The problem with the word "Trinity" is that it assume Three. What do you do with texts that speak about the Seven Spirits of God?
David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] ; [email protected] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 9:57 PM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" I do not agree. "Trinity" is as much a translation of the concept of "divine essence" as is "godhead" but for theological and contextual reasons. Call it philosophy if you will. The inclusion of "trinity" is a sound choice if it , in fact, arises from a point of truth. Equivalency is a word that figures into my discussion. I am sure you understand the implication. jd -------------- Original message -------------- From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 > > 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 tex t (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" > > 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" > 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 Messag e ----- > 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 h is > 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 th erefore 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 wi ll 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. ---------- "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.
