Featured Doctrine of the Trinity - Stated or Implied?

see my last message!

 

that you are not!

 

IT IS VERY LONG. (Compare it with the average posts of others; even mine!)

Given your other lengthy posts (without attribution--which means plagarism) I really think this last post of yours was a hodgepodge of unattributed quotes, condensed and edited by you! SHAME ON YOU!

 

My Name is Andrew Ansell, from England, UK, and STUDIES ON THE HOLY TRINITY is MY website! Please get your facts right before making a fool of yourself!

 

People get involved with things they know nothing about, instead of first asking! I thought we Christians were meant to be better...

 

Well, the Old Testament Saints were not aware of the Three Persons in the θειότης. IT was only expounded in New Testament times by the Holy Spirit. My point being, that "θειότης" (used once in Romans 1:20), which speaking of the "divine nature", does not tell us about the "Persons" within this "nature". The term "Trinity" seels to do this, and if rightly explained, can be understood by almost anyone. I must stress that we need the Holy Spirit to open the "eyes of our understanding"!

 

Are you referring to the word "God"? In the Old Testament, "Elohim" is in the masculine, plural, which I believe is because the "God" of the Bible is not a single Person, which can be seen from texts like, "let US make man in OUR image" (Genesis 1:26), and Eccles, 12:1, "remember your Creators", etc. However, in the New Testament, the word "theos" is singluar in number! The very nature of the Godhead needs to be carefully explained, as it is not obvious from the mere uses of the word "God", or even "Godhead".

good night from England!

 

Have you not read?

Not just Ex 3:6, but in every verse where God said "I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob."

He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

 

They knew the law, but they didn't understand it. Jesus found that little verse eminently relevant to their question, and with it undid the central presumption of their sect, that there is no resurrection.

There is no explicit mention of the Resurrection in the Law, but it is implied, and the implication is no less authoritative.

 

I have not read this thread, for I fear it became about the validity of the doctrine of the Trinity. But the actual topic, how much should we read between the lines, if a very important topic. As a minimalist, I ask the question, what is the least God could be saying. That question protects us from adding to scripture by speculation.

For example does "all" mean everything imaginable, or just the things intended by the author. Speculation is the mother of false doctrine. OTOH, there is such a thing as logical necessity. The fly in the buttermilk is that it is hard to discard the shoddy and speculative interpretations of past theologians, and it is equally hard to admit we were wrong to embrace a baseless but age-old doctrine.

 

You are absolutely right.

My heartfelt apologies.

I treated you miserably. Please forgive me.

You are clearly a very studied Christian.

Have a wonderful Christmas,

Brother Davis