Peg responds to me:
quote:
thats why I gave you ALL of those verses
And how does that alter the fact that the use of "sons of god" is a descriptor of class, not a descriptor of parent/child? If I keep using the same concept in the same way a bunch of times, how does that change the concept? You mean if I keep saying that "snow is white" enough times, eventually it will mean that it's black?
quote:
Now if Adam, a fleshly creature, can be called a 'son of God, Why cant the Angels, spiritual creatures, be called sons?
Because "son of god" doesn't mean "child." Adam isn't anybody's child. He has no parents. "Son of god" is a descriptor of class, not of relationship.
quote:
This does not only have to mean a human child.
That's my point! It doesn't mean "child" at all, human or not. Why do you think Jesus is called the "son of man"? That isn't a claim that he is some mundane person. It's a claim that he's divine.
quote:
So if the 'Word' is with this trinity, then there are 4 present.
Incorrect. The use of "word" is a reference to Jesus, not some new thing. How many times do I have to quote the verse to you before you remember it?
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Before you respond, repeat that to yourself: "The 'word' is a reference to Jesus."
Do you know nothing about poetry? Are you incapable of recognizing metaphor?
quote:
You've got a hard task at explaining that one!
(*chuckle*)
Nice projection there, Peg. And you wonder why you keep getting a hostile response. Here is the text I used
IN THE VERY POST YOU QUOTED:
The "word" is a reference to Jesus
And yet here you are trying to claim that I have to explain the "word." Did you bother to read my post before responding? That's a serious question, Peg. Do you bother to read the entirety of posts you respond to before clicking that "reply" button? Do you pause to relate statements made in one part to another so that you can see how the whole comes together?
quote:
This verse in no way explains the relationship between them.
(*blink!*)
You did not just say that, did you? It is practically a hit-you-over-the-head description of the concept: Father, son, holy ghost, all are the same.
quote:
In the 'name of' does not mean that it has to be a is a person. Its similar with the English expression 'in the name of the law' You wouldnt conclude that the law is a person. So why do you think the holy spirit is a person?
Peg, is English a foreign language for you? Do you truly not understand what metaphor is? In English, "in the name of the law" is a metaphor that the person acting
IS THE LAW. It makes the two the same thing. That's the entire point.
The entire point of that phrase is to bind all three (father, son, holy ghost) as manifestations of the same thing.
And that is the essence of trinitarianism.
quote:
If he was 'born' from God, how can he 'Be' God???
Its not possible.
Then you're an anti-trinitarian.
And once again, we see that you seem to think you know more about Christianity than Christ. You still haven't responded to the main point, though: Trinitarianism is a foundational tenet of Christianity.
Why don't you know that?
quote:
No, he did not say he was God.
Yes, he did. And let's take your little scenario:
quote:
John 10:31-37 Read Jesus words carefully.
I've got a better idea: Why don't we go beyond that.
John 10:24 Then came the Jews round about him, and said unto him, How long dost thou make us to doubt? If thou be the Christ, tell us plainly.
10:25 Jesus answered them, I told you, and ye believed not: the works that I do in my Father's name, they bear witness of me.
10:26 But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as I said unto you.
10:27 My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:
10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand.
10:30 I and my Father are one.
10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.
10:32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?
10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?
10:37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
10:38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.
10:39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,
That entire passage you quote directly contradicts you. Jesus directly says that he is god (10:29, 30) and the Jews react to the blasphemy. Jesus seems shocked by this and resorts to claiming that he's doing miracles. The Jews respond that it isn't because of the good things he's done but the specific blasphemy of making himself to be god. Jesus then blusters and repeats the blasphemy (10:36, 37, 38). The Jews then react again.
Jesus keeps claiming to be divine, so why is anybody shocked that those who hold to the belief that only god is divine would take him to task for that?
quote:
But when did the teaching develop?
From the foundation of Christianity. That's why it's called a "foundational" tenet.
quote:
Im sure you know that it developed after the christian writings were complete.
It's part and parcel of the text, though. Did you bother to read my post before responding? Let's try again, shall we?
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
2 Corinthians 13:14 The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen.
John opens with the description of the "word" being god and with god at the same time. The "word" is a reference to Jesus:
John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
...
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
Jesus himself refers to the holy spirit:
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
The references pile up throughout the Bible. The idea that the trinity is not to be found in the text simply indicates that you haven't read it. Oh, the words may have presented to your eyes, but you didn't read it for content.
You clearly didn't read the reference from the Catholic Encyclopedia completely.
You're quote-mining, Peg.
Rrhain
Thank you for your submission to
Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
™ Version 4.2