My brief (and polemical) thought about Christianity...

[Christian3]

On a less serious note, I've had the opportunity to sit under the teaching of Dr J I Packer for a week, and when he would talk about the Trinity, he would refer to "God in three PAIRsons*". I don't know why, but I always got a kick out of that.


*British accent, and all

Funny. I have J.I. Packer's book, "Knowing God" and it is excellent.

[Cow Poke]

On a less serious note, I've had the opportunity to sit under the teaching of Dr J I Packer for a week, and when he would talk about the Trinity, he would refer to "God in three PAIRsons*". I don't know why, but I always got a kick out of that.


*British accent, and all

[Christian3]

No it wouldn't, because three people is not equal to three beings.

[Seeker]

So bitter.

More likely, he knows very well who he is talking to. And he knows it is not worth it.

And you call yourself a Christian?

[JonathanL]

It is not accurate to say three people in one being because that would mean there are three beings in one being and God is only one Being.

No it wouldn't, because three people is not equal to three beings.

[Christian3]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. Saying "3 people in one being" wouldn't really be the conventional way to phrase it, but I fail to see how it differs semantically from "3 persons in one being" even a little bit.

It is not accurate to say three people in one being because that would mean there are three beings in one being and God is only one Being.

[demi-conservative]

You think my post is somehow representative of New Atheism ideas? How did you come to that conclusion?

So amateurish, at level of 'not worthy of rebut', like others said.

Don't bother taking anything demi-conservative says seriously. He's only here to troll.

So bitter.

[Cow Poke]

Well... At *some* point, you'll need to address what is meant by "Let *US* make..." in Genesis, or "The Word was with God and the Word was God," or "Before Abraham was, I AM," or any number of other passages.

No passage uses the word, "Trinity," and not all of those passages I cited may be relevant, but there are plenty of passages that do suggest multiple distinct persons all referred to as "I AM" or "God" or "Lord." You can't preach on them without saying *something* about what they mean.

Yes, but if you're just doing expository preaching - exegesis - there is no place really that presents "the doctrine of the Trinity".... even without demanding the name Trinity, which is obviously not there. The closest I can come with all three persons of the Trinity is the Baptism of Jesus.

[NorrinRadd]

Just an aside, I was talking with some pastor friends about expository preaching, and one of them mentioned the notion that, if you only preach expository sermons - going through the Bible book by book, verse by verse -- you will never preach on the Trinity.

Well... At *some* point, you'll need to address what is meant by "Let *US* make..." in Genesis, or "The Word was with God and the Word was God," or "Before Abraham was, I AM," or any number of other passages.

No passage uses the word, "Trinity," and not all of those passages I cited may be relevant, but there are plenty of passages that do suggest multiple distinct persons all referred to as "I AM" or "God" or "Lord." You can't preach on them without saying *something* about what they mean.

[rogue06]

Rats.... you saw that, did ya?

I had my glasses on.

[Cow Poke]

So LJ is hacking the prodder of bovines' account?

Rats.... you saw that, did ya?

[rogue06]

That would be ME!

So LJ is hacking the prodder of bovines' account?

[Cow Poke]

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. Saying "3 people in one being" wouldn't really be the conventional way to phrase it, but I fail to see how it differs semantically from "3 persons in one being" even a little bit.

But that HAS to be right, cause that's how it is in the hymn, "Holy Holy Holy".... God in three persons, blessed Trinity!

[JonathanL]

Some think "three persons" means three people; it doesn't.

I'm pretty sure that's exactly what it means. Saying "3 people in one being" wouldn't really be the conventional way to phrase it, but I fail to see how it differs semantically from "3 persons in one being" even a little bit.

[Cow Poke]

Who was it that had that "treaty" analogy for the trinity? I thought that was a very good one.

That would be ME!

Let's suppose that there is a treaty drawn up between the US and Germany. How many treaties are executed? The answer is three: A treaty executed in English, a treaty executed in German, and a treaty executed in French (which of course is the language of the UN). Every one of the these three treaties is fully the treaty, they are not just copies of the treaty. The English Treaty is fully and actually the treaty apart from and separate from the other two. The French version is fully and actually the treaty...again apart from and separate from the others. At the same time, the German Treaty is also fully and separately the actual treaty. Yet, there is no question that the treaties are different as one is in English, one in French and one in German. So, you have one "Thing", the treaty between the US and Germany can be made up of three "Things" (the English, German and French treaty) where each of them is fully the "Thing" (the treaty) but each of the 3 things are distinct from each other.

There you have it, three things that are one thing.