Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Thanks, Migisi

You're creating more work for me, I appreciate that. The Trinity is one of the most complex and debated doctrines of the Bible, so these aren't easy questions. But I think you know that.

I have to get ready for tonight's midweek get-together at our church. I'll jump on this tonight or tomorrow morning. If anyone else wants to chime in...feel free.

» HeadZenCards - The Trinity Debate

In response to The Trinity Debate posted by BrianTubbs:

Ever see con men doing the shell game on city street corners?

"Betcha I can find the pea!", says the Rube.

No Jesus, No God, No Ghosts at all - the pea is in the con man's hand behind his back. He puts it under one of the two shells you don't pick after you place your bet.

-- posted by HeadZenCards

» Migisi - Hi Brian

.
Hi Brian.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Hi Brian

In response to Hi Brian posted by Migisi:

We had our midweek service last night, which included a vote on our new budget. I've been a little busy. Suite101 is not my full-time job, you know. Although, at times, it feels like it.

Two quick things, before I get into this...

1. Are you genuinely asking these questions to understand where Trinitarian Christians like myself come from - or are you just trying to score points against us? Not to be crabby. I like you. But I'm just not in the mood this week for you, Pink, and Oliver to beat up on Christians like me and Jerry Falwell and the like. My patience is wearing thin on that.

2. Even if you disagree with the Trinity doctrine, what HARM is there to you, others, and the world if millions of people believe in it? Sometimes, I get the impression that some folks really get bent out of shape and up-in-arms because - Heaven forbid! (no pun intended) - some people believe in the Trinity. I just don't understand the anger, frustration, perhaps fear that Trinitarian belief inspires in some. That may very well NOT be the case with you, but it baffles me.

Alright, to the issue itself....

» Brian Tubbs - The Trinity Debate

In response to The Trinity Debate posted by BrianTubbs:

Do any other Jesus quotes command that one pray/baptise in the name of all three? I can't remember any.

I don't believe so.

Help me out here. Nowhere in the Bible do I read of any of Jesus followers praying or baptizing people while calling upon the titles of Father, Son or Holy Ghost.

True, but there are other biblical passages which imply (rather strongly) the reality of the Triune God - even if they don't pertain to baptism.

I contend that this verse was later corrupted by the church to validate Trinity theology. I think the Father and Holy Ghost in this verse is an interpolation. I too suspect the canonization process.

Your evidence for this?????? This kind of contention shifts the burden of proof your way. My belief is that Matthew, the disciple of Jesus, wrote the Gospel of Matthew - and that he recorded Jesus' saying as he remembered it. I've already provided evidence in my articles why I think we can trust Matthew actually wrote Matthew. So, the ball's in your court to start chipping away at that. I'm taking the Gospel at face value. Tell me why I shouldn't - and please back up your reasons with evidence.

Note the use of the singular 'name' in the verse. If all three names were to be used, wouldn't it read plural - 'names'?

Is this the extent of your evidence?

Remember that we're talking about an English translation of a Greek manuscript that recorded Jesus speaking in what was probably Aramaic.

Your two leading word-for-word English translations of the Bible are the New American Standard and the King James. Both have some awkwardness and literary issues. The reason is the translation path that we've had to undergo from the originals to today.

Accordingly, I think you're reading too much into the singular-plural thing.

But, be that as it may, so what if Matthew recorded it in a grammatically incorrect fashion? The meaning is still clear. Matthew records Jesus clearly identifying the Trinity.

The Son's name is Jesus. If you're using the names of the Father and the Holy Ghost too, what names do you use??

Speaking as a Baptist, we just go with what's there. When I baptize folks, I do so "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit (or Ghost)." Pretty simple.

Do you pray "in the name of I AM THAT I AM" (the name God himself allegedly told to Moses)? I've never heard any clergy say this. If the Son and Father have names, what is the Holy Ghost's name?

First of all, even when I baptize, I don't do so with a lot of pomp and ritual. It's not so much that you MOUTH the Trinity. It's what you believe and the one you're baptizing believes - and what the fellowship of believers in that congregation hold to be the basic tenets of the faith. And so on.

Second, you've switched the issue from baptism to prayer. Christians are asked to pray in the name of Jesus - in the sense that we're supposed to be servants and representatives of Christ. All that we do (and pray for) is to be in His name, meaning by His authority and in His service.

If all three personages are ONE God, why not just pray and baptize 'in the name of God' rather than the servant personna 'Jesus'? And why the need to identify each? Would the 'Father' and 'Holy Ghost' feel slighted?

When I refer to God in my sermons or prayers, I often do it just as you say - I refer to "God" with the understanding that I'm including the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I don't think there's an issue here.

It's just that baptism, taking inspiration from what Jesus said, provides an opportunity to emphasize the TRINITY. It's an opportunity to show all three personages of God.

Remember Jesus' baptism? You had all three personages of God taking part.

Or was that done as a compromise to please early church disciples who couldn't accept the Trinity theology.

Are you asking me or telling me? If you're asking, I'm going to say 'no.' If you're telling me, show me your evidence.
.
Is the Holy Ghost really a separate person having a unique identity, or is it the essence or 'spirit' of Jesus-IS-God?

Jesus said he would send the "Comforter" after his ascension. The Comforter (aka Holy Spirit) came at Pentecost.

There's also references to the Spirit of God even in the Old Testament, when certain prophets, kings, etc. received anointing for a special work.

What about Deuteronomy 18:20 - "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my [God's] name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods [Son, Holy Ghost], even that prophet shall die."

Well, first, your inserting "Son and Holy Ghost" as other gods. YOU did that. Not God.

Second, I maintain that God DID "command" us to speak in the name of the Triune God, particularly in the New Testament and post-NT eras.

Now, again, I don't mind discussing this with you. I really don't. I enjoy good theology discussions.

But I say to everyone here....not just you...EVERYONE...I tire of constantly fielding attacks on Christianity. For some (not you, Migisi), it's become like a sport - and I'm running out of patience for it. That is NOT to say, however, that I tire of this particular discussion. I'm just asking that others observing this don't start piling on the "verbal violence" that PaperTurtle has talked about.

» Migisi - Hi Brian

In response to Hi Brian posted by BrianTubbs:

.
What if someone else asked my questions, would you automatically suspect that their motives were sinister? You know, your answers might be helpful to others in understanding the Trinity - which you admit is a difficult subject.
.
Sure, I know Suite is not your full time job. I appreciate that. But here you spent the time to write this semi-long response questioning my purpose - when you could've been answering one of my questions instead.
.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Hi Brian

In response to Hi Brian posted by Migisi:

What if someone else asked my questions, would you automatically suspect that their motives were sinister?

Depends on who the "someone else" is? And, I didn't say or mean to suggest that you were "sinister."

I am a little frustrated that you posted the Christopher Hitchens diatribe. I think what the man had to say is TRASH. Poor taste on his part. And I saw that just before I responded to you initially in this thread, so that probably colored my thinking. But we can talk about Falwell and Hitchens in the other thread.

You know, your answers might be helpful to others in understanding the Trinity - which you admit is a difficult subject.

Migisi, I have NO problem discussing the Trinity with you or anyone. Except maybe Oliver, who would immediately turn it into a tirade about which member of the Trinity ordered the killing of babies in Jericho. Not interested in that kind of a conversation.

» paper_turtle - sort of an aside

In response to Hi Brian posted by BrianTubbs:

The people of OT times believed that a name had great power. Calling another person by his name implied taking the other person's power (hence, the injunction not to take God's name in vain--not claim/call upon his power for frivolous purposes). Therefore, praying "in the name of" implies taking on the power of the one to whom one prays.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Hi Brian

In response to Hi Brian posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I think what [Hitchens] had to say is TRASH.
.
Isn't that a left handed insult to anyone who might agree with him to any degree?
.

-- posted by pink101

» HeadZenCards - Hi Brian

In response to Hi Brian posted by BrianTubbs:

Turning one into three made Christian doctrine appear that much more impressive.

The King who wore no clothes now has THREE suits on. Don't you see them?

-- posted by HeadZenCards