt. 2:11), as did the Disciples when Jesus walked on water (Mt. 14:33), made post-resurrection appearances (Mt. 28:9, Jn. 20:28), and ascended to Heaven (Lk. 24:52).
The so-called period of "low Christology" in the 1st century is a misnomer and utterly without attestation in the witness of Scripture itself.
This post was edited on 11/30/22 at 8:22 am
Page 15 of 15
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News