Well done on the homework front, Judy. What do YOU think of Dake's commentary on this matter, Judy?.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: January 16, 2006 08:35
Subject: Re: Re: Fw: [TruthTalk] Lance and "biblical language"

No Dean, Benny learned this from the Dakes Bible.  Finis Dake wrote that the three members
of the trinity all have a body a soul and a spirit causing Benny Hinn to write in one of his books
(I think it was Good Morning Holy Spirit) that there are nine persons in the trinity.  A theologian
at Regent University by the name of Roger Williams confronted him about this and he did repent
but from what I understand was not able to make corrections in the books that had been sold
already.
 
On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 07:30:00 -0500 "Lance Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Please check your sources on this, Judy. I believe he claimed to be speaking under 'inspiration'. 
 
Benny Hinn was quoting another source and from what I understand he
repented of this error. so you'll need to find a more up to date one than this.
A good illustration of the value of repentance for both lost and for those being
saved......
 
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.
 
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org>
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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
> 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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org ; TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>> 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: 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........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: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org
>> 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.
 
 

Reply via email to