Dean wrote: > Should have left B. Hinn out of It. Did you notice how he called him another inspired teacher/evangelist? I would never describe him that way, and I don't personally know anyone who would.
David Miller. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dean Moore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, January 16, 2006 8:22 AM Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" > [Original Message] > From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Date: 1/16/2006 5:36:40 AM > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" > > Benny Hinn, another 'inspired' teacher/evangelist, once said that each of > the Father, Son and Spirit was a trinity and thus, nine Gods. He also finds > himself clever in the questions he puts forward to his hearers. cd: Now you have gone and done it Lance :-) Should have left B. Hinn out of It. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: January 15, 2006 23:10 > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language" > > > > 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. > > > > > ---------- > "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. ---------- "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. ---------- "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.
