I don't use apocalytic literature to construct my doctrine. I do have an answer and it has to do with my view of the use of numbers in the Bible. I do not care to have an exchange with you concerning this, however.
I am currently working on several other [biblical] issues and do not have the time.
jd
-------------- Original message --------------
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; [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 unde rstand 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2006 4:08 PM
> > Subject: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lan ce 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
& gt; > 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > 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........F ather, 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> > Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2006 10:41 PM
> > Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] love and trinity
& gt; >
> >
> >
> > .........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
& gt; > [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.
