The word "Trinity" is not a translation, nor is it a transliteration. It is a word of philosophers, a word constructed by theologians, and it is a philosophically loaded word. The various words of the Greek language that have been translated "Godhead" have at their root the word "theos," and therefore, "Godhead" is an appropriate translation whereas "Trinity" is not. The root for "three" is not found in the Greek language for this word.
David Miller ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:08 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" Your response has nothing to do with my comments, near as I can see. My point is this: every English word in our bible is "added " to the original text. so you like godhead" and I like "trinity." They are both translations of the orgiinal word and/or thought. jd -------------- Original message -------------- From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Here we go again - And who is the one who denied staking everything on translational and Gk arguments - very, very, recently?. judyt On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 14:54:47 +0000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Here is an approximation of the [NT] biblical language" gar nomoz tou pneumatoz thz swhzev Cristy All other words [in [English] translation] are "non-biblical." "Incarnate" is no less a "biblical word" than "in the flesh" -- nor "trinity " in the place of "Godhead." Our translations are copies of the original text (as best as we can reconstruct that text) . The Latin Vulgate has the same place in biblical history in terms of type and quality as does the more literal of the English translations. To argue without end over "Godhead" verses "Trinity" is argue about nothing. I have just as much authority to read "trinity" as someone has to read "godhead" or "divine nature." jd -------------- Original message -------------- From: "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> On employing 'non-biblical' terminology when speaking of WHO Jesus is: Insofar as the language one chooses accurately reflects the subject under discussion it may be viewed as legitimate, helpful and, even necessary. May I ask that anyone responding to the above take the time to outline their own position on this. ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected] Sent: January 14, 2006 08:53 Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] love and trinity THE HUMANITY OF CHRIST IS NOT DIVINE I don't know about all that Lance. What exact part of him are you calling "his humanity" Is it the body or the soul? Also what exactly is a "trinitarian nature?" These are brand new terms someone has come up with. Could this be called "adding to the Word of Truth?" On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 07:39:32 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Judy, rightly IMO, has oft spoken of the disconnect that may take place between theologizing and godliness. Conversely, as illustrated in this post by Bill, a more thoroughgoing teaching, along with the apprehension, of the Trinitarian Nature of God ought to issue in that which Jt speaks of. (i.e. godliness) ----- Original Message ----- From: Taylor To: [email protected] Sent: January 14, 2006 07:18 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity BillT wrote: The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. DAVEH responds: Any room for individuals in that equation?..........The oneness of God is therefore........Father, Son, Holy Spirit & Bill. Well, yes and no, DH. I am included in that circle of love in the way that Christ's humanity is included in that relationship. But as the humanity of Christ is not divine, neither am I divine. What I am is included in the humanity of the divine Christ and thus included in the eternal fellowship and community of the Son with the Father in the Holy Spirit. And because of the inseparable union of the person of Christ, his humanity with his divinity, I will forever be included in the loving union of the Trinity, the oneness of God. Good question, though, Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Dave Hansen To: [email protected] Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity .........Does that work in your theological paradigm? Taylor wrote: Moreover, John, if God is love and God is also a singularity, like many people think of "one" in the statement "God is one," then the greatest human expression of that love would be narcissism: extreme self love; for that would be to exemplify the love of God. Instead, God is "one" -- and has been from eternity -- precisely because of the other-centered love which exists between the Father for the Son and the Son for the Father in the Holy Spirit. The oneness of God is therefore not a number nearly so much as it is a unity: the unifying love of God in koinonia -- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Good insight, Dude, I mean Bish; you're on a roll. Bill -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS. -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by Plains.Net, and is believed to be clean. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
