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.
