|
DavidH, Thanks for the response. I'll look forward
to explaining myself. I have to go to work now though, so DON'T THINK I'M
IGNORING YOU. I'LL BE BACK.
BILL
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 11:24
PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
Wm. Taylor wrote:
-----
Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity
I'm probably going to make you all cringe a
little bit here, and some of you more than a little. By the way, I hope you
don't mind if I butt in. Excuse me, excuse me, coming through.
The problems, it seems to me, that we get in to
in these "Trinity" discussions arise not because of the threeness idea of
the Trinity but because of the oneness idea we have about "God." Don't get
me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting
that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I
think the problem comes in via the way we think of the word "one" as
compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the
One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of
paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew
mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is
one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he
wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and
shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word
"One" in a Hebrew mind is relational language; it is the language
of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before
it means singularity. DAVEH: ??? I
think I'm a little confused on this, Bill. Are you suggesting that Jesus
and his Father in Heaven are of the same flesh.....or, rather the same
entity. IOW, when Jesus was baptized, his Father in Heaven was also
experiencing that same baptism? I would be surprised IF you
believe that way, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are
saying.
The singularity of God comes out of the
unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of
the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of
relationship. DAVEH: OK.....That is making a
little more sense. To me that relationship revolves around a common
purpose. Do you see it differently than that? I've asked other
TTers how else (besides purpose) they would define that nature of
oneness....may I ask you the same question?
That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so
bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from
the Son and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is
impossible. DAVEH: Hmmmmmm.......I don't quite
know why you would say such. To me there seems distinct
differences. Yet the one thing they have most in common is their
purpose....in purpose, they are absolutely in lock step.
The Father can only be talked about in
relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship to the
Father, and on and on. DAVEH: Due to my LDS
biases, I don't quite see it that way. But it is interesting to know
that is how you (as a Protestant?) thinks.
There is singularity --one God-- because there
is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first. Hence the one and the three
are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the
unity of the three. DAVEH: OK.....I hear what
you've said, Bill. Now toss us (you and me) into the equation. How
do folks like us become one with God and Jesus? IF my belief
(about purpose relating to the oneness of God) is correct, then we become one
with them as we become one with their purpose. To me that makes perfect
sense.
But.....how does it work with what you
said above? If their singularity is relevant to their unity as 3,
then what happens when you add a 4th, 5th or sixth or more.....Do we all
become one with God in the same sense?
Hope that wasn't too
convoluted. DAVEH: Probably less so than
my extended questions....! :-)
Bill Taylor
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:01
AM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The
Trinity
>
>DaveH wrote:
> > Here's the deal,
DavidM.....The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of
> >God.
I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not
>
>found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible.
At
> >first, Perry objected to my use of /purpose /to define
/oneness/, and then
> >he came back with an answer that included
/purpose/. I read Jn 17 and to
> >me defining /oneness /as
used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense.
> >Yet you
and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest
>
>such.....WHY??? If you have a better way of defining it, what is
it???
>
> DavidH, I do not object to your using "one in
purpose", I object to your
> reducing the relationship to "one in
pupose" only. True, you do not say
> "only", but you never have
presented any other "oneness" of the relationship
> than "one in
purpose". However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than
> just
"one in purpose". "One in purpose" is a prerequisite for the Godhead.
> "One in purpose" is necessary for any team to acheive a common
goal. Now, if
> you do not beleive that they are "only one in
purpose", then tell us more
> about thier "oneness".
>
>
Perry
>
> If you want to convince us that is is not only
"purpose
>
> _
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dave Hansen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.langlitz.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you wish to receive
things I find interesting,
I maintain Five email lists...
JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS,
STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.
|
