Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] The Trinity

[Dave]

Wm. Taylor wrote:   ----- Original Message ----- From: Wm. Taylor To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 3:11 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity I'm probably going to make you all cringe a little bit here, and some of you more than a little. By the way, I hope you don't mind if I butt in. Excuse me, excuse me, coming through.   The problems, it seems to me, that we get in to in these "Trinity" discussions arise not because of the threeness idea of the Trinity but because of the oneness idea we have about "God." Don't get me wrong here and blow me off before I even get started. I'm not suggesting that God is not One: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" I think the problem comes in via the way we think of the word "one" as compared to the Hebrew idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a piece of paper, we have missed the idea of oneness which comes out of the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" the word he uses here is the same word that he used when he wrote, "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh." The word "One" in a Hebrew mind is relational language; it is the language of the coming together of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity. DAVEH:  ???  I think I'm a little confused on this, Bill.  Are you suggesting that Jesus and his Father in Heaven are of the same flesh.....or, rather the same entity.  IOW, when Jesus was baptized, his Father in Heaven was also experiencing that same baptism?   I would be surprised IF you believe that way, but I'm having trouble understanding exactly what you are saying.  The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one - ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. DAVEH:  OK.....That is making a little more sense.  To me that relationship revolves around a common purpose.  Do you see it differently than that?  I've asked other TTers how else (besides purpose) they would define that nature of oneness....may I ask you the same question? That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from the Son and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. DAVEH:  Hmmmmmm.......I don't quite know why you would say such.  To me there seems distinct differences.  Yet the one thing they have most in common is their purpose....in purpose, they are absolutely in lock step. The Father can only be talked about in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship to the Father, and on and on. DAVEH:  Due to my LDS biases, I don't quite see it that way.  But it is interesting to know that is how you (as a Protestant?) thinks. There is singularity --one God-- because there is unity --Father-Son-and-Spirit-- first. Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking. The one speaks to the unity of the three. DAVEH:  OK.....I hear what you've said, Bill.  Now toss us (you and me) into the equation.  How do folks like us become one with God and Jesus?  IF my belief (about purpose relating to the oneness of God) is correct, then we become one with them as we become one with their purpose.  To me that makes perfect sense.      But.....how does it work with what you said above?  If  their singularity is relevant to their unity as 3, then what happens when you add a 4th, 5th or sixth or more.....Do we all become one with God in the same sense?  Hope that wasn't too convoluted. DAVEH:   Probably less so than my extended questions....!   :-) Bill Taylor       ----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Perry Locke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:01 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] The Trinity > >DaveH wrote: > >    Here's the deal, DavidM.....The T-Doctrine speaks to the oneness of > >God.  I've tried to find out just what that means, and so far I've not > >found consistency with the answers in their relation to the Bible.  At > >first, Perry objected to my use of /purpose /to define /oneness/, and then > >he came back with an answer that included /purpose/.  I read Jn 17 and to > >me defining /oneness /as used there as /purpose /sure seems to make sense.  > >Yet you and I suspect others apparently cringe when I suggest > >such.....WHY???  If you have a better way of defining it, what is it??? > > DavidH, I do not object to your using "one in purpose", I object to your > reducing the relationship to "one in pupose" only. True, you do not say > "only", but you never have presented any other "oneness" of the relationship > than "one in purpose". However, as DaveidM points out, it is much more than > just "one in purpose". "One in purpose" is a prerequisite for the Godhead. > "One in purpose" is necessary for any team to acheive a common goal. Now, if > you do not beleive that they are "only one in purpose", then tell us more > about thier "oneness". > > Perry > > If you want to convince us that is is not only "purpose > > _ -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain Five email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF and MOTORCYCLE.