Does Jesus still have scars in his new body? The nail mark thing going on in the hands and feet? Or were they able to get that healed up? Wouldn't that present a problem during a normal handshake? Hey sorry that feels weird, but you know, I'm Jesus.
Actually, I have heard teachings addressing that saying he had a resurrected body like Christians are supposed to get at his return, then during the ascension he changed into spirit.
Now I do like Perry Mason, and I do like Buffy the Vampire Slayer also, but is the Trinity a vampire where we need lots of garlic and wooden stakes? Or is it just a one word representation of some monks handling of Christology that the Pope ratified in 325 and became part of mysterious chants, creeds, and a mystery religion concept that is left over from history and most of Christianity glosses over?
- Most of Christianity glosses over? Not according to what Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 quoted above
- Garlic and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The must have come out of the same strange parallel dimension where they were smoking LSD with the talking rabbit in Alice in Wonderland
- then during his ascension he changed into a spirit.... Oh, yeah, that's in the Book of the Acts of Alice in Wonderland who changed him in to a spirit (or, if you would like to share some other unknown verse of scripture that says that he changed into a spirit, the court will consider it, otherwise that's overruled )
- Does Jesus still have scars in his new body?
Well you may want to ask him, because it does say in Mark 16:12 ~
"After that he appeared in another form unto two of them"
So apparently in his raised-from-the-dead glorified body (the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44) he has, he is able to "appear in another form" with scars, or without scars, depending on whether he is talking to Thomas or someone else. Makes perfect sense.
But he probably doesn't take the form of the talking Rabbit in Alice's trip
Well, maybe just during Easter
Which is incorrectly translated in its only use in the entire Bible in Acts 12:4 from the Greek transliteration 'pascha' which is translated 28 other times in the New Testament as Passover
But most of Christianity glosses over, I mean, passes over that too
- Most of Christianity glosses over? Not according to what Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 quoted above
- Garlic and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The must have come out of the same strange parallel dimension where they were smoking LSD with the talking rabbit in Alice in Wonderland
- then during his ascension he changed into a spirit.... Oh, yeah, that's in the Book of the Acts of Alice in Wonderland who changed him in to a spirit (or, if you would like to share some other unknown verse of scripture that says that he changed into a spirit, the court will consider it, otherwise that's overruled )
- Does Jesus still have scars in his new body?
Well you may want to ask him, because it does say in Mark 9:12 ~ " Ater that he appeared in another form unto two of them"
So apparently in the spiritual body he has, he is able to "appear in other form" with scars, or without scars, depending on whether he is talking to Thomas or someone else.
But he probably doesn't take the form of the talking Rabbit in Alice's trip
Well, maybe just during Easter
Which is incorrectly translated from the Greek transliteration 'pascha' which is translated 28 other times in the New Testament as Passover
But most of Christianity glosses over, I mean, passes over that too
Hey GoldStar,
Yes despite what Jesus said about true and false disciples in Matthew 7, I do personally feel from the majority of Christians I have interacted with especially more modernly that they are not staunch Trinitarians prepared with pamphlets and theological arguments, but do practically and doctrinally gloss over the concept of the trinity in their faith.
This conversation is really cool Alice and wonderland stuff. The Buffy came out of your "stake in the heart of the Trinity" statement though. I just had a funny mind picture and was running with it. I guess I was presenting humor at the extremity of that statement. Didn't mean to offend though.
I was looking at Mark 9 didn't find that - but I looked around and I think Mark 16 the resurrection accounts summary there is what you are talking about. Literally during those appearances (Mary M, 2 Walking, 11 Eating rebuked) it does not say whether or not nail scars in the hands and feet are present. So can you really say "in another form" means something scientifically and precisely? And what would that be?
Are we coming up on Easter already? The time for impregnated bunnies and cards and chocolate? Oh yes we do have pageants and plays and all. But nobody cares about Egypt and the plagues. I've had a couple bosses that make me gather my own straw though. I'll put a lamb on my smoker for Biblical times. And gloss it over with a mint glaze LOL. And try not to think of all the work VP stole in Jesus Christ Our Passover. LOL.
- I do personally feel from the majority of Christians....are not staunch Trinitarians prepared with pamphlets and theological arguments, but do practically and doctrinally gloss over the concept of the trinity in their faith.
> I agree with you there, Chockfull! Most couldn't even explain what they believe if their eternal life depended on it...which it does according to Matt 7
- The Buffy came out of your "stake in the heart of the Trinity" statement though. Didn't mean to offend though.
> No offense taken, Chockfull, I like to use humor too, but when it or beliefs get too Alice-in-Wonderlandy, it gets very confusing and obfuscates the important things
- I was looking at Mark 9 didn't find that - but I looked around and I think Mark 16 the resurrection accounts summary there is what you are talking about.
> Yes you are right, it was Mark 16, I corrected it in my post
- it does not say whether or not nail scars in the hands and feet are present. So can you really say "in another form" means something scientifically and precisely? And what would that be?
> Well the two that he talked to in Luke 24:39 knew him, but they didn't recognize him when he was talking to them face to face so maybe he was able to change his eye color, facial structure, who knows?
> Apparently he was able to make himself look like any other ordinary man, because they did not react in any way that would indicated that the form he appeared to them in was anything out of the ordinary, they just kept talking to him in a normal conversation (have you ever seen the Mission Impossible movies where they change their appearance so they won't be recognized?)
- The time for impregnated bunnies and cards and chocolate?
> Oh yes! It's time for the false church Easter egg hunts once again where the little children learn the name a pagan goddess while a Alice-in-Wonderland's Rabbit runs around gaily with a basket full of multi-colored chicken eggs (scrambled brains)
> I really think he's a basket case, your honor
> Court is hereby adjourned until a full psychiatric examination can be conducted on the Siwwy Funny Bunny Wabbit
> Well the two that he talked to in Luke 24:39 knew him, but they didn't recognize him when he was talking to them face to face so maybe he was able to change his eye color, facial structure, who knows? (have you ever seen the Mission Impossible movies where they change their appearance so they won't be recognized?)
...
> I really think he's a basket case, your honor
> Court is hereby adjourned until a full psychiatric examination can be conducted on the Siwwy Funny Bunny Wabbit
> Thanks Chockfull for the fun!
Yeah and the road to Emmaus account too.....
But what am I reading and what am i reading into?
Case in point, recently I was entering my movie meeting my spouse who was engaged in conversation and did not recognize me for several minutes after I walked up. I was able to not only act like Jesus, but make faces at the fellow conversant while planting small objects in my spouse's hair. #wantstobejustlikejesus
Case in point, recently I was entering my movie meeting my spouse who was engaged in conversation and did not recognize me for several minutes after I walked up. I was able to not only act like Jesus, but make faces at the fellow conversant while planting small objects in my spouse's hair
Couldn't that have been simply because it was dark in the theater, Chockfull?
Or were you wearing a rubber Mission Impossible type mask over your face, which in a dark theater would make it every harder to recognize you?
I hope the small objects you planted in your spouses hair was not any expensive movie theater candy
So to address a more general phrase of that question "was blood necessary" ? At all? yes the shedding of blood of the lamb was necessary for the atonement of sin from the OT law.
Of course, as per Heb.9:22. But the context of my question was after it was shed, and there being any further need of it (in the resurrection.)
1 hour ago, chockfull said:
The way I look at the human brain kind of involves an electrical circuit.
Okay, that makes sense enough to me.
2 hours ago, chockfull said:
then what makes sense is to approach this from a Jesus literally transfigured once or a number of times
But not that. It's too hard for me get a clear enough picture of what you intend or mean to include (or not include) with that word "transfigured," especially given you think it can or might happen more than once. I see the resurrection as... well, perhaps for lack of any better description... a new concept. A "One-of-a-kind," first ever... birth. In that very day, the coming forth of the new and "only begotten Son of God" (see Acts13:33.) The last Adam has passed; the "second man" arrived.
I see the resurrection as... well, perhaps for lack of any better description... a new concept. A "One-of-a-kind," first ever... birth. In that very day, the coming forth of the new and "only begotten Son of God" (see Acts13:33.) The last Adam has passed; the "second man" arrived.
The top 2 authorities in the New Testatment that God sent to represent him, Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul, both clearly stated that the Father is the only true God, which is contrary to the doctrine of the Trinity
Jesus Christ in John 17:3, and I Corinthians 8:6, along with many other clear verses that I am not going to post here now
From my understanding of the Trinity, these verses don't prove or disprove them. The Trinity is three states same essence: it often been described as like water: it can be steam, water, or ice. It's all H2O.
Using that model, you can see how your two verses fail to prove or disapprove the Trinity. They both mention two of the three states, yet both have the same essence.
17 minutes ago, GoldStar said:
The crux of the problem is that different people believe different things about what the scriptures say, whether it is clear or not
No, as I said, people start with preconcieved notions, then want to read their notions into scripture.
Objectivity--which involves seeing both sides--shows you proof verses can be taken either way
Replying to your last post before moving threat to The Trinity in Doctrinal
Actually those verses do definitely disprove the Trinity, but those verses don't have to disprove the Trinity, it is up to the Trinity to disprove the clear scriptures, but the Trinity fails miserably except in disproving it self by its very definition which has absolutely no basis in scripture
There is no verse of scripture that describes the Trinity as different states of water, that is pure speculation
Just like your claim the two verses you presented prove the Trinity doesn't exist is pure speculation. Show me the verse that says "There is no Trinity."
Quote
As I mentioned, I am only interested in looking at scriptures, not someone's ideas that have no basis in scripture
Okay, let's look at scripture. Where's the scripture that says there's no Trinity.
Quote
If you have any verses related to the subject, please let me know, I would be interested in looking at them
The very clear verses that I have already mentioned John 17:3 and I Cor 8:6 among many others that make the doctrine of the Trinity impossible were not conceived by any human being, they originated in the mind of God
They don't say there's no Trinity. It's speculation on your part.
You set the standard. Now show me the verse that says there's no Trinity. Anything less is speculation.
Even on the surface the whole idea of some god-man is as pagan as it gets.
What's the big deal if god believed in himself that he would get raised from the dead? On the other hand, what man among us would lay down his life like the man Jesus Christ because God promised him he would get raised up? And all of that would have to be done after 30 years of never, not even once, giving in to the exact same temptations we all face and miserably fail at day after day. Like I said, no big deal for God, but for a man to do it is something else altogether. That's love.
The trinity is the biggest problem with the churches today. An absolute coup of the devil. Any book will end up unintelligible if the two main characters can't be kept straight in ones mind.
Even on the surface the whole idea of some god-man is as pagan as it gets.
What's the big deal if god believed in himself that he would get raised from the dead? On the other hand, what man among us would lay down his life like the man Jesus Christ because God promised him he would get raised up? And all of that would have to be done after 30 years of never, not even once, giving in to the exact same temptations we all face and miserably fail at day after day. Like I said, no big deal for God, but for a man to do it is something else altogether. That's love.
The trinity is the biggest problem with the churches today. An absolute coup of the devil. Any book will end up unintelligible if the two main characters can't be kept straight in ones mind.
My position throughout these two threads has been: If we can't conclusively prove the existence of God, how can we conclusively prove the existence of something God is a major part of, like the Trinity.
I could turn to John and ask okay what was the Word in the beginning with God that became flesh? Who was God talking to when He (speaking of man) said. " Let US create him in OUR image."
I've read JCING, so I know the explainations The Way offered. But if you look at it objectively, you can see where the Trinitarian explaination is just as valid as the non-Trinitarian explanation.
Both sides have made their case over the centuries, and both have just as much validity.
It's like the argument of whether Adam and Eve had a navel.
I mention that to someone once and the asked, "Well, did they?"
I shrugged my shoulders. "I don't know, I wasn't there."
To me, claiming one thing or the other--and especially saying our salvation is dependent on it--is the old Ford attempting to explain Henry. None of us are God, none of us know, all we have is a handful of verses we insist on injecting our personal beliefs and speculations into.
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists.
Do the various views of trinity/non-trinity affect your views of the world and therefore your thoughts and behavior?
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists.
Do the various views of trinity/non-trinity affect your views of the world and therefore your thoughts and behavior?
Bol, bingo!!!! I don't believe in the Trinity, but I don't dwell on it all day. If others want to believe it, that is their business. I am much more concerned about important things, like if people have jobs, food, and homes to abide in.
Bol, bingo!!!! I don't believe in the Trinity, but I don't dwell on it all day. If others want to believe it, that is their business. I am much more concerned about important things, like if people have jobs, food, and homes to abide in.
Others are arguing that a belief int the Trinity is harmful, therefore it causes good people to do bad things.
Others are arguing that a belief int the Trinity is harmful, therefore it causes good people to do bad things.
Bol, I think if people do "bad things", its often because they want to do them. I don't think a belief in, or against, the Trinity has anything to do with human behavior.
Bol, I think if people do "bad things", its often because they want to do them. I don't think a belief in, or against, the Trinity has anything to do with human behavior.
Interesting.
I would argue belief is a major influence, directly and indirectly, on our attitudes and therefore behavior.
The Trinity/non-trinity debate is often contentious. Not something superficial.
I would argue belief is a major influence, directly and indirectly, on our attitudes and therefore behavior.
The Trinity/non-trinity debate is often contentious. Not something superficial.
Bol, you are right. It is contentious; that is why I don't engage in debates about it. To me, it is something that people can believe, or not believe. I don't think God wants me to spend time arguing about it, when I could be using time to help people. Just a thought.
The trinity is the biggest problem with the churches today. An absolute coup of the devil. Any book will end up unintelligible if the two main characters can't be kept straight in ones mind.
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches?
In my experience the trinity is not really discussed, taught, or really dwelt on at all in churches today. Thus difficult to make it the biggest problem with churches today.
Looking back from my experience, it looks more like VPW was looking for a bone to pick with mainstream Christianity because nobody was paying attention to his plagiarized material cobbled together class, or at best taking it and going back to their churches. VP had to do something to poison the well so they only could get water from him. Teachings on the trinity culminating in calling all the major heads of denominations "seed boys" or his personal slang for people sold out to the devil and living for the devil did the trick. Do the young hippies want to go back to church? No, not with seed men running the denominations.
I would argue belief is a major influence, directly and indirectly, on our attitudes and therefore behavior.
The Trinity/non-trinity debate is often contentious. Not something superficial.
I would agree with you to a point, Bol.
I think that what often causes people to do bad things is not so much the Trinity as thinking they have the one, the only, in big capital letters, TRUTH.
Proof?
How many of us were convinced Saint Vic was the MOG for our day and time?
How many of us thought every word coming out of Saint Vic's mouth came from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear?
Then we took PLAF and were convinced we had the truth, and by-gum the rest of the world was going to listen.
How many of us do you think challanged local priest, ministers and rabbis?
How many of us challanged our parents?
And all these years later, how many of us realize how wrong we were?
Thinking you have the only truth does something to the human mind: it fills it with huberis. Once filled with huberis, the mind closes and refuses to continue the search.
That huberis also make you view people who don't believe your doctrine a inferior (after all, they're going to the bad place, your going to the good place).
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
41
26
22
19
Popular Days
Mar 8
23
Jul 8
21
Mar 10
17
Jul 20
17
Top Posters In This Topic
Bolshevik 41 posts
chockfull 26 posts
TLC 22 posts
Grace Valerie Claire 19 posts
Popular Days
Mar 8 2018
23 posts
Jul 8 2017
21 posts
Mar 10 2018
17 posts
Jul 20 2017
17 posts
Popular Posts
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches? In my experience the trin
Raf
Questions about the identity of Jesus Christ are almost as old as Christianity itself. The gospels and epistles are, at least in part, a rebuttal to early claims about exactly who Jesus was, both befo
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists. Do the various views of trinity/
Bolshevik
*cues Cl@udette R@y@l to sing Daddy's Girl*
It's God in Christ in you. <------- is that completely TWI doctrine or from other places as well?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
D@mn. The Way's handling of the Trinity reveals Daddy Issues. Truth is cold bra.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
- Most of Christianity glosses over? Not according to what Jesus said in Matt 7:21-23 quoted above
- Garlic and Buffy the Vampire Slayer? The must have come out of the same strange parallel dimension where they were smoking LSD with the talking rabbit in Alice in Wonderland
- then during his ascension he changed into a spirit.... Oh, yeah, that's in the Book of the Acts of Alice in Wonderland who changed him in to a spirit (or, if you would like to share some other unknown verse of scripture that says that he changed into a spirit, the court will consider it, otherwise that's overruled
)
- Does Jesus still have scars in his new body?
Well you may want to ask him, because it does say in Mark 16:12 ~
"After that he appeared in another form unto two of them"
So apparently in his raised-from-the-dead glorified body (the spiritual body of 1 Cor 15:44) he has, he is able to "appear in another form" with scars, or without scars, depending on whether he is talking to Thomas or someone else. Makes perfect sense.
But he probably doesn't take the form of the talking Rabbit in Alice's trip
Well, maybe just during Easter
Which is incorrectly translated in its only use in the entire Bible in Acts 12:4 from the Greek transliteration 'pascha' which is translated 28 other times in the New Testament as Passover
But most of Christianity glosses over, I mean, passes over that too
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Hey GoldStar,
Yes despite what Jesus said about true and false disciples in Matthew 7, I do personally feel from the majority of Christians I have interacted with especially more modernly that they are not staunch Trinitarians prepared with pamphlets and theological arguments, but do practically and doctrinally gloss over the concept of the trinity in their faith.
This conversation is really cool Alice and wonderland stuff. The Buffy came out of your "stake in the heart of the Trinity" statement though. I just had a funny mind picture and was running with it. I guess I was presenting humor at the extremity of that statement. Didn't mean to offend though.
I was looking at Mark 9 didn't find that - but I looked around and I think Mark 16 the resurrection accounts summary there is what you are talking about. Literally during those appearances (Mary M, 2 Walking, 11 Eating rebuked) it does not say whether or not nail scars in the hands and feet are present. So can you really say "in another form" means something scientifically and precisely? And what would that be?
Are we coming up on Easter already? The time for impregnated bunnies and cards and chocolate? Oh yes we do have pageants and plays and all. But nobody cares about Egypt and the plagues. I've had a couple bosses that make me gather my own straw though. I'll put a lamb on my smoker for Biblical times. And gloss it over with a mint glaze LOL. And try not to think of all the work VP stole in Jesus Christ Our Passover. LOL.
Edited by chockfullLink to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
- I do personally feel from the majority of Christians....are not staunch Trinitarians prepared with pamphlets and theological arguments, but do practically and doctrinally gloss over the concept of the trinity in their faith.
> I agree with you there, Chockfull! Most couldn't even explain what they believe if their eternal life depended on it...which it does according to Matt 7
- The Buffy came out of your "stake in the heart of the Trinity" statement though. Didn't mean to offend though.
> No offense taken, Chockfull, I like to use humor too, but when it or beliefs get too Alice-in-Wonderlandy, it gets very confusing and obfuscates the important things
- I was looking at Mark 9 didn't find that - but I looked around and I think Mark 16 the resurrection accounts summary there is what you are talking about.
> Yes you are right, it was Mark 16, I corrected it in my post
- it does not say whether or not nail scars in the hands and feet are present. So can you really say "in another form" means something scientifically and precisely? And what would that be?
> Well the two that he talked to in Luke 24:39 knew him, but they didn't recognize him when he was talking to them face to face so maybe he was able to change his eye color, facial structure, who knows?
> Apparently he was able to make himself look like any other ordinary man, because they did not react in any way that would indicated that the form he appeared to them in was anything out of the ordinary, they just kept talking to him in a normal conversation (have you ever seen the Mission Impossible movies where they change their appearance so they won't be recognized?)
- The time for impregnated bunnies and cards and chocolate?
> Oh yes! It's time for the false church Easter egg hunts once again where the little children learn the name a pagan goddess while a Alice-in-Wonderland's Rabbit runs around gaily with a basket full of multi-colored chicken eggs (scrambled brains)
> I really think he's a basket case, your honor
> Court is hereby adjourned until a full psychiatric examination can be conducted on the Siwwy Funny Bunny Wabbit
> Thanks Chockfull for the fun!
Edited by GoldStarLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
Yeah and the road to Emmaus account too.....
But what am I reading and what am i reading into?
Case in point, recently I was entering my movie meeting my spouse who was engaged in conversation and did not recognize me for several minutes after I walked up. I was able to not only act like Jesus, but make faces at the fellow conversant while planting small objects in my spouse's hair. #wantstobejustlikejesus
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
Couldn't that have been simply because it was dark in the theater, Chockfull?
Or were you wearing a rubber Mission Impossible type mask over your face, which in a dark theater would make it every harder to recognize you?
I hope the small objects you planted in your spouses hair was not any expensive movie theater candy
#PleaseDon'tWasteExpensiveMovieTheaterCandyByPuttingItInYourSpouse'sHairMovement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Of course, as per Heb.9:22. But the context of my question was after it was shed, and there being any further need of it (in the resurrection.)
Okay, that makes sense enough to me.
But not that. It's too hard for me get a clear enough picture of what you intend or mean to include (or not include) with that word "transfigured," especially given you think it can or might happen more than once. I see the resurrection as... well, perhaps for lack of any better description... a new concept. A "One-of-a-kind," first ever... birth. In that very day, the coming forth of the new and "only begotten Son of God" (see Acts13:33.) The last Adam has passed; the "second man" arrived.
Nothing before or since is comparable to it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GoldStar
TLC, I completely agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
From the Billy Graham thread in Open:
From my understanding of the Trinity, these verses don't prove or disprove them. The Trinity is three states same essence: it often been described as like water: it can be steam, water, or ice. It's all H2O.
Using that model, you can see how your two verses fail to prove or disapprove the Trinity. They both mention two of the three states, yet both have the same essence.
No, as I said, people start with preconcieved notions, then want to read their notions into scripture.
Objectivity--which involves seeing both sides--shows you proof verses can be taken either way
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
Just like your claim the two verses you presented prove the Trinity doesn't exist is pure speculation. Show me the verse that says "There is no Trinity."
Okay, let's look at scripture. Where's the scripture that says there's no Trinity.
They don't say there's no Trinity. It's speculation on your part.
You set the standard. Now show me the verse that says there's no Trinity. Anything less is speculation.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
rrobs
Even on the surface the whole idea of some god-man is as pagan as it gets.
What's the big deal if god believed in himself that he would get raised from the dead? On the other hand, what man among us would lay down his life like the man Jesus Christ because God promised him he would get raised up? And all of that would have to be done after 30 years of never, not even once, giving in to the exact same temptations we all face and miserably fail at day after day. Like I said, no big deal for God, but for a man to do it is something else altogether. That's love.
The trinity is the biggest problem with the churches today. An absolute coup of the devil. Any book will end up unintelligible if the two main characters can't be kept straight in ones mind.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
My position throughout these two threads has been: If we can't conclusively prove the existence of God, how can we conclusively prove the existence of something God is a major part of, like the Trinity.
I could turn to John and ask okay what was the Word in the beginning with God that became flesh? Who was God talking to when He (speaking of man) said. " Let US create him in OUR image."
I've read JCING, so I know the explainations The Way offered. But if you look at it objectively, you can see where the Trinitarian explaination is just as valid as the non-Trinitarian explanation.
Both sides have made their case over the centuries, and both have just as much validity.
It's like the argument of whether Adam and Eve had a navel.
I mention that to someone once and the asked, "Well, did they?"
I shrugged my shoulders. "I don't know, I wasn't there."
To me, claiming one thing or the other--and especially saying our salvation is dependent on it--is the old Ford attempting to explain Henry. None of us are God, none of us know, all we have is a handful of verses we insist on injecting our personal beliefs and speculations into.
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
We're not really trying to prove or disprove existence of anything in this thread. If many people over generations talk about it, that's good enough. It exists.
Do the various views of trinity/non-trinity affect your views of the world and therefore your thoughts and behavior?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, bingo!!!! I don't believe in the Trinity, but I don't dwell on it all day. If others want to believe it, that is their business. I am much more concerned about important things, like if people have jobs, food, and homes to abide in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Others are arguing that a belief int the Trinity is harmful, therefore it causes good people to do bad things.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, I think if people do "bad things", its often because they want to do them. I don't think a belief in, or against, the Trinity has anything to do with human behavior.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
Interesting.
I would argue belief is a major influence, directly and indirectly, on our attitudes and therefore behavior.
The Trinity/non-trinity debate is often contentious. Not something superficial.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
The Holy Trinity
1. Treat people the way you would like them to treat you.
2. Help those in need when it's possible to do so.
3. Have fun while you can, 'cause fate's an awful thing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I'm thinking maybe Quentin Tarantino needs to make another movie "Kill Bill 3: Truth vs. Trinity".
Trinity is kind of a girl's name so Uma Thurman is going to have to play Trinity, sorry.
But David Carradine is uh, no longer available.
Who are we going to get to play Truth? The Black Panther?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Grace Valerie Claire
Bol, you are right. It is contentious; that is why I don't engage in debates about it. To me, it is something that people can believe, or not believe. I don't think God wants me to spend time arguing about it, when I could be using time to help people. Just a thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
What experience with churches today exactly do you have? Aren't you one of the ones that isolated and studied PFAL collaterals for a decade plus not attending churches?
In my experience the trinity is not really discussed, taught, or really dwelt on at all in churches today. Thus difficult to make it the biggest problem with churches today.
Looking back from my experience, it looks more like VPW was looking for a bone to pick with mainstream Christianity because nobody was paying attention to his plagiarized material cobbled together class, or at best taking it and going back to their churches. VP had to do something to poison the well so they only could get water from him. Teachings on the trinity culminating in calling all the major heads of denominations "seed boys" or his personal slang for people sold out to the devil and living for the devil did the trick. Do the young hippies want to go back to church? No, not with seed men running the denominations.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
So_crates
I would agree with you to a point, Bol.
I think that what often causes people to do bad things is not so much the Trinity as thinking they have the one, the only, in big capital letters, TRUTH.
Proof?
How many of us were convinced Saint Vic was the MOG for our day and time?
How many of us thought every word coming out of Saint Vic's mouth came from God's mouth to Saint Vic's ear?
Then we took PLAF and were convinced we had the truth, and by-gum the rest of the world was going to listen.
How many of us do you think challanged local priest, ministers and rabbis?
How many of us challanged our parents?
And all these years later, how many of us realize how wrong we were?
Thinking you have the only truth does something to the human mind: it fills it with huberis. Once filled with huberis, the mind closes and refuses to continue the search.
That huberis also make you view people who don't believe your doctrine a inferior (after all, they're going to the bad place, your going to the good place).
Edited by So_cratesLink to comment
Share on other sites
chockfull
I would avoid arguing, which makes beliefs attitudes and behaviors spin around like a hamster wheel.
I do like talking about the identity of my Lord and Savior though. Jesus Christ. That's cool.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.