DiscussMormonism.com

CC recently wrote

The doctrine of the trinity is pure flatulence.

What is it about the trinity that you find objectionable? The trinity formulation attempts to reconcile two biblical teachings: God is three in some sense and also unified (one) in some sense. The LDS object to the trinity because they emphasize the three. Unitarians emphasize the one.

Richard

Hello Richard. I am always glad to see you. I object to the doctrine of the Trinity because I do not think it can be reconciled with scripture or logic. Just because Jesus is called theos in the New Testament does not mean he is coequal or coeternal with God (the Father), anymore than the angels or men who are called theos. Also, I accept that God admits no composition, which is incongruous with Trinitarian Christology. (Despite the efforts of Thomas Aquinas and others to have their cake and eat it too.)

Robert

PS I am sure you were saddened as I was to learn of the passing of Bruce Metzger. I was not fortunate to meet him like you, but I think he was a good scholar and a good man.

Hi CC,

It's nice to have you posting actively on the MB. I appreciate your perspective even if we sometimes disagree.

Just because Jesus is called theos in the New Testament does not mean he is coequal or coeternal with God (the Father), anymore than the angels or men who are called theos.

Which of the angels or men can forgive sins. Why did Jesus say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Jn 14:9

Richard

richardMdBorn wrote:Hi CC,

It's nice to have you posting actively on the MB. I appreciate your perspective even if we sometimes disagree.

Which of the angels or men can forgive sins. Why did Jesus say, “He who has seen me has seen the Father.” Jn 14:9

Richard

Hello Richard. An angel forgives sins in Zechariah 3:4

And the angel said to those who were standing before him, "Remove the filthy garments from him." And to him he said, "Behold, I have taken your iniquity away from you, and I will clothe you with rich apparel."

As for your other question, I think it is answered by Colossians 1:15.

He is the image (eikon) of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation...

Hi Robert,

Hello Richard. An angel forgives sins in Zechariah 3:4.

I don't know Hebrew, so maybe you will correct me, but let's look at the first four verses:

1Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan standing at his right hand to accuse him.

2The LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, Satan! Indeed, the LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?"

3Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments and standing before the angel.

4He spoke and said to those who were standing before him, saying, "Remove the filthy garments from him " Again he said to him, "See, I have taken your iniquity away from you and will (I)clothe you with festal robes."

The LORD in verse 2 calls the high priest "a brand plucked from the fire". I think that the angel is restating the LORD's statement. A brand plucked from the fire is a forgiven brand.

I hope that your studies are going well.

Richard

Calculus Crusader wrote:Hello Richard. I am always glad to see you. I object to the doctrine of the Trinity because I do not think it can be reconciled with scripture or logic. Just because Jesus is called theos in the New Testament does not mean he is coequal or coeternal with God (the Father), anymore than the angels or men who are called theos. Also, I accept that God admits no composition, which is incongruous with Trinitarian Christology. (Despite the efforts of Thomas Aquinas and others to have their cake and eat it too.)

Robert

PS I am sure you were saddened as I was to learn of the passing of Bruce Metzger. I was not fortunate to meet him like you, but I think he was a good scholar and a good man.

It seems we have an follower of Arius on the boars. Fascinating.

Calculus Crusader wrote:Hello Richard. I am always glad to see you. I object to the doctrine of the Trinity because I do not think it can be reconciled with scripture or logic. Just because Jesus is called theos in the New Testament does not mean he is coequal or coeternal with God (the Father), anymore than the angels or men who are called theos. Also, I accept that God admits no composition, which is incongruous with Trinitarian Christology. (Despite the efforts of Thomas Aquinas and others to have their cake and eat it too.)

Robert

PS I am sure you were saddened as I was to learn of the passing of Bruce Metzger. I was not fortunate to meet him like you, but I think he was a good scholar and a good man.

It seems we have an follower of Arius on the board. Fascinating.

Love the avatar Richard. That's definitely a keeper. And, good to see you here CC.

msnobody wrote:Love the avatar Richard. That's definitely a keeper. And, good to see you here CC.

Thanks, although I have no idea who you are. :)

richardMdBorn wrote:CC recently wrote

The doctrine of the trinity is pure flatulence.

What is it about the trinity that you find objectionable? The trinity formulation attempts to reconcile two biblical teachings: God is three in some sense and also unified (one) in some sense. The LDS object to the trinity because they emphasize the three. Unitarians emphasize the one.

Richard

And ambiguous in any sense. Hence, God myths are unreliable.

Muslims have an entirely different sense. Their God myths differ from yours (I presume).

JAK