It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Joecroft
Why exactly is it presumptions, to try to understand it?
And just to reiterate, isn’t that exactly what the Trinitarian Doctrine has already done, by pronouncing itself, as the truth?
And to take it a step further, Yeshua makes a clear distinction, between himself, and God/Father, in the verse below.
In other words, you can’t just base your whole conclusion, on John 1 only!
Originally posted by jhill76
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
It says in the beginning, the Word was with God, but then it says the Word was God. To some this is confusing. How can one be with, but be self?
What is your take on this particular verse?
How can one be with, but be self? [/quot]
Good question.
Originally posted by Joecroft
Why exactly is it presumptions, to try to understand it?
Originally posted by DISREALI
As before, you're misquoting what I said.
I did not say it was presumptuous to try to understand it, did I?
I said it was presumptuous to expect to understand it.
Originally posted by DISREALI
…
I said that "expecting to fully understand" was presumptuous.
Originally posted by DISREALI
I gave the reason the first time I made the point; God is infinite and our minds are finite. We cannot comprehend him fully any more than a gallon of water can be contained within a pint pot. Therefore it is presumptuous to try to limit his nature to what we can fully understand.
Originally posted by DISREALI
I don't think any Trinitarian would claim that the Trinity doctrine amounts to full understanding. It is just the closest approximation that we can manage.
Originally posted by DISREALI
Just to re-iterate, this argument depends on the misquotation "try to understand". Once we get back to what I actually did write, the answer is no, it doesn't. In fact the declaration that God is "incomprehensible" is in itself one of the explicit statements of Trinitarian doctine (see, for example, the Athanasian Creed on the subject).
Originally posted by DISREALI
As I pointed out in a previous post, the fact there there is a distinction, in one sense, between God the Father and God the Son is built into Trinitarian teaching.
Originally posted by DISREALI
For that reason, I remarked, you could quote a milllion verses highlighting the distinction and it would make no difference.
Originally posted by DISREALI
You have forgotten that point, and you are drawing on your list of a million verses
Originally posted by DISREALI
As I said, it makes no difference. We already believe there is a distinction of some sort between Father and Son, so establishing the point doesn't get you anywhere.
Originally posted by jhill76
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning.
It says in the beginning, the Word was with God, but then it says the Word was God. To some this is confusing. How can one be with, but be self?
What is your take on this particular verse?
Originally posted by jhill76
So what do we have:
- It was Father talking to Moses?
- We are strictly going off Moses word and it is subjective at best?