Leaderboard

[First, you have to have a word that's transliterated to have this be germane to the discussion. "Zero" was never "transliterated" into English. It was translated from the Latin "zephirum." (Scroll up-I cited a reliable, knowledgeable source.)] [No, they got the term from the Latin "zephirum". I have a reliable source for that. Do you have any kind of source for a claim "zero" came from "zera", or is the entire claim based on their being similar when written with English lettering? Because LOTS of unrelated words are equally similar with English lettering, but are unrelated nonetheless.] [source for this claim, please. Other than your opinion, is there documentation from anything resembling a knowledgeable, reliable resource that says "zero" is connected with "pharaoh" "hero" "Nero" "El Zoro" (or "El Zorro") ? ] [Ascribing a meaning to a word does not automatically mean it is CORRECTLY ascribed. I can come up with all sorts of unrelated words, ascribe meanings to them, and be completely wrong-but sincere...]

Spectrum49, I agree with you that the Trinity doesn't make sense. However, as Geisha779 pointed out, your arguments don't work because they start with a wrong definition of the Trinity. Any arguments that involve differences between the Father and the Son don't disprove the Trinity, because as Trinitarians will tell you, there are differences between the Father and the Son. The Father is not the Son and the Son is not the Father. However, according to the definition, the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is but one God, who exists in three persons. The Scriptural argument I would offer to that definition is that Jesus declared that "the Father" is the "only true God": John 17: 1 These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: 2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. 3 This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent. Paul likewise declared that there was one God, the Father; and one lord, Jesus Christ, the man who is the mediator between God and man. I Corinthians 8: 6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Ephesians 4: 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. I Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; In addition there are specific differences between God and His Son: God cannot die (I Timothy 6:16), but Jesus died. God cannot be tempted (James 1:13), but Jesus was tempted in all things, yet without sin (Hebrews 4:15). God is omniscient, i.e. He knows all things (I John 3:20), but Jesus said there were things that he did not know, including when he would return (Mark 13:32). God is omnipotent, i.e. all powerful, but Jesus said he could do nothing of himself without the Father (John 5:30). Jesus said that his doctrine was not his own, but His that sent him, and then differentiated between God and himself, emphasizing that he sought God's glory and not his own (John 7:16-18). Jesus made a distinction between himself and God, saying there is none good but one, that is, God (Mark 10:17-18). Jesus prayed to God (Luke 6:12). If he were God, he would have been talking to himself. Jesus was the Lamb of God (John 1:29,36), the perfect sacrifice to God. How could he sacrifice himself to himself? Jesus was the perfect sacrifice to God on behalf of mankind. Jesus is now seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Romans 8:34; Colossians 3:1; Hebrews 10:12; I Peter 3:22). If he were God, how could he sit on his own right hand? The differences indicated in these verses aren't just differences between the Father and the Son. They are specifically stated as differences between God (as a whole) and Jesus. In addition, there are many clear, unambiguous references to Jesus as the Son of God, compared with only a handful of verses that call him God in a representational sense. And as I said before, it is largely because the early church lost the Hebrew understanding of this concept that the doctrine of the Trinity was developed.

Just a quick note here - sorry if it is outside the context of the discussion, but you prove a negative by disproving its positive. That is the principle VP was using when he said that if Jesus is not God anywhere in the Word, he is not God everywhere in the Word. My understanding of who Jesus Christ is has grown, and is growing, into something that is amazing, extraordinary, and exquisite in every regard. Jesus asked whom do you think I am, and Peter answered the son of God. Jesus said the Father had shown him that. If the Father had to show Peter that when he had the man right in front of him, how is it that years later a bunch of guys get together, discuss it, and decide who Jesus - not only that, but who God is & come up with the Trinity? I think that whole process is patently fallacious. People can't DEFINE GOD. Perhaps that is a point aside for a different discussion, but there are too many points where Jesus doesn't equal God for me to seriously consider that he is God, Trinitarian rationals notwithstanding. Then I would no longer be studying the Word, I'd be studying Trinitarian philosophy - or "theology" if you insist. But I'd be studying what men tell me God is. Without that limitation, I'm free to let the Word and the comforter teach me without getting sidetracked. And, as I said, the teaching has been extraordinary. I think VP's treatment of who Jesus Christ is - well, it broke the mold which is good, but ultimately the character of Jesus winds up being relatively (in juxtaposition to the truth) very flat and VP's teaching antichrist - the nature of which blinds the eyes. So we have a flat Jesus on one hand and the Trinity on the other, and the bread of life lies on table in plain view, yet unseen and uneaten. I'm by no means discounting the real relationships that people - on either side of the discussion - have with the Lord. I know my words may be taken as egotistical, but I believe its the truth. Comforter, teach us. Tom