Trinity- True or False (page 6)

DannyHaszard

Trinity Quandary & Quantum Theory Danny Haszard's essay (cause it bugs the hell outta me)

Trinity Quandary & Quantum Theory Our Broadband 'Trinity' Universe Is Heaven Broadband or Dial up? 'She Blinded me with science' I luved that 80s tune. We don't know Heaven-Jesus could be God because he is omnipresent? ... Go ahead and attack my credentials, I don't have any to lose. I am a disabled carpenter with a (JW minimal) education, and I think I will take this quantum leap... The Deity of Christ, created being Son of God, or God himself or both? outside of himself in the 17th chapter of John. Impossible for Theologians to reconcile? What if the issue is really one of physics and the holy grail pursuit of the Unification equation, the grand unified theory of physics? The Grand unification of (BIG) astrophysics and (small) particle physics. Could quantum mechanics solve the can't be in two places at the same time quandary? Going beyond the things that are written? That's what Einstein did with 300 year old Newtonian physics. Isaac Newton predicted gravity perfectly, but he couldn't explain HOW gravity did it. It seemed at the time that 'something' like an invisible arm just reached out and grabbed the earth and held it in orbit around the sun. Einstein elaborated the how, that this something was a dent made in the fabric of time and space a fourth dimension to complement the existing three of Newton. The Earth and other celestial bodies rolled along in this dent and went their merry way

There's more that we don't know about the Universe then we can comprehend. Things like how 60% of the matter in the universe is called dark matter because no one knows what it is. Putting the square peg in the round hole, quantum mechanic stuff. We know that forces in the gigantic scale of astrophysics, things like a gravity intense star or theoretical black hole cannot fit in the same model for particle physics in the domain of the smallest subatomic particle .

That's Danny Haszard the carpenter's K.I.S.S quickie explanation for the grand unified theory {g.u.t}. If you want to Google the PhD version don't get lost.

Yet, both models MUST fit together because the universe just hums along fine. So, the pursuit of the Unified theory the grand equation of everything, if ever achieved will make creation fit into one neat model. Some of these models allow for multiple dimensions beyond the four that we can perceive. Where is the Heavenly realm? When the prophet Daniel prayed the Angel appeared immediately, from where? Did the Angel commute from a distant celestial body faster the 'finite' speed of light, or did he step out from another realm or dimension? Back to the Trinity debate and the impossibility of the Son of God also being God, or of existing in more than one plane or dimension of time and space. We don't know Heaven! The trinity dogma has ancient pagan elements, but don't forget the demons are out to twist, taint and deceive every Christian concept that they can. In the devils confabulation with Eve in the garden of Eden he spoke 54 words only 5 were lies, "you positively will not die". The Bible say's Christ has a second coming, but we know he did not come 'invisibly' in 1914 like the Watchtower claims. Satan could have done his twisted spin on the Deity of Jesus Christ also. ------------------ Oh, can't have a science thread without a mention of UFOs and space aliens. Science fiction flicks have us conditioned to ETs who are more advanced than us by a couple of hundred years or so. Think about this....What if they were advanced, not by a few centuries but by a million years? Well, if Heaven exist their 'civilization' would be BILLIONS of years more advanced, and superhuman to begin with. They could have a multi-dimensional database, and could have unlimited (omnipotent) abilities. Raising the dead would be a walk in the park for them. The only database that we have on them is 2,000 years old delivered to a simple pastoral people. The Bible wasn't written for the Harvard alumni. Hey, just my thoughts and this ain't no science paper, but how about some peer review anyhow? The Watchtower's 'theorist' don't allow for peer review of their 'quantum quackery' and that's what makes us apostates so noble.

Hellrider

He he, I have done that long ago! Well, I did it again, I typed in "biblical manuscripts", "greek manuscripts", and "biblical greek manuscripts". I found lots of websites with photocopies of original manuscripts (scrolls), both hebrew manuscripts from the OT and greek manuscripts NT. But these websites contain NO information of what we are discussing. However, I found a website with the original manuscript used in most Bible translation, the Nestle-Aaland text. This is the original manuscript used in Bible translation, and can be found here, photocopies and all:

ftp://ftp.funet.fi/pub/doc/bible/texts/greek/ubs.tar.gz

and:

http://www.znet.com/~broman/editions.html

type in "Nestle-Aland 26th/27th edition", look thru the photocopies, and tell me where I can find the name of God!! the websites didn`t work right now, but I have been to one of them before, so they should work) Anyway, I have to say, just telling me to "go search on the internet" is really a cop-out, and damn annoying, I must say! You, as a representative of your religion, is the one making the claim that the NTs original manuscripts contained Gods name from the OT, only that the name was removed. So please, prove it, don`t tell me to search on the internet, the internet is huuuge, I`m on it all the time, if you make the above stated claim, please prove it! At least give me a damn link! Or explain to me how the WTbts came to this conclusion! I was young when I left, but they sure never explained me why they believed this!

defd

I thought you were trying to have a decent conversation with me. You are slowly turning it into something I would rather stay out of. ( due to the vulgarity)

Leolaia

Not to be a stickler, but the Nestle-Aland is a critical text, not a manuscript. It is a reconstructed text of the best readings from available manuscripts and while it represents an effort to come as close as possible to the archetype underlying the existing textual families, it does not claim to be the archetype itself -- or even the text of the autographs. Each manuscript discovery has the potential of improving the critical text, and thus the Nestle-Aland has gone through successive editions.

It is needless to say that no manuscript or critical text has YHWH in the NT.

Satanus

Ooooo. Somebody said a bad word, so dfed doesn't have to answer a question. Reminds me of monty python where an employee would put a bucket over his head any time somebody said the word mattress.

He dfed, should we all get into the fishtank and sing a kingdom song? Will you carry on the discussion then?

S

the_classicist

I thought you were trying to have a decent conversation with me. You are slowly turning it into something I would rather stay out of. ( due to the vulgarity)

Cop-out!

Hellrider

I thought you were trying to have a decent conversation with me. You are slowly turning it into something ; I would rather stay out of. ( due to the vulgarity)

No, YOU are the one "turning it into something I would rather stay out of", by insulting me by just telling me to "go search on the internet". What if that was the reply you got, when asking someone a sincere and honest question (like on this board"), and the reply you got was "go search on the internet". For Gods sake, this IS the internet!

You`re still full of shit, DefD. Now, at least go ask you elders why they believe that Gods name was in some original greek NT manuscripts (although no original manuscripts have been found, containing Gods name), only to be later removed. Just provide me with an answer to this question, any answer.

bebu

One concept that has been in the NT that has intrigued me is that of Christ as the heir of all things... and the name (authority) that he has inherited, is demonstrated by his actions, to be superior to the names (authorities) of angels. Most people look at verse 3 below (which is pretty powerful), but what about verses 2 and 4?

Heb 1:2

but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.

It begs the question, what name? I think it is the name at which knees bow, toward God.

I also see a shift here. The OT God is cloud and fire, but Christ is the eternal way of God's interfacing with men. That is, God replaced the Voice and the Cloud and everywhere-in-general-but-nowhere-in-particular God, with a human that we can have access to.

Generally with inheritance, when a father dies, the son takes over. I think, though, that Christ inherits the authority (name) of his Father somewhat like Elizabeth ruled under the name of queen even while her mother lived. Elizabeth inherited that authority (name) of queen.

The way it keeps reading for me, to interact with Christ is considered interfacing with God. Therefore, even worshiping Christ is allowable.

Just 2 cents to add to this pile.

bebu

Cygnus

I see extremely little in Holy Writ that demonstrates how Jesus could be Jehovah. I think C.T. Russell's admonition of Christ's post-resurrection divinity while not attributing his being as HO-ON ("The Being" cf. Ex. 3:14 in LXX) as rather brillliant. It solves the Col 2:9 "problem" and every trinatrian argument against antitrintarianism. That said, however, something JanH said some eight years ago or more has stuck with me: The Trinity dogma essentially acknowledges all the contradictory statements about Christ in the NT and "solves the problem." Ergo, if I were to be a Christian again I would accept the Trinity, primarily based on the evolution of its understanding from Origen to Athanasius.

jgnat

I'll get to it, defd. I'm not off track, just at work.

I still think you are avoiding Little Toe. Besides trinity-no-trinity, there's the whole matter of the divinity of Christ, which I think Little Toe is trying to engage you with. Are you interested or not?

Trinity- True or False

Share this