he is God, so always had Shiekinah glory, but that was veiled and hidden while a man!
Did the Father God actually glorify him, that is give him glory?
As the copied and pasted verses say he did.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
he is God, so always had Shiekinah glory, but that was veiled and hidden while a man!
Did the Father God actually glorify him, that is give him glory?
As the copied and pasted verses say he did.
jesus Himself stated that the Father and Him are One, yet distinct, same way the Spirit and Him, so non trinitarian views are heretical, condemned by Jesus Himself, so whatever "power: he has, would not be from the Holy Spirit!
Yes, that's called Sabellianism (aka "modalism"), which has traditionally been condemned as heresy in Christianity.
Yes, I would say that Sabellianism is cause for church discipline.
It works for T.D. Jakes, too, but the fact remains that it's heresy.
You realize that when you say things like this, you're tempting God, right? I don't think He likes that.
How do you know you're moving in His power? How do you reconcile this belief with the Biblical model that one of the signs of "moving in His power" is sound doctrine?
How does i fit into that?The fundamental problem here is that mathematics is designed to calculate and describe MATERIAL things.
How does i fit into that?
Do you know what i is?Not sure if you watched the OP video. It was a young man, who came from a state of agnosticism, and his attempt to offer some understanding and perspective of the Trinity. He attempted to do so by offering some explanation of dimensionality, which is where the "take off" of mathematics entered the "equation.![]()
Do you know what i is?
Yes. You made the statement, "The fundamental problem here is that mathematics is designed to calculate and describe MATERIAL things." Math may also deal with imaginary things such as i.Are you speaking of the square root of -1? If so, I am not "following" your thought.
Yes. You made the statement, "The fundamental problem here is that mathematics is designed to calculate and describe MATERIAL things." Math may also deal with imaginary things such as i.
Okay, good.You are just bit confused....I argued that mathematics.....even at it most fundamental, is actually symbolic. It is a symbolic language that is very efficient to use to model material "things". But even "objects" as basic as numerals, are in fact symbolic constructs. Don't get too "torqued" by the concept and language of "imaginary and complex" numbers. That is simply language that we use to describe them. In fact, complex numbers a + bi, are the larger set of numbers of which the "real numbers", rational and irrational are smaller subsets.
Agreed. I don't blame righteousdude2 for his error. It's a very common one and, let's face it, when you're dealing with someone or something infinite and holy beyond our grasp, such as God, every analogy is going to break down at some point.
But I think where he showed himself to be in real trouble is that it appears he has been corrected about this before, but has rejected the correction and seems rather proud of his belief and the fact that it isn't orthodox.
I don't think you can equate the ice/water/vapor illustration to "non-Trinitarian belief." That's absurd. It's simplistic, yes, and not completely accurate, yes, but nonetheless, that's far too strong an accusation to hold up just because of the illustration.problem is that if he really holds to a non trinitarian viewpoint, how can he be sure that he has the real God of the Bible, as He Himself revealed to us his divine Nature?
God invented math. He uses it throughout the Bible. I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate statement, either.And also proves that best to use the bilical evidence to come to our understanding, not trying math formulas for that!
TND said:I don't think you can equate the ice/water/vapor illustration to "non-Trinitarian belief." That's absurd. It's simplistic, yes, and not completely accurate, yes, but nonetheless, that's far too strong an accusation to hold up just because of the illustration.
I agree, and it's a good one. I think we can all agree, however, that there is no really good way to illustrate the Trinity using human analogies. That was my whole point in starting my over-the-top disagreement with Baptist Believer. If I've offended you, please forgive me. That wasn't my intent.Hey, what's wrong with the ice/water/vapor analogy? That was my analogy.
I agree, and it's a good one. I think we can all agree, however, that there is no really good way to illustrate the Trinity using human analogies. That was my whole point in starting my over-the-top disagreement with Baptist Believer. If I've offended you, please forgive me. That wasn't my intent.
I don't think you can equate the ice/water/vapor illustration to "non-Trinitarian belief." That's absurd. It's simplistic, yes, and not completely accurate, yes, but nonetheless, that's far too strong an accusation to hold up just because of the illustration.
God invented math. He uses it throughout the Bible. I'm not sure that's an entirely accurate statement, either.
i was not basing his views on the trinity based upon his illustration of the trinity, but that seems to hold to one God working 3 seperate roles! NOT as we hold to 3 seperate persons within ONE God!
And if we had no math to use in a formula way to express the concept of infinity and beyond, wouldn't we still get the concept of the trinity from what God wrote to us in the bible itself though?
How, exactly?i was not basing his views on the trinity based upon his illustration of the trinity, but that seems to hold to one God working 3 seperate roles! NOT as we hold to 3 seperate persons within ONE God!
Does that mean no one has an answer?
How, exactly?