Today is an exciting day.
What are some of the best links that you will discover in reading on the Trinity?
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Today is an exciting day.
What are some of the best links that you will discover in reading on the Trinity?
Jesus in Idaho Falls 
Everyone today needs to listen to Lisa Kelly sing The Deer’s Cry.
considering that the trinity is not biblicall doctrine, these links should be interesting…
Subgenius, first let me ask you this. Do you think the biblical data contradicts itself on the revelation about God?
no it does not ccontradict itsellf on the revelation about God.
So would you agree that the Bible teaches that Jesus is Yahweh?
Yes, the Bible teaches that, in a manner of speaking. If i may offer the following :
You would have me assume that Yahweh is a noun and thus use simple A=B and B=C therefore A=C to say that Jesus is Yahweh and God is Yahweh therefore…etc.
However, Yahweh is not a noun, Yahweh is a form of the Hebrew Verb…it is a description of nature, not of being. You are human and I am human but you are not me.
Nevertheless, the Trinity is not Biblical Doctrine….and thus you will not “read” it in the Scriptures.
Let me ask you, if The Father has always been and will always be, thus nothing came before…the Son must have a Father, which came before the Son,therefore the Son is not the Father, correct?
However, Yahweh is not a noun
Doesn’t biblical data of YHWH come with definite articles?
Yahweh is a form of the Hebrew Verb
Many nouns are associated with the verbs.
…it is a description of nature, not of being.
And so when you think of I AM THAT I AM, you see no association with being? How do you translate that Hebrew verb?
You are human and I am human but you are not me.
Jesus is human. You and I are human. But unlike Jesus, you and I are not Yahweh, and never will be, subgenius. There is no god like Yahweh, whose name is above every name.
___
The Son is not the Father. As far as these two biblical truths: (1) YHWH as the only self-existent One and (2) the eternal generation of the Son (distinct but not separate from the Father), I don’t see these as incompatible. Do you?
Obviously semantics will be lost on a discussion of YHWH (not a noun in Hebrew).
Nevertheless, the Trinity is not Biblical Doctrine.
“Distinct but not seperate” – seems like window dressing on a theory that would assume Our Heavenly Father to be a schizophrenic. “Eternal” and “Son”
are you supposing that The Father, The Son and The HG are one “person”.