honest discussion of the trinity?

[starbird]

[TheEvan]

Huh?? Not being facetious, but that didn't make sense.

The poster was making the point that wierwille was trinitarian (he was still teaching along trinitarian lines in the Way mag as late as '63, I believe, if memory serves me) and wondering out loud what might have turned him. I think it's a good question.

I don't believe the explanation in the intro of JCING, that he turned because of the inexorable pull of scripture, seemingly against his will, put him face to face with the inescapable conclusion. He came to NO OTHER conclusion or belief that way and I seriously doubt he came to this conclusion in the manner he claims.

Again, good question.

Based on his grandstanding after coming out with the book (nailing some declaration to the door of his childhood church, innumerable letters to the local paper, etc) I tend to think he chose it as a point of sharp differentiation...a way to 'divide and conquer', so to speak, and gain a sense of exclusivity with his followers.

[Cynic]

I wonder whether John the Baptist’s questioning of Jesus actually indicates that John had begun having doubts about Jesus’ identity and had sent his disciples to get Jesus’ assurance that he was the Messiah.

Suppose there is a church which has Sunday morning services that begin promptly at 11:00 AM. One Sunday, however, the church’s minister does not appear at the expected time, but remains in the church’s office, speaking over the telephone with several anguishing people. A quarter-hour or more passes. One of the parishioners becomes quite irritated that the minister has failed to appear at the lectern. He goes and asks him, “Are you the preacher, or are we still waiting for him to get here?” The parishioner’s question is rhetorical. It strongly presupposes the factuality of what it seems to question. In posing it, the parishioner is not seeking to be reassured about the minister’s identity and/or office, rather he is accosting the minister over the minister's apparent tardiness towards his expected ministerial function and duty.

Jesus’ answer for John seems more pointed if understood as a rebuke to impiously made criticism than if understood as an answer to a doubtful question about Jesus’ identity. Jesus enumerates classes of works (that Jesus has done/is doing for various classes of suffering figures), and pointedly declares that blessed are those who are not offended in him. In my opinion, the mindset prompting John’s question possibly could consist of a very strong and unwavering sense of Jesus’ identity, coupled with a valid but myopic view about Jesus’ messianic activity. If John’s question is something critical, irreverent, and rhetorical, as I suggest, it would seem that John, through his disciples, is accosting Jesus for what John perceives as messianic inactivity (i.e. not having yet having made that sacrifice by which Jesus will take away the sin of the world).

This view of the John’s-questioning-of-Jesus incident is speculative, of course, but it allows for:

1. The concluding point of Jesus’ answer for John being rather strongly right-back-in-John’s-face, rather than something more obscure;

2. An unwavering consistency in John’s recognition of Jesus that seems to fit well with Jesus’ descriptions of his forerunner (e.g. an unshakeable figure), whose ministry had been, of necessity, Christologically rich (John 1:26-36, 3:26-36) as it pointed to the Kingdom of God and inaugurated the preaching of the “semi-eschatological” age (Luke 16:16).

*************************

Although I have presented another notion of what might underlie John’s question (i.e. I think it highly possible that John is driven by something closer to myopia and impatience than to “perplexity”), I think the following contains noteworthy commentary from a redemptive-historical interpretive viewpoint – particularly as it concerns the realized eschatological significance of Christ's appearance into time.

From http://two-age.org/beliefs_index/eschatology.htm :

Eschatology is the branch of theology which deals with last (or final) things. The dogmatics tradition has generally treated subjects including human death, the intermediate estate, the second coming and its surrounding events, the judgment, the resurrection of the body, and the final estate under the heading of eschatology. Recently the identification of Old Testament eschatology has transformed our thinking on the subject. What was, in Old Testament prophetic idiom, identified as the final age, the age to come, inaugurated by the climactic "Day of Yahweh," spoken of as "in that [those] day," must be considered eschatological. The advent of Christ marked this transitional event. What the prophets foretold, what every true Israelite earnestly looked forward to, the greatest of the prophets, John the Forerunner, identified as the coming of the kingdom of God. And the Eschatos Prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, the Angel-of-Presence-prophet incarnate, came with the simple message "the kingdom of God is at hand," the great world-ending event.

This incredible end-of-the-world event, however, took place in a most unexpected manner. Indeed the age found its climactic conclusion in the person and work of Jesus Christ, but the earth did not pass away, the cycle of days and seasons and years continued, the great and consummate kingdom was not visibly established in this world. This explains the imprisoned John's perplexity. According to the prophets, the coming of the kingdom would mean victory and honor for all of God's faithful servants, but John was sitting in prison awaiting his execution. What was not explicitly announced by the prophets was that the coming of the kingdom would occur in two stages. Thus Jesus' answer to John, "The blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the poor have the gospel preached to them,"1 was testimony that the kingdom had indeed arrived. Victory was John's if he believed, even though he die in prison. His public liberation and vindication which corresponded with the coming of the kingdom would be postponed until the second episode of the kingdom-event.

The two-episode kingdom-coming-event corresponds to Jesus' first and second comings: once in humiliation and once in glory. With the ascension of the risen Christ into heaven, the preeminent arena of the Spirit, the administration of His priestly-kingdom and its redemptive blessings are removed from our sight (hid with Christ in God). Thus, Christ's heavenly session presently is the firstfruits presence of the age to come. Moreover His death on the cross was an intrusion of the final judgment and His resurrection from the dead an intrusion of the new creation, both eschatological events. Believers, entering into union with Him in those events, have been translated from the kingdom of this world into the kingdom of our Lord. Thus, because He has overcome and lives never to die again, believers in Him partake of all the blessings of His resurrection life, "blessed with every Spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ," and "seated with Him in the heavenlies."

The situation created by the postponement of the consummation-event is an overlap of the ages. In Christ the age to come, the new creation, the kingdom, has become a present reality. This overlap of the ages is illustrated by Geerhardus Vos's two-age diagram. The two-age construction helps us to understand what God yet promises to do for man through the revelation of what God has already done by Jesus Christ, to Jesus Christ, and through Jesus Christ. In other words, the two-age worldview recognizes God's own personal coming in Jesus Christ as the particular and definitive, final (i.e. eschatological) action of God for saving His people from their sins and bringing many sons to glory. Man cannot truly apprehend himself eternally before the loving presence of Jehovah Adonai unless he is first apprehended by God through Christ's own once-for-all death-resurrection-ascension. In this manner, we understand that Christ's advent and finished work to have inaugurated the kingdom of God, the eschatological arena-age for all those given entrance by the Holy Spirit through faith, even while this present evil world-age continues for a time.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Cynic

[T-Bone]

...Jesus' answer for John seems more pointed if understood as a rebuke to impiously made criticism than if understood as an answer to a doubtful question about Jesus' identity. Jesus enumerates classes of works (that Jesus has done/is doing for various classes of suffering figures), and pointedly declares that blessed are those who are not offended in him. In my opinion, the mindset prompting John's question possibly could consist of a very strong and unwavering sense of Jesus' identity, coupled with a valid but myopic view about Jesus' messianic activity. If John's question is something critical, irreverent, and rhetorical, as I suggest, it would seem that John, through his disciples, is accosting Jesus for what John perceives as messianic inactivity (i.e. not having yet having made that sacrifice by which Jesus will take away the sin of the world)...

Great input, Cynic! And thanks for the eschatology post.

[starbird]

plain and simple jesus is gods son....

thats how god identified jesus..

all the human points of view on this subject does not change that..

"concerning that day and hour nobody knows, niether the angels of the heavens

nor the son {jesus}

but only the father" {matthew 24:36}

if jesus and god were the same being, jesus would know the day and hour.

but here he specifically says he does not know, only the father knows..

"look! also, there was a voice from the heavens that said "this is my son, the beloved,

whom i have approved" {matthew 3:17}

"a revelation by jesus christ which god gave him to show his slaves the things that must shortly

take place" {revelation 1:1}

[Sunesis]

Edited April 20, 2007 by Sunesis

[T-Bone]

plain and simple jesus is gods son....

thats how god identified jesus..

all the human points of view on this subject does not change that..

"concerning that day and hour nobody knows, niether the angels of the heavens

nor the son {jesus}

but only the father" {matthew 24:36}

if jesus and god were the same being, jesus would know the day and hour.

but here he specifically says he does not know, only the father knows..

"look! also, there was a voice from the heavens that said "this is my son, the beloved,

whom i have approved" {matthew 3:17}

"a revelation by jesus christ which god gave him to show his slaves the things that must shortly

take place" {revelation 1:1}

Limitations of knowledge would not necessarily indicate Jesus is less than divine. For that matter, one could say Jesus has one-up on the Father by His first-hand knowledge of temptation, suffering and death CHOOSING not to sin under the brunt of each and every instance.

Maybe it's a matter of focusing only on the distinctions between Father and Son – which certainly indicates two persons and not considering the other familial aspects of the terms – that indicate similarity. My son came from my wife and I – he is not me or my wife. My son and I are two distinct individuals. Genetically, we're of the same species– we both have a human nature.

Jesus Christ is truly a unique being – Philippians 2 indicates He has TWO natures – human and divine. He is called the Son of Man [human nature] and the Son of God [divine nature]. Matthew and Luke record human genealogies but John states the divine lineage…In the beginning was the Word…the Word was with God…the Word was God…The Word became flesh. I don't think the term "the Son of God" is in reference to His Immaculate Conception – that was His human nature – as the Son of Man. The miraculous aspects of His birth don't appear to be the issue when the religious leaders were in an uproar over His claim of God being His Father – it was the inference of an actual lineage, a real [as opposed to a virtual] kinship between the two – an equivalency of divinity, being of the same "species" so to speak:

John 5:17,18 NASB

17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

18 For this reason therefore ^(M)the Jews ^(N)were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, ^(O)making Himself equal with God.

I guess it's a matter of opinion – how one could interpret Jesus' statements of Himself – that indicate His familial relationship and identity – is He less than divine or merely distinguishing Himself from the Father: the Father is greater than I…the Father has sent Me…not My will but Thy will be done…I and the Father are one…he that has seen Me has seen the Father.

Edited April 20, 2007 by T-Bone

[starbird]

Limitations of knowledge would not necessarily indicate Jesus is less than divine. For that matter, one could say Jesus has one-up on the Father by His first-hand knowledge of temptation, suffering and death CHOOSING not to sin under the brunt of each and every instance.

Maybe it's a matter of focusing only on the distinctions between Father and Son – which certainly indicates two persons and not considering the other familial aspects of the terms – that indicate similarity. My son came from my wife and I – he is not me or my wife. My son and I are two distinct individuals. Genetically, we're of the same species– we both have a human nature.

Jesus Christ is truly a unique being – Philippians 2 indicates He has TWO natures – human and divine. He is called the Son of Man [human nature] and the Son of God [divine nature]. Matthew and Luke record human genealogies but John states the divine lineage…In the beginning was the Word…the Word was with God…the Word was God…The Word became flesh. I don't think the term "the Son of God" is in reference to His Immaculate Conception – that was His human nature – as the Son of Man. The miraculous aspects of His birth don't appear to be the issue when the religious leaders were in an uproar over His claim of God being His Father – it was the inference of an actual lineage, a real [as opposed to a virtual] kinship between the two – an equivalency of divinity, being of the same "species" so to speak:

John 5:17,18 NASB

17 But He answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I Myself am working."

18 For this reason therefore ^(M)the Jews ^(N)were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, ^(O)making Himself equal with God.

I guess it's a matter of opinion – how one could interpret Jesus' statements of Himself – that indicate His familial relationship and identity – is He less than divine or merely distinguishing Himself from the Father: the Father is greater than I…the Father has sent Me…not My will but Thy will be done…I and the Father are one…he that has seen Me has seen the Father.

he that has seen Me has seen the Father.

because he was in his image not because he is god, he was carrying out gods will..on earth.

if a child looks like a parent you here people say he's/she's the model of her/his mother/father.

yes i agree about the same species thing...but they are different as in roles..they are not the same being..god is the father jesus his son

[WordWolf]

I don't think I've chimed in yet.

So, here's my current thinking,

which is likely to anger ALL positions evenly. Fair's fair. ;)

Ockham's Razor states that when seeking to select between 2 or more possible answers-

like A) Jesus is God the Son, part of God

and B) Jesus is the Son of God, a separate being

one is to examine both answers.

If both completely answer the question, then between the two, you select the most

simple, straightforward of the two as correct.

That's a rule of thumb, not an immutable "Law".

Now,

I've observed and studied for years, on and off, on this.

I've seen that both positions have answers which I find less than satisfactory

to settle specific questions that are raised to their positions.

So, I proceed to a corollary on Ockham's Razor.

I was unable to select either as COMPLETELY answering the question.

One corollary states that if NONE of the answers FULLY answers the question,

then ALL answers are WRONG and the CORRECT answer has not been raised yet.

This came up when studying light.

Is it a particle-photons? Is it a wave-lightwaves?

It has attributes of both, and either fails to account for some of the evidence.

Therefore, some people memorize answers like

"it is a particle that travels like a wave",

which, frankly, is a cop-out on admitting NEITHER answer really works COMPLETELY,

and they ARE mutually-exclusive.

Since I find neither position in this discussion to FULLY answer all objections to them

in a manner I consider intellectually satisfying (meaning they ALL work on paper),

based on the corollary to Ockham's Razor,

I have concluded BOTH answers are WRONG.

The answer is something that has not been discussed yet.

Member of the Trinity? No. Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No.

So, what IS the answer?

I wish I knew.

I can perceive I'm not smart enough to find it at this time.

I'll keep trying, but I probably WON'T know until we ALL know.

Edited April 20, 2007 by WordWolf

[T-Bone]

...This came up when studying light.

Is it a particle-photons? Is it a wave-lightwaves?

It has attributes of both, and either fails to account for some of the evidence.

Therefore, some people memorize answers like

"it is a particle that travels like a wave",

which, frankly, is a cop-out on admitting NEITHER answer really works COMPLETELY,

and they ARE mutually-exclusive.

Since I find neither position in this discussion to FULLY answer all objections to them

in a manner I consider intellectually satisfying (meaning they ALL work on paper),

based on the corollary to Ockham's Razor,

I have concluded BOTH answers are WRONG.

The answer is something that has not been discussed yet.

Member of the Trinity? No. Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No.

So, what IS the answer?

I wish I knew.

I can perceive I'm not smart enough to find it at this time.

I'll keep trying, but I probably WON'T know until we ALL know.

Thanks, Word Wolf - great post - makes a lot of sense to me...I've also thought of the wave/particle issue in regards to this subject.

[Cynic]

Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No.

WordWolf,

Did the Son exist eternally? Or, did the Son’s existence have a beginning?

Hebrews 7:1-3

Micah 5:2

[Oakspear]

So, here's my current thinking,

which is likely to anger ALL positions evenly. Fair's fair. ;)I'll keep trying, but I probably WON'T know until we ALL know.

Well said WordWolf.

Many verses taken alone or in conjunction with other selected vesres seem to support one position or the otehr, while others seem to state the exact opposite.

[Sudo]

Wordwolf,

Re:"The answer is something that has not been discussed yet. Member of the Trinity? No. Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No.

So, what IS the answer? I wish I knew."

You are a very inquistive fellow with high intelligence and good insights. I think that if you continue to ponder the evidence.. you might be very unhappy with what you have to conclude. But what do I know?

sudo

[WordWolf]

Wordwolf,

Re:<B><I><font color=maroon>"The answer is something that has not been discussed yet. Member of the Trinity? No. Began existence in Mary's womb and no sooner? No.

So, what IS the answer? I wish I knew."</font></I></B>

You are a very inquistive fellow with high intelligence and good insights. I think that if you continue to ponder the evidence.. you might be very unhappy with what you have to conclude. But what do I know?

<center>sudo</center>

Some of the evidence I'm working with, you don't have access to. Therefore, our conclusions need not agree.

If I were to try to reach an agnostic or atheist position, I'd need to discard too much evidence

that can't be accounted for by either position. You, of course, may reach any position based on any

evidence you've accounted for. The most extreme position I can adopt would still fall under

a monotheist or a Deist position.

Thanks, Word Wolf - great post - makes a lot of sense to me...I've also thought of the wave/particle issue in regards to this subject.

You're putting me on.

Really?

Ever toy with the conclusion I ended up concluding?

Edited April 21, 2007 by WordWolf

[Lone Wolf McQuade]

When I left TWI, of course I questioned the doctrines I was taught. But after reading One God & One Lord there is not a doubt in my mind.

The trinity is false doctrine. With what they put together in that book, I have no idea how you could believe otherwise.

Just my opinion. :-)

Lone Wolf McQuade

[Sudo]

Wordwolf,

Here's a link from a site that's advertising right here on Greasespot through the Google ads. Click HERE! Note that the services are sanctioned by The Annunciation Church in Nazareth for Light & Pray Services at the Holy Church. Now how more authoritarian can you get?

But.. "Some of the evidence I'm working with, you don't have access to."

I was once where you are now. Give it some time.. LOTS of thought and weigh the evidence that I don't have "access to". But undoubtedly this *is* evidence that every Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc.. scholar DOES have access to? OR perhaps you've got secret documents?? Hmmm?? And yet.. these people of other faiths remain in the faith that they were raised in for the most part? Hee-hee! I'm telling you Wordwolf.. once you see it you'll want to slap your forehead for not seeing it earlier. But.. maybe not. As long as you are happy and content then that's fine with me.

sudo

[WordWolf]

But.. <B><I><font color=maroon>"Some of the evidence I'm working with, you don't have access to."</font></I></B>

I was once where you are now. Give it some time.. LOTS of thought and weigh the evidence that I don't have "access to". But undoubtedly this <B>*is*</B> evidence that every Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu etc.. scholar <B><I>DOES</I></B> have access to? OR perhaps you've got secret documents? <sigh>

<center>sudo</center>

I did you the courtesy of volunteering what I did. I'm not extending it any further.

You were NOT where I am now.

And I'm not sharing my biography online, so you may conclude whatever you wish,

but consider this a closed subject.

[sirguessalot]

given the evidence as i see it...i sure cant blame you for that one, ww

and so i wont comment on some very interesting things in what you posted

but c'mon sudo...do you honestly think your approach to the topic is intellectually honest?

civil?

useful?

inviting?

informed?

:blink:

kinda wonderin...cuz i cant say i see much of any of them in your writing ... your approach

and i do believe there are points where it becomes quite evident to some ...when someone else does not know what they claim to know

like how im sure you would know that i was talking out my a$$ in the context of dentistry... or sharing music files ...etc...

well...sad to say...but it is quite increasingly evident to me that the vast fields of fields of religious thought and art and history and practice and such are a heckuva a lot deeper and wider than you are aware of

and while rational thought may be steps ahead of magic and myth ... mere gross reductionism of any subject only gives a cheap illusion of providing some sort of further meaning

and your typically very very broad brushstrokes are too simple to cover enough of the subject to be helpful or informative about it at all, imo

there is a lot more room for thought and reason than you typically seem willing or interested to hear or investigate...

although even if you are, in some strange way, looking for actual honest dialogue on the topic of the trinity

... i would think you should not be surprised or outraged or confounded how some folks around here would rather not provide references to such deeper personal sources and perspectives in your company...

...given the way you typically seem to so readily disintegrate on this topic, at least...

i mostly only write this because of all that i have come to understand and care a bit about group dynamics

and you seem either largely unaware of your effect on this community

or simply do not care...or something else...maybe just sloppy..i dunno

and so i feel the need to take this moment to QUACK about it...cuz i can

a shot in the dark perhaps, i know

but there is a point in community dialogue where the ole "you are free to ignore me" simply isnt practical enough

it seems there plenty of easier, more direct and skillfully effective ways to communicate your feelings regarding the spirit of things

no...not secret knowledge, either

Edited April 22, 2007 by sirguessalot

[Sudo]

Sirguessalot,

You know.. you're right on most all your points, IMO. I might would disagree with one thing you said but I'm not going to quibble. I shouldn't have posted what I did. It wasn't useful, it wasn't informative, it wasn't even on topic. I came across as being a know-it-all jerk.

WW.. I'm sorry.

sudo (who isn't a jerk most of the time he hopes)

[T-Bone]

...You're putting me on.

Really?

Ever toy with the conclusion I ended up concluding?

Concerning the dual nature of light [wave/particle] - I actually thought about using that analogy on Glad to be Out's thread Jesus Christ, 275 Reasons…Part A – but was hesitant because I thought it might get too technical to explain – and I'm trying to curb my tendency to go all over the map just to get across the street [like on this post ]. So I decided to use the Regular TV/HD TV analogy instead on my post # 9:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=320521

And on the With Apologies to Jesus and the Trinity thread my post # 26 I talked about two different groups looking at the same drawing see two different things – one group saw a young lady with her head turned and the other group saw an old hag:

http://www.greasespotcafe.com/ipb/index.ph...st&p=222967

All of these analogies address the way we perceive things…It's funny – all three analogies have been used in reference to the Trinity or identity/nature of Jesus…And perhaps I should have been more specific when replying to your post # 209. What rang true for me was light's wave/particle nature – this duality appears elsewhere and investigating either attribute can be like chasing the wind sometimes. In The Fabric of the Cosmos, page 90, 91, Brian Greene states, "In the quantum world, we've learned that everything has both particle-like and wave-like attributes. Over the last eight decades, the ubiquity and utility of quantum mechanical probability waves to predict and explain experimental results has been established beyond any doubt. Yet there is still no universally agreed-upon way to envision what quantum mechanical probability waves actually are." We do the same thing – trying to explain the nature/identity of Jesus Christ by making inferences from Scripture that do not address this directly.

Ockham's Razor is a great critical thinking principle – but in my opinion seems to stall out on this topic for several reasons – nothing wrong with the principle…maybe it's the way we apply it…what data are we plugging in and what data are we ignoring? Much of the relevant biblical data is ambiguous. More specific scriptural evidence can pivot on a viewpoint…Are we asking the wrong questions? Is this something God has deemed inscrutable?

More than any other biblical topic – I think the identity/nature of Jesus Christ is the number one lightning rod for drawing out controversy in folks. I claim I like to discover more than debate but when challenged on this issue sometimes find myself bound and determined to blast holes in someone else's viewpoint…A funny predicament – don't you think? I get the idea that the main/most important subject of the Bible is Jesus Christ. Yet it seems like a lot of folks have a difficult time figuring out the particulars of His nature/identity from the Bible…well I do anyway…my curiosity/intellectual dilemma in no way dampens my faith or passion for Him – He is still my Lord and My God!

Edited April 22, 2007 by T-Bone

[sirguessalot]

well..i appreciate your response Sudo

...peace, Todd (who can also comes across as a know-it-all-jerk at times)

and i think you are really really onto some good and useful things, T-Bone

such as...

"what data are we ignoring?"

"are we asking the wrong questions?"

...and about how Ockham's Razor does seem to stall out at some point

and i think that language itself is perhaps one of our greatest problems/solutions in such matters

which seems due to the cultural restrictions and taboos that have been placed on meaning of our world's oldest names and words

as if, in spite of all the advances up til this millenium, there is still something tribal about the ways we use the same old English to relate

Edited April 22, 2007 by sirguessalot

[cman]

hmmm yeah ...

most want to only listen to a few tongues

but it is possible to hear new tongues

to many searching they will do just that

and hear new things from the same words

[WordWolf]

(snip)

Ockham's Razor is a great critical thinking principle – but in my opinion seems to stall out on this topic for several reasons – nothing wrong with the principle…

maybe it's the way we apply it…what data are we plugging in and what data are we ignoring? Much of the relevant biblical data is ambiguous. More specific scriptural evidence can pivot on a viewpoint…

Are we asking the wrong questions? Is this something God has deemed inscrutable?

(snip)

That's pretty much where my thinking's reached so far.

I'm not asking the right questions, and I'm not applying the right data to get the answer.

I'm not obsessed with this, but I'm still looking for a better QUESTION if not a better ANSWER.

And Sudo, apology accepted.

It didn't sound like your normal posts, anyway. (IMO.)

[JumpinJive]

That's pretty much where my thinking's reached so far.

I'm not asking the right questions, and I'm not applying the right data to get the answer.

I'm not obsessed with this, but I'm still looking for a better QUESTION if not a better ANSWER.

Isn't this a little scary, Wolf? For all the time and brain power expended on this and other threads, in correspondence, conversations, teachings, presentations, lectures, books, preachings, magazines, movies and TV, now and throughout the past two+ millennia, wouldn't you think we'd have some kind of fairly certain idea of who the God we worship is? Or who His son, the savior of the whole dang world, might be? Why do we have such trouble getting past even the basics of faith?

Note that that was a rhetorical question, the last one. I'm not looking to derail the thread, just reiterate the futility I feel when discussing points of doctrine, especially the trinity.

-JJ

Edited April 29, 2007 by JumpinJive

[WordWolf]

I think we know everything we NEED to know,

but not everything we WANT to know.