Journal Bible_Study_Guys's Journal: Thoughts on the Holy Trinity 50
Humans are made up of the body, mind, and soul. It's easy for us to seperate the body from the other two. We've all seen a dead person before, or can at least imagine a dead person. That is the body, without the mind or soul present. The mind and soul are a bit harder seperate from each other, since they are both rather intangible. But if you think of a person who has suffered massive head trauma or fallen victim to a debilitating disease of the mind, the might still be alive, but their mind might have been destroyed. We assume their soul is with their body until the time of death, so then if the mind is gone, but the soul is sound, we must assume they are different entities. There is other evidence as well*.
Ok, so having pretty much established the existence of the body, mind, and soul, we can move on to how that translates to the Holy Trinity. Jesus came to earth in man-form, so obviously he would translate to the body. God the Father is the designer of the universe, the planner, and the voice that spoke everything into existence. This would most closely correlate to the mind. This leaves the Holy Spirit to correlate to the soul, and indeed that makes sense. The Holy Spirit is the Comforter that comes to live inside you when you accept Christ as your savior. He lives inside you alongside your soul.
Now obviously there is not a definite seperation between all these. If you get hit in your head hard enough, the mind suffers, despite the blow happening to your body. If your mental state is haywire it affects your body and your spirit. Your spiritual life has a profound effect on your state of mind. The Holy Trinity is very similar, and always connected, except when Jesus died for our sins. I think this is what had to happen for our sins to be forgiven. Jesus was seperated from the Father and the Spirit, because sin can not be in God's presence. Our sin seperated Jesus from His Father. Hence the "My God, my God! why have you forsaken me?". And as we see with humans, the body is the easiest to seperate. Jesus received a new body, as will we.
I hope this has helped clarify, if you were having trouble understanding. Obviously, this isn't meant to be all comprehensive, but just a general guide so people can begin to wrap their mind around the trinary nature of God.
-TechnoLust
*My other evidence comes from my experience counseling people. When people forgive themselves for things that they have done in the past, it is removed from the spirit, but the mind might still remember it. They can recall the event, but not feel the shame and spiritual seperation from God that they once did.
What Translation & Verse? (Score:2)
Also, humanity's body/mind/soul all interconnect and adapt. My body is shaped by Creation, my soul by God and my mind is the meeting of the body and soul, and my soul forged by the events that my body and mind undergo.
Re:What Translation & Verse? (Score:2)
You can go here [gospelcom.net] and view the verse (or any other verse!) in several translations simultaneously.
Dang! (Score:2)
I'll be sure to follow posts from now on.
jason
Re:Dang! (Score:2)
Re:Dang! (Score:2)
jason
Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
i think 'made in God's image' means being creators. WHat are we doing? We're building computers that can think. We're caring for other creatures. We're creating machines that can heal themselves and...create other computers.
that's it; that's all the comment i'm intellectually fit for. But you get to hear it, TL, because i was thinking about it today and thinking i should mention it to you.
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:1)
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
For comparison, look in Genesis 4:22 where G-d said the "the man was like one from us, to know good and bad". Likeness to G-d seems to be a knowledge based item. This is also seen in the snake's remark to Eve in 3:5.
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Interesting you note that knowledge of good and evil is a God-like quality. But note that they were made in God's image before the fall.
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Some would say that's it's not the kowledge of the two, rather the knoeledge of the difference between the two. To understand where good "ends", and bad "starts", takes knowledge. And of all the creations, only the humans seems to really have the capacity.
But note that they were made in God's image before the fall.
A side note, i don't believe in a "fall". But perhaps it just a definition thing.
Anyway, obviously the image and "
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
I don't see the dilema. Its safe to say that the difference is in that they are opposites. To know of them is to know their opposition. You can't know of good and evil without comprehending their differences.
A side note, i don't believe in a "fall". But perhaps it just a definition thing.
Probably a non-dilema as above also. The "fall" simply means being kicked out of the Garden where Adam and
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
I know what "warm" is, i also know what "cold" is. I know the difference in between them. However, knowing *exactly* where cold "ends" and warm "starts", takes more knowledge than average. IOW, it takes a very clear knowledge of it, such as, that "cold" is less than my body temperature (97.7F) and sta
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
There is no dilema. Warm and cold are relative terms, evil and good are not. Evil and good are not even really gradients like temperature is.
The garden had nothing to do with talking.
Your hyper-exasperating the point here, the location has nothing to do with it. They no longer walked and talked with God *and* were kicked out of the Garden, and no longer got a free ride as far as food.
Adam only talked to G-d when asked a question, or being told what t
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Yes they are. Two people can do the same action, and for one it is good, and the other it is not.
Also, must say, i do not believe in evil. G-d is good, G-d is everything, therefore "evil" cannot exist. There is good, and not good, usually referred to as "bad". Good and bad are choices. If a person believes, for example, that G-d wants him to kill somebody, and he overrules his compassion and does the deed, he has done good not bad.
afterwards they
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
You realize that would make it contextual, not gradient or relative (and it would need to be gradient for it to even have a chance to be relative). For it to be relative the difference of good and evil relates to the position in realtion to something else on the gradient scale. Contextual means the difference is the position of the subject.
Also, must say, i do not believe in evil. G-d is good, G-d is everything, therefore
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Fine. Though, whatever the case, knowing the difference between two things takes more than avcerage knowledge.
Interesting. But not useful to this discussion of the kn
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
If he isn't physical he doesn't exist. Nouns are people, places, things or ideas. All but the ideas are actually physical entities. Spirits are even physical. If God is just an idea, he doesn't exist.
and nothing physical has any effect on Him.(Unless, of course, He decides to react with it.)
That is more directly explained by being in command of the whole Universe. Concluding a non-physical God on that point is beyond the mark.
Good/Evil are things. Good/Bad ar
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Physical is that which has boundaries. Non-physical is that which does not have boundaries (although there are different levels of this). Things without boundaries, such as ideas, do exist. Truth and lies exist, yet they are only ideas.
Well you have good as both a choice and a thing (which for continuity wi
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
I think you're hitting on my point and don't know it. If it isn't physical it doesn't exist. Ideas exist only as comprehension of the conscience. To me God isn't an idea, he actually exists independant of my comprehension and others, therefore he isn't an idea. Therefore he is physical.
G-d does not provide an "evil" choice. However, one choice is good for the person, and the other is "bad" for the pe
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
I think we very much disagree. However, because we are using similar words to mean different things, perhaps we cannot discuss this topic properly.
And good and bad are qualities of a choice, not the choice itself.
Exactl
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
i'll never believe that about my ceridwen (Score:2)
A puppy chews up slippers because it has an instinct to chew on things, but people eat doughnuts because they crave sugars and fats for the same reason.
Children don't think of the morality of hurting other animals until they're taguht to, either, and some never learn. children don't hurt
Re:i'll never believe that about my ceridwen (Score:2)
My definition of soul would be that part of you that goes to the afterlife when you die. Do you think that when you die, yo
of course not, silly. (Score:2)
if animals can learn sign language- and use that sign language to say 'koko lonely, you go hug koko now' that's communication. And they've had chimps using finger paints for ages; they look like kindergarten art. Elephants use brushes. But bear in mind that these extremely low-function color blobs are attempts at human art. How the heck do we know that there are no dolphin songs? They play, they have sex for non-reproductive purposes, they
Re:of course not, silly. (Score:2)
So what animal did you used to be?
don't know (Score:2)
Nor do i think that we get reborn as punishment, though it took me 20 years to come to that understanding.
sol
Re:i'll never believe that about my ceridwen (Score:2)
Animals have souls in my good book. God set certain animals to be over certain domains, just as humans are lords over the whole earth. The talking donkey, the animals that sit at God's thrown (in Revelations and other scripture), and other reasons suggest they are a soul as much as people are. (And by soul I mean the body and spirit together which means they have spirits, which more closely approximates your use of the term "soul".)
But you don't need to start witnessing to them. As you may note, Adam's eat
Re:i'll never believe that about my ceridwen (Score:2)
Actually, yes, children do hurt their mothers. And so do lion cubs, I would reckon. And when they do, the Momma Lion makes a fierce growling noise of pain and disapproval which is unpleasant for the cub, and she learns that it is a first degree no-no to hurt the Momma, or the Daddy, or little brother/sister... Without that guidance, children would *keep* hurting others until they developed empathy (if ever), or until one of those
Re:Small, green, & Split three ways... (Score:2)
Who gets to define "Christians"? (Score:2)
Now this might cause you to say that I am not a Christian, but I think that it is presumptuous of TL to imply that all Christians believe in a particular interpretation of the "trinity". Does the word "trinity" even appear in the Bible? A quick search at http://unbound.biola.edu/ [biola.edu] confirms my suspicion that it does not.
Re:Who gets to define "Christians"? (Score:2)
However, you will find that early Christians found themselves in a quandary. Jesus clearly stated the Shema: "Hear o Israel, The LORD our God, the LORD is One." (Mark 12:29.) Jesus, being a good Jew (a fact often overlooked today), taught the unity of God.
So what were Christians to do when they witnessed Jesus' resurrection and then experienced the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2)? They knew Jesus was God; His resurrection eliminated any doubt. They experien
Re:Who gets to define "Christians"? (Score:2)
One thing to remember to your final word, John also said (1st John 4:8) "God is love" and (1st John 1:5) "God is light". None of these, not even "God is spirit" precludes God's existance as a corporeal and physical being, and three beings at that.
I think you are right in the "three in one", however that "in one" part needs fleshing out. That might be where there is disagreement. For me, "Three in one" is accomplished by the shear streangth of unity.
As Christ prayed for his apostles to be one "even as we a
umm... jesus was jewish (Score:2)
The Christian church hasn't got enough sceptics, darn it. Pick up Asimov's guide to the bible; that ought to throw an incredible wrench into things. One of the best assemblages of historical reference surrounding the bible. *shaking head* take it literally all you wa
Re:umm... jesus was jewish (Score:2)
No, because such a notion is a contrevance of 20th century categorizations on a 0th century situation.
The Christian church hasn't got enough sceptics, darn it.
Its hard to argue that scepticism is a way to truth, or even a sure way to know truth when you have it. For the most part, I see a three types of people.
1) If I don't know, then its no
2) If I don't know, then I don't know
3) If I don't know, then my imagionatio
Re:umm... jesus was jewish (Score:2)
The main difference between a Christian and a Jew is that Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God, and a Jew does not. Jesus proclaimed He was the Son of God, which makes Him a Christian. The word "Christian" itself, means "Christ-like". Who is more like Christ than Christ?
Re:Who gets to define "Christians"? (Score:2)
No, belief in three distinct beings only makes you a non-niceanist. But no reason that isn't "Christian". Its pretty sad all the intrigue that went into the Nicean conference that shaped the Nicean creed that we have today.
Re:Who gets to define "Christians"? (Score:1)
Moo (Score:2)
Note that the very next verse says, "And (He) created G-d
The Commentaries Speak (Score:2)
Albert Barne's Notes on the Bible
Re:The Commentaries Speak (Score:2)
Or, a thought process.
Moreover, this view is irreconcilable with the words "in our image, after our likeness;" since man was created in the image of God alone (Gen_1:27; Gen_5:1), and not in the image of either the angels, or God and the angels.
To be exact, it does not say "in our image, after our likeness;" It says "in our image, like our likeness", although "likeness" means "comparable", and not necces
Godel, Escher, and Bach (Score:1)
I'm a little unsure of your reasoning when you get to Jesus. I can buy the correspondence part, though it seems more coincidental than compelling. Much beyond that, and I see it as over-analytical, perhaps trying to impute more than is really there. I don't oppose the use of reason (far from it), but the whole poin
Re:Godel, Escher, and Bach (Score:2)
You've got me thinking. "Made in God's image" is a specific phrase. As Chacham points out (and I don't do justice to the quote), you can translate it conservatively and interpret it liberally or you can translate it liberally and interpret it conservatively.
But whats interesting to me is that above we have reference to knowledge of good and evil being a godly quality. "Now they are become as one of us" God says in the garden. But like God, as God, and image of God are different things. The writer of Genesi
Re:Godel, Escher, and Bach (Score:2)
As I said, it isn't a perfect
Body, soul, spirit (Score:2)
Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
Is there such a thing as a lumberjack in Antarctica? Well, there are no trees in Antarctica. A person cannot cut down trees, so there can be no lumberjack.
Can you love if there is no one else to love? Love requires an object -- a receiver.
Fact 1: God is everl
Re:Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
It does. It does not say that He is love, and it does mention many other attributes of G-d.
The word echad in the Sh'ma (Deuteronomy 6:4) refers to one that consists of multiple parts.
"echad" means one. One from multiple parts is a related word "eechood".
Also, the steps for love are
1) A sees B and likes B.
2) A does for B.
3) A loves B.
Love comes after giving. Before that
Re:Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
"God is love" does not mean that God is love and nothing but love. As you know, the Bible assigns many attributes to Him.
1) A sees B and likes B.
2) A does for B.
3) A loves B.
The point is only that love does require both A and B. Without B, A cannot love.
Thus, I don't understand how a god could be love before the existence of that which is to be loved.
That was exactly my overall point. And yet, God's attrib
Re:Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
2) A does for B.
3) A loves B.
The point is only that love does require both A and B. Without B, A cannot love.
My point is, that without A or B, one doesn't want to love.
That was exactly my overall point. And yet, God's attributes cannot change. Before Elohim (plural -- see K & D Commentary at bottom of my other post)
That word for G-d actually means strength, from the word "Eyl". That word would mean "one with many strengths".
Usage of the word echad can have at least conno
Re:Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
Or many with a strength, like a council that everyone contributes to a certain purpose and capacity, or in this case beings unified under a particular charechtaristic of power.
"and ye shall be as gods"...Gen 3:5
"Then his master shall bring him unto the judges"...Ex 21:6 (cf; 22:8,9)
"For thou hast made him a little ower than the angels"... Ps 8:5
We've gone over this before, and I've been suspi
Re:Another case for the Tri-Unity: Love (Score:2)
True. Point taken. I shall have to be more careful.
However, in my defence, i will say that in this context it can only have one meaning. Since G-d has many strengths, to say that it refers to G-d, forces it to mean "one with many strengths", since it cannot mean "many with many strengths".