The Triquestra - Holy or Unholy Trinity

[Diggin in da Word]

There is a big difference, epistomaniac. YOu are arguing that the triqueta must be kept as a symbol of the triune God.

Show me Bible scripture where God said to use that symbol that was associated with witchcraft.

I can show you where Jesus said the cross would be used as the instrument of his death. I can show where Paul said he gloried in the cross.

The burden is on those who are using the triqueta as a symbol of the triune God. Where is it in the scripture?

If it can't be found there to represent the triune God, then God never meant it to be used in such a manner.

As a matter of fact, Paul wrote in Acts that man was not to make carvings to represent the Godhead.

So, sfiC is correct in his stance against that unholy symbol.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Diggin in da Word: //The burden is on those who are using the triqueta as a symbol of the triune God. Where is it in the scripture?//

What scripture gives you to right to use English letter
symbols to communicate the truth about God?
The same English letter symbols are used to communicate
Wiccian truths

 

[Diggin in da Word]

Ed,

I guess I can ask you the same thing. I see you using english letters.

English is not the issue. The issue is the unholy symbol, the triqueta. If you want to attack someone using english, then open another thread. I think it would be asinine though.

Why do you guys insist on dancing around the issue? God said not to use any carving to represent the Godhead.

 

[AntennaFarmer]

Originally posted by epistemaniac:


but it is out of love that I (and I think I could safely say “we”) are pointing out standing firm's .......
Ken

For a while, when I was a early teen, my folks had me look out for my little brothers every afternoon after school.

One afternoon little brother L. decided to go down the road to play with some friends. Though I told him not to, off he went.

Being "in charge" I followed my little brother. And, with great authority, I told him to come home. He refused. So I tried to drag him....Well, he wasn't that little! So I proceeded to beat on him. He escaped me. Finally, I returned home defeated.

Thinking that I was justified I looked forward to the return of Mama and Daddy. I knew they would fix my little brother.

Sadly, my younger brother was punished only a little. But I was in big trouble for hitting him.

It was pride that got me in trouble.

A.F.

 

[robycop3]

Why do you guys insist on dancing around the issue? God said not to use any carving to represent the Godhead.

Then that applies equally to the CROSS. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[robycop3]

I still say this is all a legalistic humbug.

 

[Ed Edwards]

StandingfirminChrist: //The question was brought up on another thread as to what the symbol that is found in a NKJV is by another poster.

//Some say it represents the Holy Trinity, and Wikipedia agrees with this.//

Diggin in da Word: //Why do you guys insist on dancing around the issue? God said not to use any carving to represent the Godhead.//

The ORIGINAL subject was a DRAWING (not a carving).

 

[KeithS]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
There is nothing pagan about an encyclopedia. It is an information site, revealing historic information.

Not pagan. Try again

Umm. Did you actually look at the site in the link? It is not Wikipedia - it is a site on Anglefire clearly written by someone using a clearly pagan name. The person seems to very clearly espouse the views being presented.

 

[epistemaniac]

diggin... you said
"There is a big difference, epistomaniac. YOu are arguing that the triqueta must be kept as a symbol of the triune God."

No, I am not arguing that at all. I am saying that the triquestra may be permitted, not that it must be used.

"I can show you where Jesus said the cross would be used as the instrument of his death. I can show where Paul said he gloried in the cross."

In neither of these cases were they speaking of the shape of an object. It was what Jesus did on the Cross which should be gloried in. To say that both Jesus and Paul were telling us to elevate/glory in etc the shape of a cross is ludicrous.

In fact, to be technical, neither Paul nor Jesus ever even used the word “cross”. It appears as if 3 different words were used to refer to the instrument of torture that Jesus died on.

The majority of the time, the following word is used:
G4716
σταυρός
stauros
Thayer Definition:
1) an upright stake, especially a pointed one
2) a cross
2a) a well known instrument of most cruel and ignominious punishment, borrowed by the Greeks and Romans from the Phoenicians; to it were affixed among the Romans, down to the time of Constantine the Great, the guiltiest criminals, particularly the basest slaves, robbers, the authors and abetters of insurrections, and occasionally in the provinces, at the arbitrary pleasure of the governors, upright and peaceable men also, and even Roman citizens themselves
2b) the crucifixion which Christ underwent
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the base of G2476
Citing in TDNT: 7:572, 1071

Acts 2:23 uses
G4362
προσπήγνυμι
prospēgnumi
Thayer Definition:
1) to fasten
Part of Speech: verb
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G4314 and G4078

Acts 5:30; 10:39; 13:29 and 1 Pe. 2:24 uses
G3586
ξύλον
xulon
Thayer Definition:
1) wood
1a) that which is made of wood
1a1) as a beam from which any one is suspended, a gibbet, a cross
1a2) a log or timber with holes in which the feet, hands, neck of prisoners were inserted and fastened with thongs
1a3) a fetter, or shackle for the feet
1a4) a cudgel, stick, staff
2) a tree
Part of Speech: noun neuter
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from another form of the base of G3582
Citing in TDNT: 5:37, 665

So, the point is, it was what the symbol of the Cross abstractedly represented that was being referred to, not the geometric shape.

Blessings,
Ken

 

[Sister Robin]

Wow... for a Christian board, you people are just down-right mean to each other. It's one thing to discuss differences and give your reasons for believing that way, and trying to show or correct others in love...

But wow... all the name-calling and condescending remarks. I'm just surprised to find that here. It's initeresting to read the opposing views, and I'm learning a lot here from both sides. But why the hostility?

My first post, by the way.

And I love all my brothers and sisters in Lord!

 

[Scott J]

Many of us just really, really, really don't like to be disagreed with... of course I'm the exception.

To be truthful, I hope that most people here take the sharp wit no worse than I do. Written communication is an incomplete form. You can't tell the spirit of the other person. I like to be challenged and like to challenge the ideas of other people. If what I believe won't stand here... then it certainly won't stand when I have to deal with real life incidents.

This to me is a safe place to develop a consistent set of beliefs. Inconsistencies are reliably shaved off quickly by the sharp minds here.

 

[bound]

This is a interesting topic and I'm very please it's given me the opportunity to give the 'Triquestra' some thought.

It is clear to me that early Christian Thinkers 'borrowed' philosophical terminology from Pagan Philosophy in order to understand and articulate many of the doctrines we, in the modern day, simply take for granted. Knowing this I can only suspect that they also 'borrowed' symbolism as well. Of course, unlike terminology, which can be articulated to alleviate any confusion symbolism always speaks to the observer through his or her own personal associations and thus one is never assured that ones' association is the one intended of the original user of the symbol.

When I reflect on this further I am cautious in the acceptance of symbols which can be confusing or associated with something other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Personally I don't believe it was wise to use the Triquestra on the cover or spine of Holy Scripture. In would have made more sense to simply use the universal symbol of Christianity... the cross.

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by bound:
This is a interesting topic and I'm very please it's given me the opportunity to give the 'Triquestra' some thought.

It is clear to me that early Christian Thinkers 'borrowed' philosophical terminology from Pagan Philosophy in order to understand and articulate many of the doctrines we, in the modern day, simply take for granted. Knowing this I can only suspect that they also 'borrowed' symbolism as well. Of course, unlike terminology, which can be articulated to alleviate any confusion symbolism always speaks to the observer through his or her own personal associations and thus one is never assured that ones' association is the one intended of the original user of the symbol.

When I reflect on this further I am cautious in the acceptance of symbols which can be confusing or associated with something other than the Gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. Personally I don't believe it was wise to use the Triquestra on the cover or spine of Holy Scripture. In would have made more sense to simply use the universal symbol of Christianity... the cross.

thoughtfully put... I respect your opinion, and especially that you have not insisted that your personal convictions must be binding on others... i.e. that you have not cast aspertions on the salvation, motives and intents of others who may disagree with you....

blessings,
Ken

 

[Scott J]

I actually agree that a better choice could have been made as well.

 

[Bro Tony]

Me too. I think if we know that something could pontentially cause offense it would be better not to use it. That is a far cry though from calling it demonic and casting dispersions on those who chose to use it, or even worse on the Bible itself.

Good post Bounds. And welcome to the BB.

Bro Tony

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
People acting just like the Pharisees, attacking the messenger because they don't like the message.

Ken,

I read through the original posts and from what I see, ya cut and pasted to make it look like sfiC was in the wrong. I noticed ya did not post that he said many of the ones on here advocating the Triquetra are in the alcohol threads advocating alcohol, so I do not think that statement was a lie at all.

Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears.

Many of you on this thread are showing a far from christian attitude. Even if sfiC was wrong, you are no better than the ones who stoned Steven, than the ones who hung Christ on the cross.

Not one of you are without sin, so quit throwing stones at someone who is in Christ.

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!!

 

[epistemaniac]

Originally posted by Diggin in da Word:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Bro Tony:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Am I saying I am sinless? No. But it is not I who was making slanderous remarks against a brother in Christ.

Nor was anyone else in this thread. There were no slanderous remarks about SFIC. He and his wife were the ones calling others liars with no basis in fact. I think you need to look past your agreement with his stand, which you are free to have, and read again what was said and in the context it was said. No one slandered SFIC.

And again to restate what I said to you as you apparently did not understand it. Before you start throwing the "you's" out there and say we are wrong for standing against what we feel is incorrect statements, and accuse us of being like those who stoned Stephen and crucified Jesus. You need to see your approach toward us is no different than what your accusing us of with SFIC. There is the hypocrisy.

Bro Tony </font>[/QUOTE]There were no slanderous remarks about sfiC?

I see them all through the thread. Let me show you a few.

From yourself: Though you post a site--those speaking on that site have no more credibility than you. Not only that they too hold to a false man-made doctrine of KJVO. You accused sfic of foolishness. You accuse him of false accusations, which btw means he is a liar in politically correct terms.

Stating sfiC has no credibility is a slanderous remark. (I noticed you went back after sfiC called you on it, that you deleted it. Fortunately, I keep windows open, so I was able to retrieve it. You also quoted sfiC and forgot to remove your own quote from within his quote, so it is still there.)

ScottJ accused sfiC of being double minded and of making ludicrous claims that discredit sfiC. That sfiC's posts are instruments of satan... those are slanderous remarks.

shall I go on?

epistomaniac accused sfiC of being double minded and hypocritical. those are slanderous remarks.

Ransom accused sfiC of siding with pagans.

There are many more slanderous remarks, but I am sure you will deny the fact they were made. </font>[/QUOTE]Diggin,

I read through the original posts and from what I see, ya cut and pasted to make it look like everyone but sfiC was in the wrong. I noticed ya did not post that he said that anyone who disagreed with him on this issue was decieved by satan.

Ye shall know the tree by the fruit it bears.

Many of you on this thread are showing a far from christian attitude. Even if sfiC was wrong, you are no better than the ones who stoned Steven, than the ones who hung Christ on the cross.

Not one of you, including you diggin -- who judgmentally judges others for judging others --- are without sin, so quit throwing stones at someone who is in Christ.

blessings,
Ken

 

[His Blood Spoke My Name]

mr epistomaniac,

As I pointed out in the early hours of the morning, it was not standing who was the initial attacker in any of the many threads that he posted in (and I did check many). It is funny, I do not see posts by anyone that was attacking standing attacking others that were attacking him. No, all the fingers are pointed to standing. Why not attack the others for their evident attacks? Why standing only? Is it because the truth is that it is the truth that he brings into the thread that is disagreed upon?

Or is there another agenda?

 

[webdog]

Originally posted by His Blood Spoke My Name:
mr epistomaniac,

As I pointed out in the early hours of the morning, it was not standing who was the initial attacker in any of the many threads that he posted in (and I did check many). It is funny, I do not see posts by anyone that was attacking standing attacking others that were attacking him. No, all the fingers are pointed to standing. Why not attack the others for their evident attacks? Why standing only? Is it because the truth is that it is the truth that he brings into the thread that is disagreed upon?

Or is there another agenda?

 

[Bro Tony]

HBSMN,

We have tried to give you the benefit of the doubt as you came in here new seemingly trying to bring peace. Now you assert that there may be an agenda here. One may rightly ask just what your agenda is here? You reading over the posts seems to be very biased as you have made a clear erronious statement that SFIC has not attacked anyone---epistomanic gave you a whole list of his harsh and accusitory statements. If you want to deal with the issues fine, but if you feel there are those who have unfairly attacked another member of the board then report the post to the moderators and let them do their jobs. You have very quickly shown that you either cannot or will not see both sides. I say all this in the same spirit you attempted to speak to me this morning, I hope you take it that way and stop adding to the supposed victimization on the board.

Bro Tony